Hackers Expose Global Warming Fraud

UNTflyer · November 24, 2009

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.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

KRAM1 · November 24, 2009

And, isn't it interesting how this goes...let's just mke sure folks with different views on the global warming issue are cut off and out from all consideration. Yep, that's the professional thing to do, right? It seems to me that the libs are all just fine as long as you agree with them, but let there be a bit of honest difference and debat on an issue near and dear to their hearts and the name calling stats along with concerted efforts to stop the dissent from even getting a hearing...nice...real nice...

hickoryhouse · November 24, 2009

What I don't understand is, unless these scientists are on the take from somewhere, why the hell would they create a conspiracy or a coverup? Why would they lie about all of this when they don't have anything to gain? These guys are not politicians.

UNTflyer · November 24, 2009

What I don't understand is, unless these scientists are on the take from somewhere, why the hell would they create a conspiracy or a coverup? Why would they lie about all of this when they don't have anything to gain? These guys are not politicians.

They are researching global warming. If there is no global warming, the donations and grants to their departments dry up.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/n...global-cooling/

UNTnewbie · November 24, 2009

They are researching global warming. If there is no global warming, the donations and grants to their departments dry up.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/n...global-cooling/

Researchers are worse than politicians and overall a very strange group. Every researcher has a job because of grant monies and many of the grants are in some form or fashion related to a government entity or an entitiy that is government supported.

UNT90 · November 25, 2009

What I don't understand is, unless these scientists are on the take from somewhere, why the hell would they create a conspiracy or a coverup? Why would they lie about all of this when they don't have anything to gain? These guys are not politicians.

Yep. No Gobal warming = no research funding = University has to pay for research into a problem that doesn't exit = These "scientist" have no job. Always follow the money.

No mind, though. The press will continue to push global warming and people will continue to buy it. Why? Every person, and people as a society, like to think that they have a lasting influence on something, anything, that makes their existence significant. Therefore, if they can believe in global warming, and, even better, believe that they have a hand in solving "the problem" of global warming, then they feel that they have "made a difference". Human nature.

Hell, everyone wants to think they are more important than they really are in the grand scheme of things. Just look at some of the posts on this board.

Or this post.

Edited November 25, 2009 by UNT90

KingDL1 · November 25, 2009

I saw Michael Crichton talk on the subject one time it was a great eye opener, I really believe he had at the time no political allegiance just overwhelmed by the flaws in the system that perpetuate the myth. That will cost us all dearly.

Michael Crichton

FirefightnRick · November 26, 2009

Hot Air's report on it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-h...-warming-fraud/

Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt’s Up With That):

.

.Candadien Free Press: Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.
Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

Rick

Edited November 26, 2009 by FirefightnRick

UNTflyer · November 29, 2009

Now the scientists admit to destroying data.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

eulesseagle · November 29, 2009

Let's not forget about the twenty five gallons of water discovered on the moon when NASA bombed the moon. I am waiting for NASA to say that the rover on Mars has discovered gold.

you are correct......scientists must legitimize (B.S.) their research for their existance. gotta eat.

EagleGreen · November 30, 2009

Although I'm sure the facts on this link will confuse some of you, and the number of pages (without pictures) may cause you strife, you can answer some of your pressing questions about climate change. Enjoy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....rarian-nonsense

FirefightnRick · December 1, 2009

Although I'm sure the facts on this link will confuse some of you, and the number of pages (without pictures) may cause you strife, you can answer some of your pressing questions about climate change. Enjoy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....rarian-nonsense

Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus.

Oh, I see. So mother nature can seperate the good gas from the bad gas? She's so smart. :rolleyes:

Rick

UNT90 · December 1, 2009

Although I'm sure the facts on this link will confuse some of you, and the number of pages (without pictures) may cause you strife, you can answer some of your pressing questions about climate change. Enjoy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....rarian-nonsense

I can write an article that says exactly the opposite. The devil is in the details, of which none are provided.

But, just look at the way they label anyone who doesn't agree with them in this article. You can almost read the hatred between the lines for anyone who disagrees with them. That is not science.

EagleGreen · December 1, 2009

I can write an article that says exactly the opposite. The devil is in the details, of which none are provided.
But, just look at the way they label anyone who doesn't agree with them in this article. You can almost read the hatred between the lines for anyone who disagrees with them. That is not science.

Ok, challenge accepted. Write a similar length article with just as many citations that [states] exactly the opposite. I'm not sure why you missed the details, but the tone you mention (e.g., negative, hatred) seems alot like the beginning of this thread. Do you read hatred with all that disagree with you?

football fan · December 1, 2009

And, isn't it interesting how this goes...let's just mke sure folks with different views on the global warming issue are cut off and out from all consideration. Yep, that's the professional thing to do, right? It seems to me that the libs are all just fine as long as you agree with them, but let there be a bit of honest difference and debat on an issue near and dear to their hearts and the name calling stats along with concerted efforts to stop the dissent from even getting a hearing...nice...real nice...

KRAM1 I totally disagree with your blind love of TD. But on the above, we are in TOTAL step. Anyone notice how this whole issue was pushed, sold and now exploited by Al Gore? He is now profiting hugely by his own media campaign. I guess we should all follow this guy since he also invented the world wide web. NOT!!! Gore is another in a long line of politicians in his party that pander to the disadvantaged to gain votes/power and fill their pockets with my hard earned money. Why do so few see through these "snake oil salesman"?

Edited December 1, 2009 by football fan

EagleGreen · December 1, 2009

Oh, I see. So mother nature can seperate the good gas from the bad gas? She's so smart.
Rick

LOL. Yep, by "design" mother nature doesn't dish out more than "she" can handle. Pretty cool huh? Of course, with the growing population and anthropogenic contributions to increased carbon dioxide levels (e.g., pollution and loss of carbon sequestering plants), mother nature is not able to keep up.

KingDL1 · December 1, 2009

LOL. Yep, by "design" mother nature doesn't dish out more than "she" can handle. Pretty cool huh? Of course, with the growing population and anthropogenic contributions to increased carbon dioxide levels (e.g., pollution and loss of carbon sequestering plants), mother nature is not able to keep up.

That really is not true, but hey, I believe I have an evil monkey in my closet.

You may want to research that whole balanced CO2 thing, it simply is not true how it is posed.

UNTflyer · December 1, 2009

They discarded the scientific method, manipulated statistical data, threw out measurements that contradicted the conclusion they wanted to reach, and intentionally took efforts to destroy this data.

Yet, the Solar Cycle Deniers continue to criticize the skeptics and cling by their fingernails to conclusions that were obviously fabricated for one purpose - MONEY. These greedy "scientists" are taking the world for a ride.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · December 1, 2009

Yet, the Solar Cycle Deniers continue to criticize the skeptics and cling by their fingernails to conclusions that were obviously fabricated for one purpose - MONEY. These greedy "scientists" are taking the world for a ride.

Its fine that you want to believe that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist based on your research, beliefs, or whatever else. However, this argument against the greenhouse effect is very ineffective in arguing your beliefs (in MY opinion). Aren't solar cycle proponents in the same (if not bigger) boat because industry stands to lose (loose?) alot more money if the greenhouse effect is eventually proven true?

I'm not saying that shady things haven't happened in the greenhouse proponent camp. With such a large supporting scientific population, I wouldn't be surprised there are some bad apples. Just keep in mind that there is plenty of opportunity and motive for it to happen (if its not already happened) in the other camps.

UNT90 · December 2, 2009

This is the same scientific community that told us in the late 70s that the next ice age would be happening about... now.

Uh, they were wrong.

When they can accurately predict on Monday that it will rain on Friday, then I will trust them a little more.

FirefightnRick · December 2, 2009

This is the same scientific community that told us in the late 70s that the next ice age would be happening about... now.
Uh, they were wrong.
When they can accurately predict on Monday that it will rain on Friday, then I will trust them a little more.

See, I remember this, very clearly. I remember in the 5th grade I believe it was, which for me would have been 1977?, and watching some science related movie and going over science readers(a magezine I think they were) at school in which we all came away thinking we were all going to freeze to death very soon. Don't know why, but I remember being scared shitless over this and telling my parents all about it. What a bunch of freakin' bozos. And Obama's Science Czar was right in there among the group that whole time about it then, and he's related to this mess now.

If they want to discuss it, go over it, study it and argue their merits about it that's fine. But when the Marxists' in this country want to use it to horsecollar the rest of us into even more debt over it, that's when it's gone too far, and that's exactly what has happened. What's worse is that the mainstream media are trying to ignore this email debacle even happened.

Rick

Edited December 2, 2009 by FirefightnRick

UNT90 · December 2, 2009

See, I remember this, very clearly. I remember in the 5th grade I believe it was, which for me would have been 1977?, and watching some science related movie and going over science readers(a magezine I think they were) at school in which we all came away thinking we were all going to freeze to death very soon. Don't know why, but I remember being scared shitless over this and telling my parents all about it. What a bunch of freakin' bozos. And Obama's Science Czar was right in there among the group that whole time about it then, and he's related to this mess now.
If they want to discuss it, go over it, study it and argue their merits about it that's fine. But when the Marxists' in this country want to use it to horsecollar the rest of us into even more debt over it, that's when it's gone too far, and that's exactly what has happened. What's worse is that the mainstream media are trying to ignore this email debacle even happened.
Rick

Yep, was standard teaching in middle school science class. 77 would be about right. The next ice age was on the way. Even preached about global cooling. But back then, our teacher made sure to point out that these projections were based on thin science, so I wasn't that worried about it. Too bad that the current global warming THEORY isn't presented with the same unbiased approach that my teacher used. I was also smart enough then to realize that the weatherman couldn't predict what would happen next week, so predictions 30 years out seemed worthless. I guess since there is no ice age, that particular prediction was absolutely worthless.

I guess we should thank God for all the greenhouse gases that saved us from this horrible horrible end.

UNT90 · December 3, 2009

This scandal has been in the public domain for 2 weeks, yet not one report on any of the big 3's morning or evening news programs about these emails. Not Even when Pres. Obama went to the Environmental summit in Copenhagen last week. And they wonder why people watch them less and less.

Yep. No politics involved in this charade at all.

untbowler · December 3, 2009

This scandal has been in the public domain for 2 weeks, yet not one report on any of the big 3's morning or evening news programs about these emails. Not Even when Pres. Obama went to the Environmental summit in Copenhagen last week. And they wonder why people watch them less and less.
Yep. No politics involved in this charade at all.

You will be happy to know that Liberal Barbara Boxer wantss the hackers thrown in jail for exposing the e-mails. I guess the lies and fabrications are just par for the course so why worry about , arrest the whistleblowers.

EagleGreen · December 4, 2009

This scandal has been in the public domain for 2 weeks, yet not one report on any of the big 3's morning or evening news programs about these emails. Not Even when Pres. Obama went to the Environmental summit in Copenhagen last week. And they wonder why people watch them less and less.
Yep. No politics involved in this charade at all.

It's not that big of a deal is why it's not reported. A few scientists, a bunch of e-mails, exposed by criminals (hackers). Hacking occurs all the time (no news). People write e-mails all the time (no news). A few scientists may be corrupted; we'll find out after the investigation is over (Decent news, but not worth talking about after the initial report). These dudes investigated global warming, 3 people among hundreds (if not thousands) of people investigating global warming. Whatever the findings of the investigation, it will have no major impact on what we know about global warming. The results will just tell us wether or not the scientists are corrupted or not. It doesn't matter, in the grand picture, whether or not these guys tried to hide the decline in temperature that they found. Hundreds of scientists have independently found similiar trends without tricks or deleted data. It's just not that big of a deal.