Dunno if you've been reading the skeptic blogs the last couple days, but evidently the CRU servers got hacked and the emails and files of phil jones and keith briffa have been liberated and open sourced by some whistleblower. The emails alone are a smoking gun, exposing all the top luminaries in global warming alarmism as engaging in a conspiracy to falsify data, evade compliance with FOIA laws, delete evidence, falsify expense reports, defraud taxpayers, falsely testify to congress, use mob tactics against Climate Research journal for publishing skeptical papers, and even solicit assault and battery against a skeptic.
Beyond the emails, however, the files are explosive. They include the code used by Mann and by Jones to filter data and create false hockey sticks, code that includes comments in it that specify exactly what it is filtering.
These climategate files stand a large chance to destroy the credibility of AGW proponents and derail the train to socialist world government these people are trying to implement under the guise of environmentalism.
CRU Hacked > AGW Scientist Fraud Exposed
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
That will be interesting to follow up on. I have my doubts though that the media will pick up on it. They are too affraid to loose their face.
Btw, I am sure that most here are aware of the fact that the Green Party was founded at a meeting of the CPSU under Suslov a massmurderer and wannabe WW3 starter.
I like to call the green part the melon party: Green on the outside, (comunist- ) red on the inside.
Btw, I am sure that most here are aware of the fact that the Green Party was founded at a meeting of the CPSU under Suslov a massmurderer and wannabe WW3 starter.
I like to call the green part the melon party: Green on the outside, (comunist- ) red on the inside.
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
There is no defense for what is in those emails. Defending them is ridiculous.
At the very least, the emails confirm a long standing contention of skeptics. There has been a perversion of the peer review process where a small community of 'scientists' are publishing together, reviewing each others papers, applying pressure to insure what is published, manipulating careers, and ultimately controlling what goes in the IPCC reports.
At the next level, the emails and comments in the code seem to provide strong evidence that there has been manipulation of data with the specific intent of enhancing the evidence of AGW and that this scientifically contrary practice seemed to be prevelent.
At the highest levels, the emails and code indicate a possiblity that certain members of the AGW community behaved outright fraudulently and criminally.
I think some people had better think long an hard about what they defend. This is really bad stuff.
It is funny that I always was shy about throwing around the word conspiracy what talking about AGW proponents. But now I must say, if it walks like a duck...
At the very least, the emails confirm a long standing contention of skeptics. There has been a perversion of the peer review process where a small community of 'scientists' are publishing together, reviewing each others papers, applying pressure to insure what is published, manipulating careers, and ultimately controlling what goes in the IPCC reports.
At the next level, the emails and comments in the code seem to provide strong evidence that there has been manipulation of data with the specific intent of enhancing the evidence of AGW and that this scientifically contrary practice seemed to be prevelent.
At the highest levels, the emails and code indicate a possiblity that certain members of the AGW community behaved outright fraudulently and criminally.
I think some people had better think long an hard about what they defend. This is really bad stuff.
It is funny that I always was shy about throwing around the word conspiracy what talking about AGW proponents. But now I must say, if it walks like a duck...
Regards"Most people say that it is the intellect that makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character."
- Albert Einstein
Well no. Not even close to testing the limit of the First.alexjrgreen wrote:You're testing the limits of the First Amendment here.
Europeans are going to be more constrained in what they can say...
You can say just about anything you want about what was found and about the "public" figures Mann, Jones, etc. Include calling the whole thing proof of fraud.
About the more minor figures involved it is wise to be more circumspect.
However there is no prior restraint.
Now what I want to know is: are Euros even allowed to read the above?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
The NYT is apparently fine with revealing national security secrets to attack Bush, but not emails that might discredit a left-liberal sacred cow.
I'm not sure how they differ much from The Nation anymore.
Of course, all those attacks by AGWers calling denialists crazy conspiracy theorists are now retroactively hilarious.
I'm not sure how they differ much from The Nation anymore.
I agree, I was shocked. I always thought the notion of an actual conspiracy was farfetched... but here we are.It is funny that I always was shy about throwing around the word conspiracy what talking about AGW proponents. But now I must say, if it walks like a duck...
Of course, all those attacks by AGWers calling denialists crazy conspiracy theorists are now retroactively hilarious.
The topic hit another discussion group I'm in. They provide this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... l-strategy
A business class I attended recently advises "Never put anything in an e-mail that you would not like to be seen in the headlines of a major newspaper."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... l-strategy
A business class I attended recently advises "Never put anything in an e-mail that you would not like to be seen in the headlines of a major newspaper."
Quaint. And pathetic. The Guardian author is like a child with his fingers in his ears chanting "I can't hear yoooou!"Tom Ligon wrote:The topic hit another discussion group I'm in. They provide this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... l-strategy
Vae Victis
Whats truly amazing is that George Monbiot, raving moonbat of the socialist greenie left in Britain (and thats saying a lot), has admitted the emails are very damaging, he's called for Jones' resignation or firing, and has apologized to readers for not being a better journalist in investigating the science better. It's truly rare to see such character among the left like this, he should be encouraged and commended for his courage in the face of what will likely be a ton of screaming from religiously fanatical leftie readers of his.djolds1 wrote:Quaint. And pathetic. The Guardian author is like a child with his fingers in his ears chanting "I can't hear yoooou!"Tom Ligon wrote:The topic hit another discussion group I'm in. They provide this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... l-strategy
Yes, quite. I must say I never expected someone to show this much courage in releasing this kind of data, or that the usual suspects would be dumb enough to commit such words to their email boxes (though Jones' admonishments to others to delete their emails is telling).TallDave wrote:The NYT is apparently fine with revealing national security secrets to attack Bush, but not emails that might discredit a left-liberal sacred cow.
I'm not sure how they differ much from The Nation anymore.
I agree, I was shocked. I always thought the notion of an actual conspiracy was farfetched... but here we are.It is funny that I always was shy about throwing around the word conspiracy what talking about AGW proponents. But now I must say, if it walks like a duck...
Of course, all those attacks by AGWers calling denialists crazy conspiracy theorists are now retroactively hilarious.
That said, I have some ideas about who did the leak, and it wasn't a hack.
Firstly, the data doesn't belong to UoEA or CRU or Hadley Met Office, it belongs to the taxpayers of Britain and the US who paid for the "research", to the tune of many millions of pounds and dollars. Both countries have a freedom of information act which the data is subject to. Thus whoever leaked the data was merely "correcting" the illegal security policies of CRU.
At least now I can proudly tell the naive fools who have accused me of being a paranoiac in the past to shove it, that there are indeed conspiracies that exist.
Now where is my map of Area 51.....?
My theory.
An inside guy who knew the information, possibly IT. An outside guy - probably an IT security person who would know all the black hat tricks. A lawyer.
It is possible that the trick was done by an internal IT security guy who was a lawyer. Who better to head the investigation of the breech?
Of course the above is proof positive I have too much time on my hands.
An inside guy who knew the information, possibly IT. An outside guy - probably an IT security person who would know all the black hat tricks. A lawyer.
It is possible that the trick was done by an internal IT security guy who was a lawyer. Who better to head the investigation of the breech?
Of course the above is proof positive I have too much time on my hands.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I was struck by the contrast of the following post by Roy Spencer regarding the Lindzen paper as compared to the garbage seen in the hacked emails.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/som ... ack-study/
This is an example of a skeptic being publically skeptical about the work of another skeptic. He states his concerns and the reasons for them. He concludes by saying the following:
And this man is the one demonized as being a shill for the oil companies?!?
I wonder if Real Climate has ever posted a negative critique of a paper that supports AGW? Doubtful. To do that would take real character and from what I read in those emails, Gavin Smith and his crowd show none.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/som ... ack-study/
This is an example of a skeptic being publically skeptical about the work of another skeptic. He states his concerns and the reasons for them. He concludes by saying the following:
He is publically questioning the validity of another skeptics work based entirely on the scientific merits of it. He posts a negative critique of a paper that supports his own supposed agenda.Of course, since the above analysis is not peer-reviewed and published, it might be worth no more than what you paid for it. But I predict that Lindzen and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do their own analysis of the ERBE data, possibly like that I have outlined above, and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the authors’ conclusions.
In any event, I don’t think the question of exactly what feedbacks are exhibited by the ERBE satellite is anywhere close to being settled.
And this man is the one demonized as being a shill for the oil companies?!?
I wonder if Real Climate has ever posted a negative critique of a paper that supports AGW? Doubtful. To do that would take real character and from what I read in those emails, Gavin Smith and his crowd show none.