Re: Recent Letter Reveal Issac Newtons BIG GRAVITY CONSPIRACY And Prove That The Big Lefty Science Fraud Dates Back Hundreds Of Years!!
Claudius Denk
<leftistconspir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Climategate in Perspective, Featuring Isaac Newton
>
> Climate conspriricists pounced at the opportunity yesterday to draw grandiose
> conclusions
Grandiose conclusions?
> from the illegal hacking of private emails from the University of
> East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
>
> They wasted no time declaring global warming a vast science-wing conspiracy,
> orchestrated by a powerful handful of white-coats
We've been saying this for years.
> who, when not publishing in
> reputable peer-reviewed science journals, were (gasp) emailing each other to
> talk shop and vent about climate skeptic “idiots” (how un-PC).
Their emails revealed that these "reputable peer-reviewed science
journals" were not reputable. There were little more than a
propaganda tool.
> The scandalistas say little about the fact that this breach of security and
> publishing of private communications is a crime,
It's also a crime to defraud the american tax payer.
> content to enjoy the
> opportunity to cherry-pick a few lines from these internal emails to push the
> skeptic theory of a sinister master plan by mainstream scientists to warn
> humanity that man has altered the climate in dangerous ways.
>
> The Telegraph’s resident skeptic blogger, James Dellingpole, immediately
> labeled this episode “Climategate,” pondering whether this is “the final nail
> in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming.’”
>
> If James Dellingpole lived in Newton’s day, his blog (er, scroll) might have
> read something like this.
>
> And here are some of the “tasters” Sir Dellingpole might have pulled from Isaac
> Newton’s personal communications [H/T CarbonFixated]:
>
> Conspiring to avoid public scrutiny:
>
> There is nothing which I desire to avoid in matters of philosophy more then
> contentions, nor any kind of contention more then one in print: & therefore I
> gladly embrace your proposal of a private correspondence. What’s done before
> many witnesses is seldom without some further concern then that for truth: but
> what passes between friends in private usually deserve ye name of consultation
> rather then contest, & so I hope it will prove between you & me.
>
> Newton to Hooke, 5 February 1676
>
> Insulting dissenting scientists and equating them with holocaust deniers:
>
> [Hooks Considerations] consist in ascribing an hypothesis to me which is
> not mine; in asserting an hypothesis which as to ye principal parts of it is
> not against me; in granting the greatest part of my discourse if explicated by
> that hypothesis; & in denying some things the truth of which would have
> appeared by an experimental examination.
>
> Newton to Oldenburg, 11 June 1672
>
> Manipulation of evidence:
>
> I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me
> should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not
> yet upon record.
>
> Newton to Keill, May 15 1674
>
> Knowingly publishing scientific fraud:
>
> You need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of
> the Scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no
> great consequence & may be corrected by the reader.
>
> Newton to Cotes June 15 1710
>
> Suppression of evidence:
>
> Mr. Raphson has printed off four or five sheets of his History of Fluxions,
> but being shew’d Sr. Is. Newton (who, it seems, would rather have them write
> against him, than have a piece done in that manner in his favour), he got a
> Stop put to it, for some time at least.
>
> Jones to Cotes, 17 September 1711
>
> Abusing the peer review system:
>
> …only the Germans and French have in a violent manner attack’d the
> Philosophy of Sr. Is. Newton, and seem resolved to stand by Cartes; Mr. Keil,
> as a person concerned, has undertaken to answer and defend some things, as Dr.
> Friend, and Dr. Mead, does (in their way) the rest: I would have sent you ye
> whole controversy, was not I sure that you know, those only are most capable of
> objecting against his writings, that least understand them; however, in a
> little time, you’ll see some of these in ye Philos. Transact.
>
> Jones to Cotes, October 25 1711
>
> Insulting their critics:
>
> The controversy concerning Sr. Isaac’s Philosophy is a piece of news that I
> had not heard of unless Muys’s late book be meant. I think that Philosophy
> needs no defence, especially when tis attack’t by Cartesians. One Mr Green a
> Fellow of Clare Hall in our University seems to have nearly the same design
> with those German & French objectors whom you mention. His book is now in our
> press & is almost finished. I am told he will add an appendix in which he
> undertakes also to square the circle. I need not recommend his performance any
> further to you.
>
> Cotes to Jones, November 11 1711
bo^n-o
November 25 2009
QUOTE: there was now a "clique" of 43 climate scientists stifling true
debate, with Mann, Jones and Briffa all named.
QUOTE: that clique morphed into a conspiracy that has helped to panic the
world - including KRudd - into spending billions on a scare that may not in
fact exist.
QUOTE: "peer review" is too often "mates' review".
QUOTE: It means the "consensus" of scientists we hear of may not actually
exist and the IPCC reports cannot be trusted to be balanced.
THREE weeks ago Prime Minister KRudd named me as part of an international
conspiracy to spread lies about global warming.
How I laughed.
But I'm not laughing now.
Emails leaked at the weekend show there is indeed a conspiracy to deceive
the world - and KRudd has fallen for it.
This conspiracy comprises a group of warming scientists who have been
central in spreading the false claim that the world has never been hotter
and man's gases are to blame.
It's come to light after nearly 4000 emails and documents were stolen from
the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and dumped on
the internet by what is almost certainly a whistleblower.
What they reveal is perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time - a
conspiracy by warmist scientists to fudge statistics, sack sceptical
scientists, block the release of data to prevent checking, illegally destroy
data, deceive reporters, censor sceptical papers, and hide errors in their
work.
Most extraordinary are the emails in which these scientists admit to each
other what they've never confessed to the world - that the world is not
warming as their theories predicted.
In fact, it's been cooling since 2001.
Cried one, IPCC co-author Kevin Trenberth, in an email to other members of
this conspiracy: "The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming
at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't."
These are not some obscure scientists. Rather, they include co-authors of
the reports of the UN's IPCC - which KRudd cites as his proof that warming
is "happening and it's caused by human activity".
They include Phil Jones, head of the CRU unit from which the emails were
taken - a unit that Britain's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David
King, said "set the agenda for the major research effort" in climate
science.
They include Pennsylvania State University's Michael Mann and CRU deputy
director Keith Briffa, both IPCC co-authors, who also produced the two
studies that most convinced journalists of the false claim that it's now
hotter than the Medi�val Warm Period just 800 years ago.
They also include scientists responsible for the HadCRU data - one of the
four main measurements of the world's temperature today.
All this may sound too James Bond-like to be true.
Yet only three years ago we were warned that many of these same people had
indeed created a network that was distorting science.
In 2006 the US House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee
commissioned eminent statisticians to check Mann's famous "hockey stick" - a
graph used by the IPCC to claim today's temperatures were the highest for
thousands of years.
Their report not only found that Mann's work was too flawed to be relied
upon, just as a retired petroleum engineer, Steve McIntyre, had first said,
but that there was now a "clique" of 43 climate scientists stifling true
debate, with Mann, Jones and Briffa all named.
Few heeded the warning.
And so that clique morphed into a conspiracy that has helped to panic the
world - including KRudd - into spending billions on a scare that may not in
fact exist.
That's the background.
Now here are just some of the emails.
**** FIDDLING DATA: "Hide the decline"
Phil Jones tells Michael Mann and others how he made his data show warming:
***"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) and from 1961 for
Keith's to hide the decline. "
Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change at Jones' university, on hiding
recent cooling:
***"Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before
I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years. "
A CRU programming code for dealing with tree-ring data:
***"Uses corrected MXD but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these
will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures. "
From green entrepreneur Adam Markham to the CRU, ordering better propaganda:
***"WWW Australia are worried that this may present a slightly more
conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In
particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme
events beefed up if possible. "
****FAITH, NOT SCIENCE: "This is all gut feeling"
Phil Jones shows his faith:
I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be
proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it
is being selfish.
Phil Jones to his CRU staff:
***"I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting till about
2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug's
paper that said something like - half the years to 2014 would exceed the
warmest year currently on record, 1998! "
From Phil Jones to Adelaide-born Tom Wigley, now of the US University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research, saying he cannot believe the Medi1�val
Warm Period really was warmer:
***"Bottom line - there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm
globally as the last 20 years ... this is all gut feeling, no science, but
years of experience of dealing with global scales and variability. "
From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, on the death of Australian sceptic John
Daly:
***"In an odd way this is cheering news!"
****COVERING UP: "Destroy the emails"
Phil Jones warns Michael Mann that Steve McIntyre and Prof Ross McKittrick,
two sceptics who first debunked Mann's "hockey stick", are now wanting to
check CRU data:
***"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I
think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone ... We also have a
data protection act, which I will hide behind. "
From Phil Jones to Michael Mann and others:
***"PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act! "
Phil Jones to American climatologist and IPCC lead author Benjamin Santer:
***"I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I
shouldn't be deleting emails - unless this was normal deleting to keep
emails manageable! "
Phil Jones to Michael Mann, just three weeks after an FOI request from
sceptic David Holland:
***"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? "
***"Keith will do likewise ... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the
same? "
****SILENCING SCEPTICS: "Beat the crap out of him"
Ben Santer on a sceptical climatologist :
***"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to
beat the crap out of him. "
Phil Jones on cheating on deadlines to sneak warmist material into the IPCC:
***"Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those sceptic
something to amuse themselves with. "
Tom Wigley on ousting the editor of Geophysical Research Letters (achieved):
***"If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we
can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU
channels to get him ousted. "
Phil Jones to Michael Mann on keeping two sceptics' papers from the IPCC:
***"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and
I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is! "
Michael Mann on removing the editor of Climate Science (achieved):
***"How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an
unscrupulous editor to ensure that anti-greenhouse science can get through
the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so
on). "
Michael Mann to the CRU's Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa, on blocking sceptics'
comments on his RealClimate website:
***"We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or
not you think they should be screened through or not ... "
****OUR THEORY ISN'T WORKING! "Where the heck is global warming?"
IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth privately tells Mann, Santer, Wigley, Jones
and leading alarmists such as Stephen H. Schneider and James Hansen that the
data doesn't show what their climate models predicted:
***". 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. ... 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. "
****WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?
It doesn't mean all global warming science is bogus. But it does mean the
process used to produce it is corrupted.
It means "peer review" is too often "mates' review". It means sceptical
scientists have not had the hearing they deserve, and leading warmist
scientists have not been honest or frank.
It means the "consensus" of scientists we hear of may not actually exist and
the IPCC reports cannot be trusted to be balanced.
It means that claims we've never been hotter are false or unproven, and much
research now needs to be rechecked.
And at heart it means global warming theory is too weak to accept, being
contradicted by a decade of climate.
Even Flannery, the alarmist who claimed global warming could cause Sydney,
Brisbane and Adelaide to run out of water by last summer, now admits - after
reading some of these emails - that "the computer modelling and the real
world data disagree", since "for the last 10 years we've gone through a
slight cooling trend".
He confessed at last: " We don't understand all of the factors that create
earth's climate."
When even Flannery says that, tell me why KRudd says the science is still
good enough to hit us with a colossal tax on gases to "stop" a warming that's
actually stopped already?
Heed this fraud.
End this farce.
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville