For nothing? It only takes a couple of e-mails where leading scientists make up data / skew reality, or admit they can’t prove stuff to discredit them.
Even if this is true I find it funy that you believe i will change anything… Or any significant amount of anything.
I have already seen it change things, many of my friends, and myself have started to circulate this information all around the globe, we’r eseeding the documents on thepiratebay and people who were uncertain of AGW are now on our side. This could be huge.
Wow, I find that pretty incredible.
Maybe it makes sense. Consider that the ‘financial crises’ implies there’s less government funding for propaganda, brainwashing and ‘scientific’ fraud.
NewLiberty, thanks for that collection of links. And Le Master, thanks for that great find. I just
[quoted your posts]
(http://blog.mises.org/archives/011078.asp) on the Mises Blog as this week’s edition of my weekly Forum roundup/update.
Sweet! From “Richard” commenting on the blog…
“http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/ - searchable CRU email database”
Non-torrent download available here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T
(That’s where I got my copy.)
The Wall Street Journal printed this about the situation. Gives insight into the tactics thought of and sometimes used:
"Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as “prats” and “utter prats.” In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was “very tempted” to “beat the crap out of” a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with…
More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled “FOIA,” a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public."
Harvard University PhD candidate Monika Kopacz insists global warming scientists have a duty to lie:
It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.
It made it in the Sunday morning newspapers… at page 30! Dr Goebbels is now saying that “ever since Global Warming has been proven to be a truth” so the believers should not worry about this “inconvenient leak” but it’s no mystery this is a setback for Global Warmers since it has proved many of their ranks are nothing more than bullies and liars ready to do anything to push their petty projects on the world (what a surprise).
Thanks to all of those who are helping fight one of the most dangerous movements to be seen in recent years. [Y]
Then there is also the email (
Oops: 1219239172
Email claiming IPCC is exempted from Freedom of Information laws anywhere.
So despite all this we’re still going to get steamrolled with fairy tales of climate doom and cap n tax.
Has anyone heard any updates on this? Perhaps some legal recourse against the liars?
i’ve heard that some countries have been walking in and out of the meetings throughout. But the doom on you crowd pulls them back in with scare tactics. Anyways i didn’t read the whole argument but did notice they are also walking out because they want more ‘power’ put into the treaty that in their words, ‘doesn’t only benefit the developed countries’. I know it’s already passed though. Two weeks before Copenhagen oil based paint over 1 quart was pulled from the shelves because of Copenhagen.
Here’s an interesting piece about Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC. He’s an incredibly busy man, who is mostly busy with interests that run counter to AGW orthodoxy…
A couple of events had occurred at Copenhagen that were captured on video.
It looks as if they’re getting desperate:
The AGW crowd’s standards for interpersonal conduct has never been lower. What better time to reflect this than at Copenhagen after Climategate?
Where can I find climatic raw data that disproves IPCCs claims?
Here’s a good starting place.
Not exactly raw data, lol. Finding the stuff he speaks about wasn’t that easy.