Evidence of the Climate Hoax

[Jimbean]

There are some electronic files that had been stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week. The U.N. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) had said that the evidence was unequivocal, despite the fact that there is no consensus within the scientific community. Private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack and eager to punish its enemies. I have communicated with people over many times over that these people aim to shape the public perception, including the issue of global warming. Google “Climategate,” which involves conspiracy to exaggerate climate data.

Read more info here: http://www.impactlab.com/2009/11/22/...-center-stage/

[Jimbean]

“will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

"Alleged CRU Email - 1047388489.txt"
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

[Jimbean]

I have more information coming to me. This thread is not over!

[ragnar]

Yeah this is a bombshell.

Nah. Some of us have seen through the scam long ago. One interesting thing would be to get down to the names and pictures of the main characters, for Socionics VI.


Some of the ringleaders playing the "guru"/"scientist"/"priest" role seem to be:

Michael Mann
Phil Jones

Benjamin Santer
Keith Briffa
Kevin Trenberth

Jonathan Overpeck
Tom Wigley

Edit: Some of these seem to be masters of social engineering and 1-1 smooth talking and salesmanship.


Also, James Hansen plays the "man of wisdom and authority" game. Gavin Schmidt (the realclimate.org guy) seems more like a dedicated PR guy for the crew. Both are NASA employees.

I'd like someone to post pics of this gang for VI and discussions of their individual roles in the Global Warming community here, along with an analysis of the group dynamics.

I'm too lazy and depressed right now to accomplish much.

Some pics can be downloaded from here:
CRU staff

[electric sheep]

“will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

"Alleged CRU Email - 1047388489.txt"
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Wait, what are you quoting? That line doesn't appear anywhere in that link.

The only relevant bit in that link is this:

The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they
get. They
have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn't
the
warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being
1300-
1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of
synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and
late
20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid
boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is
just
to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will
use
this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes
unchallenged.

That doesn't sound like the machinations of a master plotter, it's just someone writing about idiot "skeptics" who misinterpret scientific data to make the world fit into their comfortable version of the truth.

[sema sahin]

ITZ ALL A KONSPEARASEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Sorry...I had to say it.

[mu4]

I don't like the doomsday rhetoric of the climate change group but deregulation is not a solution nor is the Michelle Malkin crowd likely to create a pragmatic solutions to more efficient industry. The ideologues on both side will simply create a situation of the most ineffective compromise.

[UDP]

I don't like the doomsday rhetoric of the climate change group but deregulation is not a solution nor is the Michelle Malkin crowd likely to create a pragmatic solutions to more efficient industry. The ideologues on both side will simply create a situation of the most ineffective compromise.

Indeed.

I'd say "unfortunately, I agree with you" or "regrettably, I agree with you", but

I'm realizing that even the mention of unfortune or regret is simply a matter of nuance in terms of how things actually work.

[discojoe]

Global warming is nonsense. Nothing needs to be done because there is no problem.

[UDP]

Global warming is nonsense. Nothing needs to be done because there is no problem.

Why don't you tell me how you really feel, stop with this pretense so as to not hurt my feelings!

[Jimbean]

ITZ ALL A KONSPEARASEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Sorry...I had to say it.

It is actually...


Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the
editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the
publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach
is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their
journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation
under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since
whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is
how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to
sign such a letter -- 50+ people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch

[mu4]

It is actually...


Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable



Hans von Storch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He said that global warming exists:

* Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. [1]

He is also known for his article in Der Spiegel in which he warns against exaggerated reports by scientists which want to catch the attention of public. He states in this article that:

* "Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information." [2]

* "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[1]

It's stupid to say that there is no such thing as greenhouse effect or climate change, of course there's climate change and humans are a factor in it no doubt. How much, what policies and etc are what's important. In the creation of more efficient technology, new methodology and regulation against the excesses of industrialization, these are important contributions to the enviromental effort that's beyond the alarmists.

Most of the people who are really heavily into debunking climate change are actually in a real conspiracy to deregulate industry and these are the same people that hide toxic waste dumping amongst other reprehensible activities. Their motives are even more reprehensible then the alarmists.

Unfortunately there are many people like discojoe who are pretty much resentful losers who feel a great deal of envy towards the intellectuals and liberal middle class who are typically better looking, higher earning and more educated. These losers are basically manipulated by a very sophisticated and self-interested group of wealthy industrialists who wish to earn more money and pad their own pockets. See the listing for Rupert Murdoch. As a group these people are the same that protested integration in schools, flooded out of the cities after desegregation and a collection of fascist leaning degenerates.

Ok.. ok.. maybe that's a bit harsh, I have to give they are mostly just average people who are trying to live a decent life but their resentment and natural inclinations is very easily manipulated into movements like the Tea Party, etc.

[07490]

hmm... Imagine 50 years from now, We are all dead because of global warming, then we look back at this thread...

[ragnar]

50 years from now, We are all dead ..., then we look back at this thread...

[Park]

hmm... Imagine 50 years from now, We are all dead because of global warming, then we look back at this thread...

This sentence is totally worth the laughs.

[Jimbean]

Unfortunately there are many people like discojoe who are pretty much resentful losers who feel a great deal of envy towards the intellectuals and liberal middle class who are typically better looking, higher earning and more educated. These losers are basically manipulated by a very sophisticated and self-interested group of wealthy industrialists who wish to earn more money and pad their own pockets. See the listing for Rupert Murdoch. As a group these people are the same that protested integration in schools, flooded out of the cities after desegregation and a collection of fascist leaning degenerates.

Please explain this better.

[tcaudilllg]

He said that global warming exists:

* Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. [1]

He is also known for his article in Der Spiegel in which he warns against exaggerated reports by scientists which want to catch the attention of public. He states in this article that:

* "Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information." [2]

* "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[1]

It's stupid to say that there is no such thing as greenhouse effect or climate change, of course there's climate change and humans are a factor in it no doubt. How much, what policies and etc are what's important. In the creation of more efficient technology, new methodology and regulation against the excesses of industrialization, these are important contributions to the enviromental effort that's beyond the alarmists.

Most of the people who are really heavily into debunking climate change are actually in a real conspiracy to deregulate industry and these are the same people that hide toxic waste dumping amongst other reprehensible activities. Their motives are even more reprehensible then the alarmists.

Unfortunately there are many people like discojoe who are pretty much resentful losers who feel a great deal of envy towards the intellectuals and liberal middle class who are typically better looking, higher earning and more educated. These losers are basically manipulated by a very sophisticated and self-interested group of wealthy industrialists who wish to earn more money and pad their own pockets. See the listing for Rupert Murdoch. As a group these people are the same that protested integration in schools, flooded out of the cities after desegregation and a collection of fascist leaning degenerates.

^ this

Global warming is real. Mankind is a major cause of it. Airborn toxins aren't going anywhere, they've shown that in the lab, with chemistry.

I agree that the anti-global warming people should be frozen out of science journals. Same bunch which said we should deregulate the banks.

[mu4]

Please explain this better.

See the similarity...

[discojoe]

Please explain this better.

Don't bother. Attempts by liberals to logically defend their views almost inevitably end up as nothing more than straw men, name-calling, and character assassination.

Saying that my factually based global warming stance occupies the same moral altitude as the racial views of anti-integration southerners is a classic example of this kind of behavior.

No, I'm not a racist. Yes, global warming is false. No, I'm not uneducated.

Global warming proponents: In twenty years I will be LMAO @ U.

[discojoe]

The global warming con is funny as shit. What a bunch of fucking morons.

[Jarno]

There are some electronic files that had been stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week. The U.N. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) had said that the evidence was unequivocal, despite the fact that there is no consensus within the scientific community.

actually a professor of climat and wheather in the university in my country, openly sais that there are a lot of questions about the climat that cannot be answered yet. Which makes every conclusion nothing more then somewhat of a guess.

So it's common knowledge that you cannot say anything reasonable about the changing climat.

Though that they are faking numbers in order to conclude thins is a bad thing...

[olduser]

actually a professor of climat and wheather in the university in my country, openly sais that there are a lot of questions about the climat that cannot be answered yet. Which makes every conclusion nothing more then somewhat of a guess.

So it's common knowledge that you cannot say anything reasonable about the changing climat.

Though that they are faking numbers in order to conclude thins is a bad thing...

Hypotheses, not guesses, based on the available data. I wouldn't question the available data as it doesn't take much of a scientist to operate modern scientific equipment if it's calibrated correctly.

I can't say i know a lot about the science of climate change. I know there has been a large increase of CO2 gas in the atmosphere and that CO2 absorbs in the UV range which would cause it to gain kinetic energy via UV rays from the sun reflecting off the planet(UV rays are also bombarding us in increasing number due to loss of ozone, which absorbs ultraviolet radation, this causes skin cancer, and genetic mutation, the mutation being good or bad, also slightly negligible because so so many things cause genetic mutation), and the average kinetic energy of a quantity of gas, like the gases of the atmosphere, IS temperature. However, I am taking an upper division lecture next semester on environmental chemistry, which not be focused on 'hot topics' necessarily as it will focus on environmental chemistry, and from this i could probably draw more scientific conclusions about things.

What i will say is there is an obvious push in the country to find alternative energies. My university is VERY dependent on two types of grants; military and energy company grants. we have a school dedicated to energy resources. And even within the chemistry department we have several people researching methods to make a hydrogen economy more feasible.

Anyway, it is most politicians who outright deny athropomorphic effects on the environment. I think it is hard for the common, uneducated person to understand that there are not always definite answers.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

There's two ways you can control human beings, and both are morally unforgiveable.

You can either control people through money, by creating a culture where people just spend and spend and spend and don't think about things. Which just makes rich old republican men richer and in the end does nothing at all, whatsoever to help anybody else. You must also make things sound better than what they really are, and you make people feel guilty for being a human. You must put an unnecessary positive spin on things which exists only to vamprically and sociopathically give your hard-earned money to somebody who dosen't need it. Like that spoiled old rich lady wondering why people from the ghetto can't just 'get over it.' This is the republican capitalist way.

Or you can control people by institutionalizing information, through a destructive form of socialism or extreme communism. This requires lies like 'the world is ending' or getting us all to fight one another (Making us all fight and then claiming that you have a solution for the social conflict, and repeated again until everybody 'shares' through a cycle of hatred). You must also create a lot of infighting and bureaucracy and unnecessary self-loathing and making certain groups of people as eternal victims for political gain. You also have to unfairly target people who get rich ethically, and totally ignore how competition is natural and normal. This is the democratic socialist way.

[tcaudilllg]

There\'s two ways you can control human beings, and both are morally unforgiveable.

You can either control people through money, by creating a culture where people just spend and spend and spend and don\'t think about things. Which just makes rich old republican men richer and in the end does nothing at all, whatsoever to help anybody else. You must also make things sound better than what they really are, and you make people feel guilty for being a human. You must put an unnecessary positive spin on things which exists only to vamprically and sociopathically give your hard-earned money to somebody who dosen\'t need it. Like that spoiled old rich lady wondering why people from the ghetto can\'t just \'get over it.\' This is the republican capitalist way.

Or you can control people by institutionalizing information, through a destructive form of socialism or extreme communism. This requires lies like \'the world is ending\' or getting us all to fight one another (Making us all fight and then claiming that you have a solution for the social conflict, and repeated again until everybody \'shares\' through a cycle of hatred). You must also create a lot of infighting and bureaucracy and unnecessary self-loathing and making certain groups of people as eternal victims for political gain. You also have to unfairly target people who get rich ethically, and totally ignore how competition is natural and normal. This is the democratic socialist way.

Yeah I can see how political extremists would use those tactics. Do pray tell tell us about how rebels and imperialists control us.

[Rick]

Review of the "Climategate" e-mails and an official inquiry into the problems therein:

http://climateprogress.org/wp-conten...bargoedv21.pdf

summary of the above: House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones Climate Progress

[crazedrat]

Nice to find out with such certainty. Usually these things are left so vague you can't make up your mind. I never worried too much about it, to be honest.