As AGW Is Exposed As A Hoax, EU President Tells Us The Real Purpose

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

As AGW Is Exposed As A Hoax, EU President Tells Us The Real Purpose

Written By : William Teach

On Friday, we found out that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit server was hacked, which was, as The Air Vent put it, 62mb of gold. The files, especially the emails, are very damning to the AGW movement, and could be the final nail in the coffin of human induced global warming, er, climate change, whateverthehell they are calling it this week. They show collusion, corruption, manipulation, and obstruction. As Andrew Bolt puts it

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.

Emails such as this

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. (Watts Up With That? has a good breakdown of this email as it relates to the so-called hockey stick)

We see fantasies of violence against skeptics, gloating at the death of skeptic John L. Daly, suppression of evidence, and forcing dissenting views out of academia. Wouldn’t want people to actually practice science, you know.

The big media is covering it, and, in some cases, trying to spin it away, as the NY Times tries, along with the Guardian. Others get all sorts of “hey, let’s cover both sides of the issue fairly,” which only happens when they know their side is in deep doo doo.

Michelle Malkin calls it the climate scandal of the century, but, I’m not so sure about that. The entire issue of anthropogenic global warming is a scandal. A fake issue that originally started as a few scientists wondering if Mankind’s output of greenhouse gasses, in particular, CO2, were causing a warming trend. This was quickly hijacked by people who realized they could use it to make themselves some money, often mandated by Government, turn themselves into stars, and, oh, initiate a way to put people, companies, and economies, heck, even countries, under the control of Government, just as their 70′s and 80′s love of the repressive Soviet Union government told them to.

Don’t believe me? We’ve heard about it many times before. Lord Monckton stated that he had read the Copenhagen draft treaty, and it would be the death knell of American sovereignty and freedom. Oh, and here’s EU President Herman Van Rompuy, telling us what the point is

“The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step forward towards the global management of our planet…”

Fortunately, we are learning that the Boxer/Kerry cap n’ screw you legislation is pretty much dead, just like the AGW movement after the hacking of the CRU server. Of course, some Climahysterics would be happy when some of the bigger names in the anti-AGW movement kick the bucket and stop exposing the insanity and BS coming from Climahysterics.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

boatman47

The hacking of the e-mail server at the University of East Anglia revealed ………. a bunch of academics squabbling over methodology and results – and being jealous of each other’s accomplishments – and being catty about those who disagree with them. This is NOT a scandal, as much as climate change skeptics would like it to be.

It is odd, is it not, that the server got hacked and its contents spilled just before the Copenhagen conference ? One notices, Mr. Teach, that you have not a word to say about the crime / invasion of privacy involved. I guess those things are OK by you if they serve your preconceived political ideas – yes?

Climate change is complicated stuff. People are going to be arguing about causes and effects for years – decades, probably. Some of those doing the arguing will be academics who sometimes vent petty jealousies. Some of them will be ideologues who will ignore or distort any scientific data they find … inconvenient (that’s you, Mr Teach).

Just as the science and medecine around AIDS / HIV was buried for years under a large stinking pile of politics and prejudice, the science and debate around climate change has been poisoned by free market anti-environmentalism, scientific Luddites, and right wing hatred of those who actually do know something about the subject. Al Gore may be an alarmist – he may ber exaggerating – but climate change / global warming is not a myth, it’s effects are already apparent, and Al Gore does have a valid point about what needs to be done to ameliorate the long-term consequences..
William Teach

Interesting. First you say that climate change (I notice you did not use the term global warming. Why?) is complicated, and we are going to be arguing about causes and effects for years, even decades. Then you go on to basically say the science is settled. Which is it?

Natural global warming is not a myth, and most of us “skeptics” agree that we did have a warm period, primarily natural in cause. The emails show that the information was being spun and manufactured to make it look worse than it really was, and to blame Mankind.

As for political ideas, perhaps you should re-read what you wrote, because you sure seem to be coming down on the side of the political idea that Mankind is at fault.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

I think its premature to declare the entire AGW effort as a hoax, but this is strong evidence that at least some of what we’ve been told for years was, in fact, deliberate falsehood.

What appears to be the case is that the warming that happened in the last century was not as pronounced as it was being sold as, and certainly was no significant, life-threatening trend.
Pingback: As AGW Is Exposed As A Hoax, EU President Tells Us The Real Purpose « THE BLACK KETTLE
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Posted by boatman47
2009-11-21 11:24:41

Shut up, hoggo. Nobody cares what you think.
http://quantum-kitty.blogspot.com/ simulacre

The hacking of the e-mail server at the University of East Anglia revealed ………. a bunch of academics squabbling over methodology and results

and conspiring to avoid FOIA requests, and colluding to hide test results and actively working to cover up unfavorable datum

– and being jealous of each other’s accomplishments – and being catty about those who disagree with them.

especially those who wont buy the line of bull they were selling.

This is NOT a scandal, as much as climate change skeptics would like it to be.

The list of conspirators includes the head of NASA, Al Gore’s chief financial adviser, and the head of the ISI panel that started the entire hoax.

It is odd, is it not, that the server got hacked and its contents spilled just before the Copenhagen conference ?

It is odd, and one would almost think this was the work of an insider or a whistle blower rather than a hacker…

One notices, Mr. Teach, that you have not a word to say about the crime / invasion of privacy involved.

that’s because there was no invasion of privacy…the e-mails were taken from a server of a public university. There may very well be a crime that was committed, but it remains to be seen if proprietary information was stolen or if the act was committed by a whistle-blower and who might be therefore protected!

I guess those things are OK by you if they serve your preconceived political ideas – yes?

Pot, meet Kettle…

Climate change is complicated stuff.

FTFY

People are going to be arguing about causes and effects for years – decades, probably.

so long as scientists are debating and arguing without preconceived notions and trying to fit data to those notions we’ll be fine. When we start legislating based on unsettled science and opportunists like Gore rig the system to make themselves tidy profits is when we get in trouble.

Some of those doing the arguing will be academics who sometimes vent petty jealousies.

so you think the collusion and conspiracy to hide the truth was merely a venting of petty jealousy? You are the oldest naif I have ever encountered.

Some of them will be ideologues who will ignore or distort any scientific data they find … inconvenient (that’s you, Mr Teach).

you have no idea what you are talking about. We skeptics are much more open to all data out there and actively look for proof either way. Which is why very few people deny the global warming phenomena, but the causes are in question. The Church of AGW can stand no criticism and all irrelevant datum are discarded -that’s in the e-mails…

Just as the science and medecine around AIDS / HIV was buried for years under a large stinking pile of politics and prejudice,

pointless strawman…no need to even address.

the science and debate around climate change has been poisoned by free market anti-environmentalism, scientific Luddites, and right wing hatred of those who actually do know something about the subject.

truly ridiculous statement…the free market has little if anything to do with the ‘poisoning of the science.’ That distinction is reserved for those scientists who willfully skewed results, colluded to hide weather station readings, and refused to accept any criticism of their work.

Al Gore may be an alarmist

he’s not an alarmist, he’s a racketeer and a con man looking to make a buck and consolidate power.

- he may ber exaggerating – but climate change / global warming is not a myth, it’s effects are already apparent,

very few if any people claim that climate change is a myth. It’s the claim that man is causing it that is in question.

and Al Gore does have a valid point about what needs to be done to ameliorate the long-term consequences..

he has no point because if, as the majority of skeptics believe, the sun is the main cause of global warming and cooling, there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it.

Posted by boatman47
2009-11-21 11:24:41

and for the record, hoggo, nobody cares what you think.
Pingback: Just Because You're Paranoid
http://www.dragonsbreath.blog-city.com blkdragon

Can we tar ‘n feather ‘em and run them out of town on a rail yet?

As for the “one more step” toward global governance. Freedom loving Americans have already kicked the rear of over half the world. And we can do it again.
boatman47

I’ll respond to Mr Teach because the rest of you are blithering idiots.

The science is not settled, and I did not say it is. In fact, the only people who think it is settled have an agenda one way or the other. We know there are naturally occurring climate cycles; we know that variations in solar activity affects the climate; and a lot of scientists think that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere is the result of human activity and affects the climate as well. Only the ideologues think that human activity is the sole cause of climate change / global warming; only ideologues think human activity has no effect whatsoever. As nearly as I can see, human fondness for burning carbon based fuel has had an effect – although just how much of an effect and how that effect works with other factors is certainly open to debate.

The reference to the HIV / AIDS debate was merely an example of how scientific opbjectivity loses when politics intrudes into a science debate. I notice no one is contesting that point – the blitherers merely prove it by yelling that they are right.
http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

The hacking of the e-mail server at the University of East Anglia revealed ………. a bunch of academics squabbling over methodology and results – and being jealous of each other’s accomplishments – and being catty about those who disagree with them. This is NOT a scandal, as much as climate change skeptics would like it to be.

Boy, hoggo, you must be in really deep denial to characterise what the emails and files say as “squabbling over methodology and results”. Take some time to read the emails and look over the data files – it ain’t just squabbling. The following is a compendium of revelations from just the emails alone (copied from the Bishop Hill blog at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/):

# Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
# Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
# Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
# Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
# Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
# Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
# Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
# Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
# Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
# Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
# Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
# Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
# Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
# Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
# Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
# Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
# Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
# Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
# Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
# Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
# Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
# Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
# Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
# Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
# Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
# Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
# Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
# Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
# Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
# Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
# Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
# Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
# Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
# Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
# Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
# Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
# Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
# Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
# Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
# Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
# Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
# Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
# Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
# David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
# Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
# Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
# Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Note: The numbers following each entry are the catalogue numbers for the emails in the online searchable database that is their new home. Since I’ve already put one link into this comment, you’ll have to access the online searchable database by going to the Bishop Hill blog and clicking on any of the numbers following any of the emails. I encourage you to educate yourself, hoggo, not continue to hide behind the “wall of ideology” which you usually cower behind.

There’s strong evidence of data tampering. There’s strong evidence of fraud. There’s prima facie evidence of collusion in the suppression of dissenting views. There’s prima facie evidence of a criminal conspiracy to illegally prevent the release of data subject to FOIA. There’s prima facie evidence of collusion in personal and professional attacks on colleagues with dissenting views.

Honestly, I can’t say I’m surprised in the least by your feeble attempt to minimise and deflect the potential importance of these files. Firstly, I’m not surprised because I doubt that you’ve actually read any of the material and we all know that your fondness for discussing things about which you hold only second- and third-hand opinions gleaned from others. Secondly, I’m not surprised because the emails and data are actually pretty damning, and if party line apparatchiks such as yourself don’t do everything in their power to counter their power, actual real public and academic debates might break out in the midst of allegedly ‘settled science’. It is crisis time in the climate alarmist camp.

In any case, ideologues like you tend to have their feet anchored in their ideologies so firmly that they can’t change positions when the environment around them changes. I can so easily envision you in a couple of years, a lonely, bitter old man sitting around the nursing home cussing about how Al Gore was robbed of his rightful fame and honour while the attendants (at least the ones who understand English) smile wry smiles to one another and shake their heads knowingly at the old man living in his world of ‘old-time-y’ delusions.
BIG

Thinking people have known that the climate changers were committing fraud. But the real damage isn’t the billions of dollars they have received. THe real damage has been that for the past forty years a stranglehold has been placed on Americas ability to produce the energy she needs to survive. That hundreds of billions of dollars a year are sent across the globe for energy when we could have been spending it here at home, creating high paying jobs, and not supporting third world dictators that only want to destroy America with the funds they receive from us.

So yes, conmen like Al Gore will someday face the music, but if we can’t get a change in our thinking about self-sufficent energy production here in America, we are never going to climb out of the hole we find ourselves in. Drill here, drill now. Build nuke plants. Send the radioactive waste to Yuca. Allow coal to be mined. Start using the sand and tar resources. And continue to look for alternatives so when our own supplies start to run out in the 22nd century, we are able to continue to be a prosperous nation.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

The pattern I’m seeing with the leftist and AGW hysteric in response to this information is to

1) not read the emails
2) presume stupidity and malice on the part of anyone who reports them
3) defend the writers by claiming no fraud or misdeeds are being done
4) attack anyone who dares question that declaration made without even bothering to read the emails

Its sad, really. The defensiveness is really quite stark, almost as if someone attacked their religion. Oh wait, we did.
BIG

Maybe that is going to be the defense of the climate changers? Religous persecution?
Realpolitik

we are never going to climb out of the hole we find ourselves in. Drill here, drill now. Build nuke plants. Send the radioactive waste to Yuca. Allow coal to be mined. Start using the sand and tar resources. And continue to look for alternatives so when our own supplies start to run out in the 22nd century, we are able to continue to be a prosperous nation.
Posted by BIG
2009-11-22 10:37:43

Reason enough to support the notion of man’s destruction of the planet. This is the attitude that got us into this desperate place to begin with.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Reason enough to support the notion of man’s destruction of the planet.

Man made global warming is a myth. Your love of Hitler is a fact. You at the truck stop or wifi cafe today?
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Reason enough to support the notion of man’s destruction of the planet. This is the attitude that got us into this desperate place to begin with.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-22 12:40:02

If your so sure man is desatroying the planet, get of your Mac, give up your IPhone, IPod, and TV. Give up your car, microwave, and refigerator; move into a cave and set a better example for us all of how we should live. Until then you’re just a hypocrite for telling us to sacrifice for the lie of AGW while you do nothing. You’re as bad AlBore.
William Teach

Boatman, the problem is, the ideologues are in charge of creating the policies that say Mankind is at fault. They have been blocking alternate viewpoints, they say the science is settled, they will not allow debate, and they are pushing one side based on ideology. These are folks at the Hadley CRU, at the UN, in our government (mostly Democrats, but, some Republicans.) They have created a link between CO2 and rising temperatures that actually doesn’t seem to exist. In fact, the actual science seems to show that CO2 rises from something that happened 500 years previously.

These same people are seriously cherry picking data, they are hiding data, and, in some cases just making it up. They are using models that are designed to provide a certain outcome. Garbage in garbage out. And now their models cannot account for the flatlining and decreasing temps, so they call it “climate change,” because somehow, in an alternate reality, increasing greenhouse gasses now cause a reduction in temps.

AGW is not about science, but, about control. Control of people, economies, and countries. It also makes a lot of people really rich and gives them prestige. And that house of cards is collapsing. Warming was real. AGW was not.
BIG

Reason enough to support the notion of man’s destruction of the planet. This is the attitude that got us into this desperate place to begin with.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-22 12:40:02

Please do your part to stop producing CO2 immediately if you feel so strongly that it is destroying the planet. It is really simple, just stop breathing. The Goreacle will be so proud of you. You might even get 72 virgins in paradise???
Pingback: ClimateGate: GLOBAL WARMING EMAIL SCANDAL (summary, links) « FactReal