All Your Emails Are Belong To Us (EXPOSED: Global Warming Fraud!!!)

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

Emails:

“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.” - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

“…it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.” - Michael Mann, Lead Author IPCC (2001)

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

“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.” - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

“…If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.” - Ben Santer, Lead Author IPCC (1995)

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” - Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)

Subject: John L. Daly [Skeptic] Dead

“…this is cheering news!” - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.” - Ben Santer, Lead Author IPCC (1995)

Resources:

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable
FOI2009.ZIP
Mike’s Nature Trick (Climate Audit)

ClimateGate and the Elitist Roots of Global Warming Alarmism (Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA)
The Death Blow to Climate Science (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology)

2

Thanks for this. I’ve heard about this on talk radio, but haven’t had a chance to see any of the incriminating evidence yet. This is definitely good stuff.

3

Call me stupid but I can’t really make out what this means, alot the quotes you provided don’t seem that bad.

4

Yeah, Climate Change is pretty clearly full of holes. Nice to have this leak to help show that.

Do you have a link to download the leak?

5

The “science” of anthropogenic global warming has always been weak at best. This is just another nail in the coffin for the green religion.

6

So what?

From a strictly scientific point of view trying to find ways to withhold data needed for peer review is worse than falsifying the data. Peer review is the basis of our present scientific method; these persons willingly went to great lengths to sabotage this process, with full backing from the editors of some of the once most prestigious scientific journals. Try that thing in, say, physical chemistry and see how far your academic career will go. That’s because physical chemistry, as vital as it is to any modern science, has no political weight; it has no powerful and rich patrons behind it ready to transform climatology, the Cinderella of physical and natural sciences, into such a huge hit to help further their petty dreams and political agenda.

But do you think it will stop your friendly government from doing its bit to “save the Earth”? Hours after the authors of some of these emails attempted a feeble defense the US and Australian governments entered into “overdrive mode” to push through CO2 related legislation. EU president in pectore Herbert Van Rompuy has already made clear he will strongly push for a pan-European CO2-based tax that will end up straight into the EU coffers. The various Gorettes of European politics are cheering wildly at the prospect of even more legislation and regulation. Yesterday a commercial aimed at making Europeans feel guilty about using air travel started to air… while silence fell over one of the major scientific scandals of the last twenty years.

Do you think governments give a damn about the truth? They can afford not to care. They are already salivating over the billions they’ll make by imposing CO2-related taxation. They are already thinking about all the people they’ll hire to ensure everybody will pay their due. They are already preparing to impose over China and India heavy penalties for “destroying the Earth”. Perhaps they are even contemplating going to war over their beloved polar bears.

Von Mises rightly warned his disciples that environmentalism is Socialism’s way to get back through the window after having been cast out from the door. How right he was (as usual)! Johnny Public still believes greenies are harmless sandal wearing, guitar playing hippies. Let’s see his face when he’ll suddenly discover these hippies wear suits costing his whole year salary and travel around in (carbon-neutral) armored cars and jet liners.

7

Climate change researchers conspired to destroy data that falsified global warming theory, which implies that they knew the theory was falsified.

Doesn’t matter anyway, they’ll just find some other excuse to keep the racket going. Once it was endangered species, then deforestation, global warming, now climate change is just all of them rolled into one racket.

8

Global carbon tax. Basing a world changing suicidal piece of legislation on the backs of fraud probably is not a good idea.

9

Also. Basing governmental policies that effect the individual’s property at any one place upon a science that is incomplete is again an example of positivism which places the will before reason. The same old willing something into existence, then it causes problems, then the government afterwards tries to reason what they had previously willed, and then again they will another legislation into existence that again was not reasoned first - but only willed first.

10

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/the-day-that-global-warming-died/8768

11

12

Why can’t they focus on something pollution actually does. Like all the health problems in cities from sulfur and nitrogen (di)oxides…

13

lol [:)]

14

I have to agree.

I read almost all the e-mails which took me what seemed like forever and admong the boring jargon I saw nothing incriminating.

Can someone explain what all the fuss is about?

15

  1. The emails are incredibly incriminating. Even Climate Change Believers are called for Phil Jones to resign. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/monbiot-issues-an-unprecedented-apology/

  2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

"You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.

Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result."

16

So manipulating data to hide that it shows the temperatures are actually declining is no big deal?

So refusing to release scientific data for independent verification via freedom of information act requests is no big deal?

So threatening to delete the data instead of complying with FOIA requests is no big deal?

So keeping peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW (man-made global warming) theory out of the IPCC reports is no big deal?

So colluding to get scientific journal editors removed who publish scientific papers skeptical of AGW theory is no big deal?

So the reality that all of this was being done by those who control the data for and actually write the IPCC reports is no big deal?

Please tell me what planet you are currently living on and what exactly would be “incriminating”?

17

Ok.I’ve been quite stupid about this.

I’m still unsure what to think.I agree that global warming is being used by the statists to expand the state and increase regulations etc and head towards world government.I also agree that most climate scientists are funded by the state so their hardly unbiased.It 's just really unclear which way the science leans -towards global warming happening ,not happening or happening but being nothing to worry about.I was also made more suspicious by the fact that AGW advocates have lied about polar bears populations -their not decreasing but are actually doing quite well.

So back to the topic. Do I think the E-mails prove global warming is false? No. All they tell us is that the scientists are incompetent( many of the emails describe scientists confusion with the data,it’s inaccuracies and its omissions) and possibly lying .Now this could be enough.It could be that the IPCC got their numbers wrong and the climate either isn’t warming, isn’t warming as fast or it is a natural occurence.If the scientists who wrote the e-mails haven’t corrected the errors found then this would be the case but that doesn’t mean global warming might not be true.

I think both sides have to be careful to avoid jumping too quickly to the conclusion their right- AGWers thinking the science is settled and skeptics saying the evidence disproves it or giving misleading counter arguments.For now I’d call myself a global warming agnostic.I naturally lean towards skepticism in this issue but If sciences proves me wrong I’ll become a non statist AGWer.

18

what would be incriminating would be an insider revealing people had lied about data or evidence and possibly presenting corrected data.

19

20

Remember Schumpeter’s warning. These people have the death sentence for capitalism in their front pocket, the only thing you can achieve is a change in the indictment.