"Global Warming" SCAM - Hack/Leak

Discussion in 'Politics' started by W4rl0ck, Nov 20, 2009.

  1. #31     Nov 23, 2009
  2. Ooops! It's just a minor bump on the way to one world government total control.

    So long as we keep it out of the mainstay media the patsies will never notice and we can get on with feeding the mushrooms.
     
    #32     Nov 23, 2009
  3. Man made global warming is the only kind that we would have any reputed power to impact - - - so any other kind is irrelevant.
     
    #33     Nov 24, 2009
  4. #34     Nov 24, 2009
  5. achilles28

    achilles28

    Back to the top.

    This is huge.
     
    #36     Nov 24, 2009
  6. Ricter

    Ricter

    It's a hoax. From a large number of emails, statements have been pulled out of context to create a misleading collage.
     
    #37     Nov 24, 2009
  7. Liberals have castigated creationists for years because what creationists believed was not backed by science.

    But, this incident shows liberals will counterfeit any science to score a few measly political points.
     
    #38     Nov 24, 2009
  8. Ricter

    Ricter

    It shows nothing of the sort. This "incident" is a smear tactic.
     
    #39     Nov 24, 2009
  9. Arnie

    Arnie

    Editor's note: The following are emails we've selected from more than 3,000 emails and documents that were hacked last week from computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom. The CRU is the data repository for much of the world's climate research and is a major source for the judgments reached by the U.N.'s climate reports. A nearby editorial ("Global Warming With the Lid Off") puts the emails in their political and scientific context, but readers may want to browse for themselves to get a flavor of the thinking of scientists who are the leading advocates for the belief that global warming is man-made and that nations must re-order the world economy to stop it. We've removed the email addresses and phone numbers, and we've inserted paragraph breaks in some places. The emails are otherwise unedited. The ellipses are the authors' own.


    On freedom of information rules and deleting files:


    From: Phil Jones

    To: "Michael E. Mann"

    Subject: IPCC & FOI

    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    Mike,

    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.

    I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

    Cheers

    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones

    Climatic Research Unit

    School of Environmental Sciences

    University of East Anglia

    Norwich

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: Phil Jones

    Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM

    To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann

    Subject: Wahl/Ammann

    Gene/Caspar,

    Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

    Cheers

    Phil



    At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike,

    I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

    Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it!

    Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed.

    Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.

    Cheers
     
    #40     Nov 24, 2009