Swifthack.com: Clearing house for info on the attack on CRU/East Anglia
Fran
against 2004 Democratic Presidential contender, John Kerry by the 2004
Bush campaign known as "Swiftboat". That campaign was ultimately
successful in ensuring a prolonged stay in Iraq and a continuing flow
of public funds to Halliburton and other war profiteers.
It is a matter of no small irony that what the filth merchant
spruikers have dubbed "climategate" itself alludes to dirty dealing by
their side (in this case the aptly named "CREEP" which saw Nixon
defeat the liberal McGovern) after a break-in at the Watergate hotel.
Here one sees how, even as these reckless slanderers in the service of
filth merchant profit project their own ethical standards onto others,
they can find no better term than one relating to their own past
criminal conduct. Swifthack.com is thus an entirely apt (albeit a more
contemporary) name for a portal covering these events.
SWIFTHACK
Video: Smacking the Hack Attack
EPA Chief: Hacked Emails Change Nothing
Time Magazine: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?
Head of U.N. Panel Blasts 'ClimateGate' Affair
NYT: Hacked Emails 'Do Not Change the Underlying Scientific Facts'
James Hoggan: Mainstream Media Misdirected in Stolen Email Story?
What Happened to the Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming?
Ex-KGB Officers May Be the Hackers Behind 'ClimateGate' Distorting
David From Weighs in on ClimateGATE/Swifthack
Watergate Redux: Break-ins Reported At Another Top Climate Research
Center Hackers Attempt to Access Canadian Government Centre for
Climate Modeling and Analysis
Obama Envoy: Hacked Emails will have 'Virtually no Effect at all'
What Those Hacked Climate Emails Really Mean
Amory Lovins: What I get from the Stolen-Emails Controversy Saudi
Arabia calls for 'ClimateGate' Investigation
Several U.K. Scientists Weigh in on SwiftHack Scandal The Times Joins
the Truthiness Choir when it comes to ClimateGATE
‘Climategate’ Hasn't Swayed Swing Votes on Climate Change Legislation
Marc Morano Embarrasses Himself on BBC
Email Scandal may be Turning Against Climate Change Deniers Fox News'
Chris Wallace calls Climate Scientists "Fudgers" who "Tried to
Suppress Opposition"
Met Office: Release of Global-Average Temperature Data Fox News
Repeatedly Claims Apparently Stolen CRU Emails were "Leaked,"
"Revealed," "Uncovered"
GOP Rep. Defending Climate Science From Exxon-Mobil is 'Fascism'
Group Promoting Climate Skepticism has Extensive Ties to Exxon-Mobil
Statements from Scientists Other Statements of Interest
American Meteorological Society Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA)
Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University
of East Anglia Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)
Michael Mann, Lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report
Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and
Climate Change Policy
James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies White
House Science Advisor John Holdren
Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Bret Cahill
AGW conspiracy theorists don't need no stinking commie scientists or
marxist papers like the _NY Times_ to tell them what's going on!
They have hacked emails interpreted by scholarly types like Beck &
Limbaugh.
Bret Cahill
Catoni
Looking more like a leak from the inside, rather then an attack from
the outside.
Reminds me of Daniel Ellsberg, who changed and became a lefty... and
leaked the Pentagon Papers, which were highly classified.... Top
Secret....to the New York Times ..and some other papers.
It's perfectly okay for the left to do these sort of things...
Fran.... both sides have been known to leak or steal info, it's
all part of getting intelligence from the other side...... that sort
of thing isn't confined to the right.
Spies.... espionage.... it's been going on at least since some
Greek city-states sent agents to get intelligence on the Persians...
and vice versa...
Even earlier.... I bet Menelaus and Agamemnon sent agents to
check out King Priam's forces and readiness, and vice versa.
It's all part of the game.... get used to it. the old KGB, GRU,
the new Russian SVR, American CIA and NSA, British MI5, MI6, Israeli
Mossad, the Chinese MSS...... everyone does it. Even your good ol'
Australia is in on the game to some extent...don't forget ECHELON.....
(AUSCANZUKUS), of which your country is a member
Shrikeback
> AGW conspiracy theorists
are those who think this was a hack. If you have
such an easy time believing 9-11 was an inside job,
why is it so hard to think this one was?
Bret Cahill
don't need no stinking commie scientists or
marxist papers like the _NY Times_ to tell them what's going on!
They have hacked emails interpreted by scholarly types like Beck &
Limbaugh.
> are those who think this was a hack.
Try not to spree but if your trailer needs to be shot up, feel free to
go winger dinger.
Eunometic
SNIP incoherent waffle
>
> AGW conspiracy theorists don't need no stinking commie scientists or
> marxist papers like the _NY Times_ to tell them what's going on!
>
> They have hacked emails interpreted by scholarly types like Beck &
> Limbaugh.
We have hacked e-mails showing collusion by the most seniour
scientists to manipulate the science around AGW, those who determin
what reports go into the IPCC report. These are the guys that are
responsible for managing the global temperature record.
They're real.
The e-mails show them manipulate the peer review process to favour the
AGW thesis while excluding sceptical papers.
It clearly shows them inviting in like minded AGW alarmists while
excluding the sceptics.
No suprise as to what the result is going to be is there?
Then we have then utter rubbish about 2500 "peer reviewed papers".
Basically the peer reviewers are correcting minor editorial mistakes
while the sceptics asking the hard questions get short shrift.
In science, as in most disciplines, the process is as important as the
product. The recent email/data release (aka Climategate) has exposed
the process of scientific peer-review as failing. If the process is
failing, it is reasonable to wonder what this implies about the
product. Briefly, the peer-review process is this; before results are
published in the scientific literature and documented for posterity,
they are reviewed by one or more scientists who have some working
knowledge of the topic but who are not directly associated with the
work under consideration. The reviewers are typically anonymous and
basically read the paper to determine if it generally seems like a
reasonable addition to the scientific knowledge base, and that the
results seem reproducible given the described data and methodology.
Generally, reviewers do not “audit” the results—that is, spend a lot
of effort untangling the details of the data and or methodologies to
see if they are appropriate, or to try to reproduce the results for
themselves.
The sceptics have been doing the auditing!
The AGW alarmists have been reviewing each others papers!
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman
produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve
McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in
which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen
to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's
papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on
which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In
light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that
these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at
the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one
respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr
Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the
IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has
been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing
for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
Now we have the hacked e-mails.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is
general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 0.6
degrees C since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the
data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to
nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of
the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
(CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this
so as to maximize apparent changes.
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two
key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its
link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects
most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature
record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on
which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions
that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of
dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and
British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world
temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10
years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after
1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to
their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to
eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures
were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the
entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the
"hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert
Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle
has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the
Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more
devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on
which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast
list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey
Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith
Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial
rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth,
who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over
hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's
ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature
data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
Shrikeback
>
> Try not to spree but if your trailer needs to be shot up, feel free to
> go winger dinger.
Try not to firebomb, but if you must firebomb after
November 2010, please do drop acid while you're
mixing up the explosives.
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0d47a425-dc5d-4321...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 11:49 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reminds me of Daniel Ellsberg, who changed and became a lefty... and
>leaked the Pentagon Papers, which were highly classified.... Top
>Secret....to the New York Times ..and some other papers.
> It's perfectly okay for the left to do these sort of things...
And of course the right has never ever done anything of the sort.
*snicker*
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
Just wondering why you felt it okay to lift large chunks of an article from
the UK along with other cobbled together bit and post it was you own "work"?
Care to comment?
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:b2f41a6f-331e-4e9a...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Eunometic
BeAn!! .! !!! .> wrote:
> Hery Eunometic, Great diatribe..;p)
Actually it was argued point for point. Frans' article was the
conspiracy theory diatrabe.
She was trying to link the hacker to so called other smear campaigs.
I on the other hand argued the case rather than try and link
conspiracy theories.
The hacked e-mail confirm what we've seen for a long time already.
Peer review as misused by the IPCC is a fraudulent manipulation.
Climategate e-mails merely adds extra proof to what was already
evident.
>
> Just wondering why you felt it okay to lift large chunks of an article from
> the UK along with other cobbled together bit and post it was you own "work"?
>
No problems at all, I'm not getting graded in a course or earning
money and the material is non copyright and it reflects my point of
view.
I quickly put together a readable response to Frans large 'smear
conspiracy theory'
The klimate kooks just can't accept that the sceptics are scientists
or scientifically literate or just logical people and their blogs are
effective a present counter arguments to IPCC AGW excesses and their
ugly behaviour of some AGW proponents. Even the main stream media
degenerated into a left wing cheer squad rather than investigative and
exposive has to take notice.
Did you know that the supposedly neutral "realclimate.org" blog was co-
opperating with Mann and the Hadely/CRU cabal by allowing them to
'vet' sceptical posts?
Bawana
> against 2004 Democratic Presidential contender, John Kerry by the 2004
Swiftboating = telling the truth.
Why are you lib-turd-retards attracted to frauds like Kerry?
Bawana
BeAn!! .! !!! .> wrote:
Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
scampering hither and thither in the face of
predatory evidence that they and their pet
theories may be doomed, I’m put in mind
of the behavior of hamsters who suddenly
find themselves trapped in a cage with a
hungry snake. The ensuing drama is instructive.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-hamster-effect/