[spacefreak]

Wow... the content of these hijacked emails - if authentic - could bring down the whole house of cards.

The Hadley University of East Anglia CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine:

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."…

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting 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.

Here are some of the high value emails by leading scientists and proponents of

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. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.

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” (Medieval Warm Period), even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back

Warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

[hyteckit]

Yes, Global Warming is a global conspiracy perpetuate by the world leaders in order to create the New World Order with Obama as the new king.

While you are at it, please buy the blogger's books he is promoting such as:

"Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work"

or

"How To Be Right"

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Haha, good stuff!

Although I'm having a hard time seeing anything terribly incriminating or controversial in what I've been able to scan so far.

greg

[Chongo]

On the heals of that report comes this one.
Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

On the heals of that report comes this one.
Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

And the graph they provided. Looks like a warming trend to me.

Average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Really?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Haha, good stuff!

Although I'm having a hard time seeing anything terribly incriminating or controversial in what I've been able to scan so far.

greg

The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.

Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:

"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?"

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com

[hyteckit]

Haha... 61MB of emails, you randomly put meaning into selected phrases.

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.


Haha... good stuff. Grasping for straws anyway?

Even FOX News says "the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret."

[olePigeon]

Morons not understanding what's going on are trying to make something out of nothing.

[hyteckit]

Here, I'll try. Who wants to play?

Pat Michaels raped Keith's daughter. Keith planning to Ass Rape Pat Michaels.

My Evidence.

Upset with Pat Michaels for raping Keith's daughter
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Suppression of evidence about Keith's plan to Ass Rape Pat Michaels. AR4 means Ass Rape by a gang of 4

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.

[Shaddim]

Of course a lot of it's a scam. These researchers have to eat, right? Besides, it's probably a good idea to use less fossil fuels anyway, if for no other reason than to lessen the amount of money we're sending to the M.E.. We should be taking better care of the planet, and even though I don't endorse their deception, it's the right thing to do.

[spacefreak]

The frauds are caught red-handed changing numbers, statistics, etc. to promote an agenda under the guise of science.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course a lot of it's a scam. These researchers have to eat, right?

Of course religion is a scam. The Pope has to eat, right?

Of course education is a scam. The teachers have to eat, right?

Of course capitalism is a scam. The bankers have to eat, right?

Of course military is a scam. Generals have to eat, right?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course a lot of it's a scam. These researchers have to eat, right? Besides, it's probably a good idea to use less fossil fuels anyway, if for no other reason than to lessen the amount of money we're sending to the M.E.. We should be taking better care of the planet, and even though I don't endorse their deception, it's the right thing to do.

Right on the money

That's what I can't understand about the most vocal opponents of Global Warming. They say the science is bullsh!t yet everything brought about by that bullsh!t science would only serve to secure the United States at the forefront of alternative energies research. Not to mention we'll stop sending trillions to our enemies and polluting our planet. As far as I can see it's yet another case of partisan blinders. I think Al Gore's prediction that the world will end in 50 years is absolute hogwash, but what about using less fossil fuels is a bad thing?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The frauds are caught red-handed changing numbers, statistics, etc. to promote an agenda under the guise of science.

The whole of point of statistics is to manipulate numerical data to obtain a meaningful insight. Simply adjusting data sets is not proof of an "agenda." I will however enjoy all of the outcry these emails will generate on the part of people who make no claim to understand what the writers are actually talking about.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course a lot of it's a scam. These researchers have to eat, right? Besides, it's probably a good idea to use less fossil fuels anyway, if for no other reason than to lessen the amount of money we're sending to the M.E.. We should be taking better care of the planet, and even though I don't endorse their deception, it's the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by sek929 

That's what I can't understand about the most vocal opponents of Global Warming. They say the science is bullsh!t yet everything brought about by that bullsh!t science would only serve to secure the United States at the forefront of alternative energies research. Not to mention we'll stop sending trillions to our enemies and polluting our planet. As far as I can see it's yet another case of partisan blinders. I think Al Gore's prediction that the world will end in 50 years is absolute hogwash, but what about using less fossil fuels is a bad thing?

If you don't buy oil from the ME, the ME doesn't denominate sales in US$, which essentially destroys the $ as the world's reserve currency, which means your economy would take a serious dive. You're sitting on huge amounts of oil on that North Shore, but you can't use it because to do so would destroy your economy.

[Shaddim]

I wouldn't really want to stop the buying all-together, but lessen it enough to make them nervous.

[Doofy]

Here ya go... the whole caboodle:
MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I wouldn't really want to stop the buying all-together, but lessen it enough to make them nervous.

Well, we're going to run out of fossil fuels before too long anyway, so we need to not rely on them regardless of what they do to the planet or what our buying patterns do to the Middle East.

[Shaddim]

"Too long" meaning "150 years"? Because that's the number I heard recently.

[dzp111]

That's odd. I thought the concept of "global warming" died not long ago before it shifted to the words "climate change". I read and sense a huge difference between those two expressions. Correct me if I'm wrong but "climate change" sounds more like a natural event whereas "global warming' sounds political.

For you history buffs, thank Margaret Thatcher for blaming it all on ourselves (and the panic attack). She desperately need a pitch. She sowed the seed.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

Correct me if I'm wrong but "climate change" sounds more like a natural event whereas "global warming' sounds political.

That's only because "global warming" has *become* a political phrase.

The reality is that both could represent natural or human-caused events and both can be taken up, for or against, by political groups. From the perspective of a person who believes that characteristics of the climate are changing as a result of human influences, the term "climate change" represents an evolution of the concept of global warming. As they further developed their understanding of what they believe to be "human caused global warming" they decided that "global warming" was too simplistic since their research began to indicate to them much more complex changes beyond just warming. Hence the switch to "climate change". Of course, there are those who want to manipulate this theory for their own purposes, making it political.

For those who *don't* think that humanity has an effect on the global climate, both "global warming" and "climate change" can represent natural processes in our planet's climate. Processes that have repeated themselves since long before humans ever existed. Of course, there are *also* those who want to manipulate this theory for their own purposes, making it political.

And then, there are those of us who think it doesn't matter, natural or man-made. On both sides of the argument, scientists agree that our climate is changing. I, for one, don't really want to see our planet get warmer or cooler; both would mean massive changes in our way of live. I know that humans *can* affect our climates (just look at how cities are warmer than the rural areas around them). And, I think that anything we can do to offset a change in our climate, natural or man-made, can't be a bad thing.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

That's odd. I thought the concept of "global warming" died not long ago before it shifted to the words "climate change". I read and sense a huge difference between those two expressions. Correct me if I'm wrong but "climate change" sounds more like a natural event whereas "global warming' sounds political.

For you history buffs, thank Margaret Thatcher for blaming it all on ourselves (and the panic attack). She desperately need a pitch. She sowed the seed.

You are WRONG.

It went from:

climate change ==> global warming

not

global warming ==> climate change

If you are an imaginary conservative who don't believe in facts, you would believe it's

Global Warming ==> Climate Change


Scientist have been studying "Climate Change" for over 100 years. These scientist are loosely called Climatologist.

Recently they notice a "Global Warming" trend. Thus they coin the term "Global Warming" to explain the trend.

"Global Warming" enter the lexicon and became a popular term in 1988.

In 1988, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was formed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).


Both "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have been used commonly since 1988 till today.

They are used to describe slightly different things.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ther_name.html

[hyteckit]

If anyone wants the deleted 'AR4', here it is:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)

[BadKosh]

Recently??? So are we again using incidental weather to justify climate change for the worse?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

And the graph they provided. Looks like a warming trend to me.

Average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Really?

Looks like it peaked to me. You see the flat part at the top of the hill that's starting to point down?

The climate has been changing since the Earth came into being. Evidence right now shows it's not warming now. Not models. Not theory. The temperatures show it's not warming.

Evidence in those emails show that some of the major "scientific" backers of global warming alarmism know that their predictions of catastrophic warming doesn't appear to be coming into fruition, and that they have taken dishonest steps in order to keep the impression up that the evidence proves we have a disaster on our hands. This is why appeals to "science" and authority are pretty lame when we have discussions about this stuff. Yes, scientists often lie when it suits tham. Especially when they have a financial interest in maintaining the status quo.

Alarmists really need to drop the inferred threat level or they put a target on their heads as unreasonable kooks with an agenda. That's not to say that the Earth won't get warmer in the future, or that we shouldn't do everything we can to limit our natural resource consumption and pollution. There are reasons for that besides unproven theories that don't seem (yet) to be panning out.

But hey.. continue manipulating "peer review", fudging the numbers (as they get caught doing often) and sounding that alarm. More and more, the world looks at this as sees the little boy crying "wolf." The real damage will be done when there turns out to possibly be real climate or environmental disaster forthcoming, and no one listens because they've been fooled by well intentioned folks with an agenda too many times.

[hyteckit]

stupendousman,

World average temperatures peaked?

You are guaranteeing that temperatures won't rise in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The frauds are caught red-handed changing numbers, statistics, etc. to promote an agenda under the guise of science.

Y..You... YOU POOPY-BUTT STINKY FACE! YOU DON'T KNOW SCIENCE! THIS IS A LIE! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! AN IMAGINARY RIGHT-WING CONCOCTION!!! WHO CARES WHAT LEGISLATION IS ENACTED ON FALLACIOUS DATA, YOU JUST WANT TO DESTROY THE PLANET!!!

egadz

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

stupendousman,

World average temperatures peaked?

You are guaranteeing that temperatures won't rise in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

Yes. I personally guarantee it and I'll manipulate the data to show it if I have to. Now what?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

stupendousman,

World average temperatures peaked?

You are guaranteeing that temperatures won't rise in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

Of course they peaked, just like in 1940.

[shifuimam]

I'm not against working to minimize pollution, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, or promote efficiency in manufacturing to reduce the amount of waste produced.

Whether or not the anthropogenic global warming myth is pushing good things is irrelevant - it's a ridiculous scam being globally perpetuated to stupid people who will believe anything as long as their favorite hottie celebrity endorses it.

Sure, we need to make changes, but we shouldn't fall back on pushing a lie on the masses in order to do so.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Looks like it peaked to me. You see the flat part at the top of the hill that's starting to point down?

Do you not see the part in 1940 where the average temperature dropped until 1950 and then climbed to the current temperatures? Stop being so simple. Yes, the dip for 2008 *might* be the start of a prolonged decline, but it might also be a slight decline before more increases, as in 1940 and 1960 on the chart.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Evidence in those emails show that some of the major "scientific" backers of global warming alarmism know that their predictions of catastrophic warming doesn't appear to be coming into fruition, and that they have taken dishonest steps in order to keep the impression up that the evidence proves we have a disaster on our hands. This is why appeals to "science" and authority are pretty lame when we have discussions about this stuff. Yes, scientists often lie when it suits tham. Especially when they have a financial interest in maintaining the status quo.

Alarmists really need to drop the inferred threat level or they put a target on their heads as unreasonable kooks with an agenda. That's not to say that the Earth won't get warmer in the future, or that we shouldn't do everything we can to limit our natural resource consumption and pollution. There are reasons for that besides unproven theories that don't seem (yet) to be panning out.

I also hate when "experts" come up with alamist predictions of global doom to push their agendas. I don't think I've seen a national politician who *hasn't* used this tactic in recent years.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

stupendousman,

World average temperatures peaked?

You are guaranteeing that temperatures won't rise in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

No. I'm saying that based on the evidence, it would APPEAR that it has peaked. You know..the data that can be verified and doesn't rely on guesses and estimates shows a peak.

I can no more guarantee that it will stay the same or go lower in the future than those who claim "global warming" can guarantee it will go higher. I'm smart enough not to try and predict something that's highly variable like that. A lot smarter than those who just a few years back predicted higher and higher temperatures causing a global catastrophe unless drastic and extreme measures where taken. Despite not taking these measures, the temperatures have gone down.

We've got the data now that people where modeling just a few years back. We can determine how accurate the predictions then where. That's how science works. Of course, some people's models that they used to suggest the oncoming catastrophe had extremely wide variances in where things could be so that they could "CYA" themselves when the worse case scenarios didn't come true. So far, the "worse cases" that where used to try and get us to make unneeded sacrifices in our way of life haven't panned out. This is nothing new. It happens time and again when people want others to alter their lifestyles due to their fear of the unknown.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes. I personally guarantee it and I'll manipulate the data to show it if I have to. Now what?

Post of the day!

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No. I'm saying that based on the evidence, it would APPEAR that it has peaked. You know..the data that can be verified and doesn't rely on guesses and estimates shows a peak.

Based on evidence, there were ( or is it "where?" ) also peaks in every decade since the '30's. Based on evidence and in spite of a brief downturn following each peak, each peak was super-ceded by another warmer peak.

Likewise, in each of these decades, based on evidence, there have been cooling troughs, but in none of the cases, were any of those cooling troughs cooler than the previous trough. This trend continues back to the beginning of the last century.

Short-term warming leads to long-term warming.
Short-term cooling does not lead to long-term cooling.

[spacefreak]

I just used Mike's trick to hide the decline. I also shaved off a few points here and there while cutting out the last few years of data. We also need to make sure that all peers in Peer Review are our people, on our side. Please delete these emails, because the audit is coming.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Based on evidence, there were ( or is it "where?" ) also peaks in every decade since the '30's. Based on evidence and in spite of a brief downturn following each peak, each peak was super-ceded by another warmer peak

Please provide me a graph that shows all temperatures for the Earth since humans have inhabited it so we can see if the 150 years shown is relevant to the rest of existance, if it's important to view this through a wider spectrum.

Short-term warming leads to long-term warming.
Short-term cooling does not lead to long-term cooling.

In the chart given, I see periods of 20 years where there is cooling. Around 1855 it looks like temperatures where going up short term, and it cooled again. I'd say 20 years is fairly "long term". About 1/3 of the chart for the past 150 years shows cooling, and who knows if the chart is influenced by people with an agenda fudging the numbers?

Again...we are looking at a snapshot, trying to claim evidence of the big picture. Can't we just see the big picture, or are we just guessing?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Please provide me a graph that shows all temperatures for the Earth since humans have inhabited it so we can see if the 150 years shown is relevant to the rest of existance, if it's important to view this through a wider spectrum.



In the chart given, I see periods of 20 years where there is cooling. Around 1855 it looks like temperatures where going up short term, and it cooled again. I'd say 20 years is fairly "long term". About 1/3 of the chart for the past 150 years shows cooling, and who knows if the chart is influenced by people with an agenda fudging the numbers?

Again...we are looking at a snapshot, trying to claim evidence of the big picture. Can't we just see the big picture, or are we just guessing?

How long has humans inhabited Earth?

[besson3c]

Why oh why is climate change a partisan issue? I've never understood this, I probably never will...

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes. I personally guarantee it and I'll manipulate the data to show it if I have to. Now what?

So you believe in a grand global conspiracy that all the countries are falsify their temperature readings in order to show global warming.

Then why show a dip in temperatures from 2006 to 2008?

Why don't these global conspirators just manipulate data to show temperature increase from 2006 to 2008?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why oh why is climate change a partisan issue? I've never understood this, I probably never will...

It's because everything is a liberal agenda to take over the world.

Only thing conservatives believe in is God.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why oh why is climate change a partisan issue? I've never understood this, I probably never will...

From Global Warming to the New World Order

That will tie in nicely with this: Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord (see video and red text below) – in December President Obama will fly off to Copenhagen again, this time to put his signature onto a document which effectively establishes a New World Government, based on “Climate Change” – formerly known as “global warming”.

New World Order? � The Great American Blog


Obama's new world order - Washington Times

President Obama is on a path toward establishing a one-world government...

Global-warming alarmists are using the myth of climate change to impose an embryonic socialist world government. Following the collapse of communism, the West's progressive elites desperately searched for a viable ideological alternative. They found it in environmentalism.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why oh why is climate change a partisan issue? I've never understood this, I probably never will...

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Oil and energy is how it became political issue.

Oil and energy is where many of organizations and individuals are getting their funding to spread disinformation on global warming.

How it became a partisan issue is because Al Gore promoted the stance against global warming and brought it to the public's attention.


Since Al Gore is a Democrat and liberal, Global Warming must be liberal agenda.

Conservatives are paranoid and fearful group of people. They stick to their gun & God, and are afraid of the government.

They think the world is run by liberals and their plot is to create a New World Order, with Barrack Obama as the new king.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

They … are afraid of the government.

Any sane person is.

[besson3c]

I like olive oil.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Any sane person is.

I am deadly afraid of moderators. They are like the government of this forum.

Always spying on me and regulating my freedoms especially my free speech.

The can silence me and even banned me.

Down with the government! Down with moderators! Free speech!

Moderated forums is anti-capitalism, fascism, and goes against unhindered free trade.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I am deadly afraid of moderators. They are like the government of this forum.

Always spying on me and regulating my freedoms especially my free speech.

The can silence me and even banned me.

Down with the government! Down with moderators! Free speech!

Moderated forums is anti-capitalism, fascism, and goes against unhindered free trade.

This makes no sense within the context of the conversation. What are you talking about?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why oh why is climate change a partisan issue? I've never understood this, I probably never will...

Owners of NBC, MSNBC, CNBC among other companies in on the "alternative energy" and carbon credits scam with a lobbying effort that includes Cinergy, Lehman Bros., JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America making the big oil lobby look like the public golfers association.

I'm afraid the indictments against the oil lobby fall on deaf ears when you see the very types of croneyism, favors, kickbacks, corruption, manipulation, and media propaganda that zealots are quick to tell you somehow only exist from "big oil". Big oil is a "big joke" when compared to the likes of these monoliths.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I just used Mike's trick to hide the decline.

You don't know what this is. So stop pretending like it's a bad thing, when in fact it isn't.

greg