Happy Extinction Climatologists.

Thinking people always knew it was a lie. Sooner or later the truth was to come out. I am just glad it is coming out before the Dems use it as an excuse to further ruin our economy.

From a blog where honest experts (non-Zats) are chatting.........

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 thattake 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 boardWhat 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 !"

James Delingpole is a raving rtard.

He's basically England's equivilant of Ann Coulter ...only less butch.

Far from being a "final nail in the coffin" of Global Warming this story is a perfect indicator of how desperate the OilCo's have become to sow seeds of cognitive dissonance in the general public.

/Unless you think the anonymous hacker who released this info was just doing it fer shits and giggles?

Ah rtards, is there no molehill you can't make a mountain outta?

Be Well.

Once again, Mr. Potato Head plays the fool.

Karl Denninger found intention data falsification to show man made global warming in the emails.

One of the emails says:

"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."

That is, to hide a decline in global temperatures.

It gets better. Another message, this one allegedly from 2000:

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

Oh, so it's not about the planet getting warmer, but rather is a convenient means of advancing an agenda that has already been pre-determined?

Then there's this:

In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

(Pardon the formatting, it's text-mode email 'yanno.)

Guess who that was addressed to? Michael Mann. You know, the (infamous and now discredited) "Mann Hockey Stick"?

Guess where that email originated? NASA.

Yes, I have the file. So do a few million other people.

There's enough evidence in there, in my opinion, of outrageously fraudulent conduct to make this the scandal of the 20th and 21st century.

Sorry folks, there's no science here - this is, from what I see, a massive and outrageous fraud, and now that the documents have been confirmed as authentic it is time to pull the curtain down on this crap and start locking up all of the proponents - starting with AL GORE.

Here are some interesting "meta statistics" on the documents, and the number of times the words referenced appear:

Fraud: 79
Falsify: 6
Inflate: 14
Conceal: 5
Hide: 19
Just for starters.

If you think that's bad, you might like this - from the file "ipcc-tar-master.rtf":

General Comments
The idea that climate without human intervention can only undergo "natural variability", and that "climate change" can only result from human activity is false and fallacious. It is in conflict with all that we know of evolution and geology. It is simply wrong to assume that " climate change" automatically implies human influence on the climate.

This fallacy is embraced by the Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the IPCC (Footnote to "Summary for Policymakers. Page 1) claim that they are prepared to accept "natural variability" as "climate change". They are, however, unwilling to accept the truth, which is that climate can change without human intervention.

....

47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?

I heard a good comment about this last night on fox when they were talking to the guy who made algore look even worse than he does

they said...just look at the lifestyle of the people making these claims like gore

private jets
electric bill that dwarfs most..

ed begly jr gets respect from all sides because he walks the talk..
IF gore were to ever do that..then MAYBE....

Thanks for posting this. I commented a month ago on Steve McIntyre's (at ClimateAudit) tireless efforts to get the data and replicate results from these guys. There's been nothing but stonewalling from publicly funded organizations. He is a little guy (along with a handful of others that do this on the side) that is fighting the establishment. What can't climatologists understand about transparency? If you are afraid to release the data, you are uncertain of your results. It's a very sad day to see this kind of behavior in our supposedly most esteemed climate scientists. Sad, sad, sad.... It makes me sad for the scientists that have been shut down, careers stalled because of what this one group has done. It sickens me as well.

Meanwhile, glacial ice continues to melt. Why is that?

#8 Because of natural variations. We are still on the upswing from the LIA (Little Ice Age). Look it up. Man may be having an impact with farm use, population, urbanization, but there is not the proof you think there is about CO2 causing UNPRECEDENTED rises in temperatures. It is not black and white. If it was, these guys wouldn't be working so hard to hide the data.

Look at the docs and emails unearthed at CRU by the computer hacker. They were looking only for results that fit their theory and were suppressing everything that didn't. Imagine being a scientist with a paper that couldn't be published because these guys are all so heavily invested in AGW. Wild.

"Because of natural variations..."

Is an interesting theory. The Little Ice Age was centuries ago. Why are the glaciers and ice sheets leaving so quickly now? And I mean now?

"They were only looking for results that fit their theory and were supressing anything else..."

Is also an allegation that can be fairly made concerning their opposition.

But you do concede point, there is significant climate change. I hope you don't live in Florida.

When was the last time the climate didn't change?

This must be where the idiots gather to proclaim
GW has been discredited. LOL. I'll leave you all to your collective circle jerk.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bunch of bullshit to scare the masses into being afraid and for an easier time fleecing the populace. Global Warming is bunk. Oh and if it really and truly existed what can You do about it?? Not a G-d damned thing. You can't control the weather nor the man in the moon. Bunch of cow patties.

Larry

It may be in reference to a co-existing agenda, such as planetary weather manipulation, and even explains why it's conclusions are not "natural variability" as "climate change":

"They are, however, unwilling to accept the truth, which is that climate can change without human intervention."

I wonder what context this argument sits when it's known that global weather is influenced? Wouldn't that define "human intervention"?

So, either this data is:

A. Misinterpreted, or re-designed to be misleading.
B. Partially falsified in the manner of Bush's AWOL.
C. Fully integrable with the existing data.
D. Whole cloth.

In situation A. we have actual information that has been modified to protect the reason for the data, whereas in B. it's maligned for the opposite effect. C. means inside fact-check proves correct, and D. means it's proven all wrong. Each component should be analyzed separately, then correlated for consistency and subjective outcome from the individual scenarios.

C'mon RLR, do you really see a rocket scientist like MysteryToy engaging in that type of analysis? lol. The sad thing is, your observation has merit.

C'mon RLR, do you really see a rocket scientist like MysteryToy engaging in that type of analysis? lol. The sad thing is, your observation has merit.
#16 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-11-22 04:34 AM

If it's true, then it's really scary how few people have ever leaked. These alleged scientific correspondence may be indicating something monumental regarding the nature of secrecy. The innermost-circle must be pretty damned small and possibly quite deadly.

There is talk on WSJ that it wasn't a hacker but was a whistleblower. That makes more sense.

So---have these scientists been melting the ice just to fool us?

The last nail in the coffin of Global warming will be our extinction.

Thousands of people couldn't keep this secret for years and years---oh wait---that was 911 right?

...perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

In a matter as serious as this, I would hope the top dogs would be trying to keep the lying corporate snakes out of 'chicken little's' coop. Given a long enough rope most of these money grubbers would hang themselves and everyone else with them. Whether the article is true or not (and I suspect it's somewhere in between), it doesn't change the fact that every action creates a reaction and the planet is warming faster then any time in recorded history by a factor of ten.

It also goes to show that half the country will believe anything that reinforces their foolish investment schemes even after they lost their shirts listening to jerks like GW Bush.

So---have these scientists been melting the ice just to fool us?

The last nail in the coffin of Global warming will be our extinction.

#19 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

How do you know that Al Gore's people didn't just photoshop the ice?

Just photoshop in the hurricanes and photoshop out the ice and wham bam we have a new tax stream. Woo Hoo.

How do you know that Al Gore's people didn't just photoshop the ice?

Yes, that image would be even easier to doctor than a crowd of rabid teabaggers.

....wham bam we have a new tax scam....

what does this show about rcade?

this is so magnanimous BP news, and who breaks it, prisonplanet.com? But what is FP news, Limbaugh hides that he linked to prisonplanet.com[which was this very story!] where the brainless fake left blasts prisonplanet. Is there any bigger hypocrisy? Anyone else want to mass revolt on the obvious longtime bias?

....wham bam we have a new tax scam....
#25 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2009-11-22 01:01 PM

I'm stealing that rhyme.:]

what does this show about rcade?
this is so magnanimous BP news, and who breaks it, prisonplanet.com? But what is FP news, Limbaugh hides that he linked to prisonplanet.com[which was this very story!] where the brainless fake left blasts prisonplanet. Is there any bigger hypocrisy? Anyone else want to mass revolt on the obvious longtime bias?
#26 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-11-22 05:31 PM

Imo, it actually means that he's willing to bother entertaining even the wildest notion of plausible acceptance or deniability in relation to how far possible conspiracy can populate internet time on his Retort.

That said, it's my belief that the sciences involved in meteorological studies must hold keys to how this is being scammed over the minds of thousands of key climatologists. Perhaps a common weather database also has a blackbox voter fraud backdoor?

If I had a dollar for everything people have stolen from me over the years I'd..........be in prison for plagiarism.

I believe the magic data has already mysteriously disappeared and OMG they didn't have a backup.

Does anybody realise that the University of East Anglia is a rather small and insignificant college in the middle of Nowhere, England. This is of little significance, just a bunch of gonzos playing games.

...the University of East Anglia is a rather small and insignificant college...

So was the Eidgenssische Polytechnische Schule

Does anybody realise that the University of East Anglia is a rather small and insignificant college in the middle of Nowhere, England. This is of little significance, just a bunch of gonzos playing games.
#30 | Posted by sitdown at 2009-11-22 08:04 PM

Aw, I don't want to miss any opportunities to spread weather mod conspiracies. Honestly, if they can't do it now we'll never achieve it when it's most needed.

How do you know that Al Gore's people didn't just photoshop the ice?

#22 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2009-11-22 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because the evidence is from many other sources.

BuffaloBob

Because the evidence is from many other sources.

#33 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Same with the Apollo moon landings, but you don't believe those.

Oh, the workings of the mind of a madman!

Vanquished from the DR BP, never to be heard from again. Move on people, nothing to see here.