Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[Guest Sundancefisher]

It shows that they purposely manipulated data and tried to silence critics... Files and emails hacked...probably by an insider.

 

Unbelieveable could it be true?

 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb...ey_hacked#63657

 

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012684.html

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29...aprediction.htm

 

Wow...if this is legit...wow...wow...wow...

 

My thoughts all along was just individuals providing a study that will get them paid. IPCC has all the money and therefore will pay them...if it is pro global warming.

 

A leading group trying to hide the truth...well...I have to laugh...they made total fools of pretty much every major government in the world who did not take it upon themselves to do legitimate research on their own dime but rather funnel all their money to these guys to control.

 

People need to shake their heads cause the old say..."power corrupts absolutely".

 

Power is money...and money is certainly being made here.

 

Sun

 

[midgetwaiter]

It shows that they purposely manipulated data and tried to silence critics... Files and emails hacked...probably by an insider.

 

I saw this on the AO forum this morning and downloaded the archive.

 

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

 

The zip archive contains a bunch of documents and some emails in text files. A quick look at the emails shows that they contain no SMTP header information, meaning they didn't come from a message store on a server because a server will always store that information. Given that and the fact that there are documents included the compromised machine was probably a desktop belonging to one of the scientists. It is possible that the email client software didn't store any header information or it was removed through some soft of export process.

 

The problem is that while most of the message are either to or from p.jones@uea.ac.uk there are many messages that are not to, from or cc'd to that address (or even that domain) so how would they end up in the same message store? Convenient that the headers are missing, it makes them impossible to authenticate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I saw this on the AO forum this morning and downloaded the archive.

 

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

 

The zip archive contains a bunch of documents and some emails in text files. A quick look at the emails shows that they contain no SMTP header information, meaning they didn't come from a message store on a server because a server will always store that information. Given that and the fact that there are documents included the compromised machine was probably a desktop belonging to one of the scientists. It is possible that the email client software didn't store any header information or it was removed through some soft of export process.

 

The problem is that while most of the message are either to or from p.jones@uea.ac.uk there are many messages that are not to, from or cc'd to that address (or even that domain) so how would they end up in the same message store? Convenient that the headers are missing, it makes them impossible to authenticate.

 

maybe due to being cc'd or bcc'd?

 

Either way...his one computer...has opened a pandoras box and rightfully so.

[canadensis]

You don't need to hack into anyones computer to realize that we are being hosed by the global warming zealots.

 

Just log onto environment Canada's website and look through the temperature archives...

[canadensis]

Has anyone heard if this was a hoax or not?

 

I would think that if the allegations were false and it all made-up there would have been a press release?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Has anyone heard if this was a hoax or not?

 

I would think that if the allegations were false and it all made-up there would have been a press release?

 

I wonder that also but the press needs to print what will make money...it will take a tidal wave to change the direction of this rolling ball...or a big wall.

 

Eventually it will happen.

 

But I still would like to know what other news is out their on this.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...XfyeMgD9C441LG0

 

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/cru...n-commissioner/

 

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=308

 

In thinking more on this I have to say that without lack of a credible response by these guys that were hacked...they are obviously hoping that no response may make people believe it is a hoax. Commenting will validate this more and more. Therefore the less is said the more I will believe.

 

Sun

[alhuger]

 

Just when I thought my day would go without humor you guys picked me right up! Thanks. I knew I could count on you guys. Wait, you are joking right? Please add more to to the forensics portion of this thread - that was my favorite part.

[canadensis]

Just when I thought my day would go without humor you guys picked me right up! Thanks. I knew I could count on you guys. Wait, you are joking right? Please add more to to the forensics portion of this thread - that was my favorite part.

 

What will come out of the wash in the next few years is how the Inconvenient Truth should have been nominated for the best comedy film in 2006.

[Christofficer]

Has anyone heard if this was a hoax or not?

 

I would think that if the allegations were false and it all made-up there would have been a press release?

It most certainly wouldn't be a press release, a very large handful of the world including the media has been hyping this BS for years. Under these circumstances, they'd be basically reporting on how badly everyone was played up for a fool. And that's if they don't do what they're told by the higher-ups.

 

Besides that, it is confirmed by the man himself his computers were hacked, and all stolen documents are real. Now they're trying to say the files are misinterpreted, which is complete BS because it's all written in plain english they've been falsifying their statistics for nearly 40 years, there's no way they can be misinterpreted. What more proof do we need? LOL

 

 

Hackers can be shitty, sometimes hackers can do some brilliant work.

[TerryH]

Here's some more interesting reading:

 

After Copenhagen, the end of the science

 

Climategate

 

Myron Ebell: CRU's climate 'tricks'

 

 

 

[SupremeLeader]

Here's some more interesting reading:

 

After Copenhagen, the end of the science

 

Climategate

 

Myron Ebell: CRU's climate 'tricks'

 

 

It is completely illogical to deny that converting 60 million barrels / day (of a substance that's been underground for millions of years) into gaseous and toxic substances does not affect our climate.

[alhuger]

Here's some more interesting reading:

 

After Copenhagen, the end of the science

 

Climategate

 

Myron Ebell: CRU's climate 'tricks'

 

Awesome, keep it coming! For those with a critical eye I would also include:

 

 

Narnia - The other planet with no global warning

How you can classify denying climate change in the face of mind boggling amounts of science which tells you otherwise..

What you might expect from people on this topic who get their rent paid from the Energy industry

 

[canadensis]

It is completely illogical to deny that converting 60 million barrels / day (of a substance that's been underground for millions of years) into gaseous and toxic substances does not affect our climate.

 

Just like volcanoes and forest fires.

 

 

[rehsifylf]

Awesome, keep it coming! For those with a critical eye I would also include:

 

 

Narnia - The other planet with no global warning

How you can classify denying climate change in the face of mind boggling amounts of science which tells you otherwise..

What you might expect from people on this topic who get their rent paid from the Energy industry

 

If anyone but Al Gore was fronting this effort, I'd at least have some confidence that the cause was noble (horribly misguided, but at least noble). I don't think I've ever seen or heard a more whiny politician that I would trustt less (Layton, on his worst days maybe).

 

 

[TerryH]

Awesome, keep it coming! ................

No problem -- glad to help out. Terry

 

Cooking the Climate Books

Let the Climate Debate Begin

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Awesome, keep it coming! For those with a critical eye I would also include:

 

 

Narnia - The other planet with no global warning

How you can classify denying climate change in the face of mind boggling amounts of science which tells you otherwise..

What you might expect from people on this topic who get their rent paid from the Energy industry

 

LOL...

 

However if this hack job is real...and it seems they are trying to be extra quiet and hope it goes away...then all three of the joke links are washed away in a torrent of real facts.

 

Facts that these so called scientific groups are lying, hiding, manipulating, threatening, etc... is just so insulting to true science...it is mind boggling. Surely if this was not true then they would of had massive press releases, refuting, providing evidence, hosting open houses etc. Instead...dead silence. Does that not strike you as totally odd?

 

There is an agenda Al...huger...Gore

 

But while I am clearly skeptical of this whole global warming thing...it is just because there is so much conflicting actual facts that even the IPCC admit.

 

Please answer this one and only one question of mine.

 

If the IPCC showed the hockey stick graph and the end all be all of our doom and gloom and climate's upward spiral...then why and how on Earth they can still say that (since in fact they now admit there was a typo in their numbers and the average Earth temperate has been decreasing for the past 10 years)? They say this...they print this...they admit this...but they ignore this. They ignore their own major point of the hockey stick graph as the defining proof even though they now say it is bogus.

 

I am sorry but as a trained scientist it all smacks of keep the ball moving so no one knows where is really is sitting. Confuse and confuse and the general public have nothing else to do but believe.

 

When you read these emails...this is the exact path they seem to be taking.

[headscan]

If anyone but Al Gore was fronting this effort, I'd at least have some confidence that the cause was noble (horribly misguided, but at least noble). I don't think I've ever seen or heard a more whiny politician that I would trustt less (Layton, on his worst days maybe).

Yes because Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are so much more credible and trustworthy.

[headscan]

However if this hack job is real...and it seems they are trying to be extra quiet and hope it goes away...then all three of the joke links are washed away in a torrent of real facts.

 

Facts that these so called scientific groups are lying, hiding, manipulating, threatening, etc... is just so insulting to true science...it is mind boggling. Surely if this was not true then they would of had massive press releases, refuting, providing evidence, hosting open houses etc. Instead...dead silence. Does that not strike you as totally odd?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalwe...mate_scien.html

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/

 

 

[canadensis]

Just like O&G, logging, mining, etc.. The whole Global Warming theory has now become an industry. The Global Warming theorists are just protecting their bread and butter. Nothing can be spun moreso than scientific data, on both sides.

 

Global warming industry becomes too big to fail

By: Timothy P. Carney

Examiner Columnist

November 25, 2009 "I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measur[e]ments here in the UK -- looking promising," wrote Andrew Manning, a climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia, "so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases."

 

Manning's e-mail, written in October to a colleague at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit, was one of the thousands of private communiques exposed to public view by a whistleblower or a hacker. The note and others like it reveal the intriguing relationship between industry giants like Siemens and the scientists driving climate change fears. More importantly, though, Manning's e-mail shows the incentives of climate scientists: Convince people there is a climate disaster coming, get more money.

 

Manning and the warming crowd benefit from a beautiful feedback loop: The more governments, businesses, and media outlets you can convince that man-made global warming is a serious threat, the more these institutions will invest in climate change studies, solutions, and policies. And the more they invest in combating global warming -- whether it's a newspaper hiring a climate reporter, a company buying emissions credits and alternative energy sources, or a government building a climate lab -- the less willing they are to tolerate dissent on the issue.

 

So the warming crowd, these e-mails show us, suffers from the same conflicts of interest and profit motives that are frequently attributed to skeptics. When Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, Gore charged that global warming deniers were trying to protect profits. Gore quoted fabled muckraker Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it."

 

Climate scientists derive both their sense of purpose and their paychecks from a perceived climate crisis. We shouldn't be surprised, then, to see them putting their pet cause ahead of scientific standards. For instance, climate scientist Giorgio Filippo in a 2000 e-mail wrote about the drafting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessment of climate research: "Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent, which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."

 

These are the scientists who drive climate policy.

 

Some critics writing about the leaked e-mails say they expose a "fraud," a "hoax," and a conspiracy. The warming crowd claim that everything is being taken out of context.

 

But Manning's e-mail cannot be ignored, because it is self-evidently true. If the catastrophic-man-made-climate-change hypothesis melted down, these scientists would lose their funding.

 

Atlantic blogger Megan McArdle probably put it best: "That doesn't mean their paradigm is wrong; rather, it means we need to be less romantic about the practice of science. No scientific consensus is ever as powerful as its proponents claim, because no scientists are ever as perfect as we'd like to imagine."

 

And scientists aren't the only ones with skin in the game. Take manufacturing and transportation giant Siemens, for instance, whom Manning was wooing. In 2006, the company joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has been a key lobbyist for the sort of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade scheme at the heart of the climate bill currently before Congress. Siemens and other members of USCAP have invested billions in buying up greenhouse gas credits, alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, and carbon capture and sequestration (the attempt to trap CO2 underground). E-mails show CRU scientists pushing corporate donors to fund their climate science as a way of advancing carbon capture.

 

Governments have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into climate research. News organizations have staked their credibility on the claim that climate science is "settled." With all this on the line for scientists, media, business, and government, are we really going to let some contrary data get in the way?

 

The leaked e-mails don't necessarily show a conspiracy, but they do show that the industry built upon belief in man-made global warming has become too big to fail.

 

 

Timothy P. Carney, The Examiner's lobbying editor, can be reached at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. He writes an op-ed column that appears on Friday.

 

 

[reevesr1]

Never understood the rancor against Gore. Unless someone bought into the right wing bs that he ever said "I invented the internet". Total BS on the part of the Republican party. Here is a quote from the man who is considered the "father of the internet" defending Gore: Vint Cerf response on MSNBC

 

So Gore grew up rich, like Bush. Grew up in a political family, like Bush. Went to Vietnam, very much unlike Bush who to some reports spent his military career drunk a lot and in Alabama. Won the popular vote in a presidential election against Bush.

 

So where exactly is the lack of credibility? He seems committed to what he is doing. Don't give me the weak crap about how big his house is (rich and always has been, remember). He spends much of his time working for something that, to all appearances, he completely believes in. He has never seemed the type to me that did things for personal gain. He didn't need to. Whether or not you agree with his position should not mean you should doubt his commitment or credibility.

 

[canadensis]

I see the whole global warming “debate”, industry, or whatever you want to call it very similar to the long gun registry here in Canada.

 

When the whole debate first started with registering long guns we were promised less crime, it would only cost a couple million, etc.. And generally worth it because of the long term gain.

 

Now that we have some history with it we know the reason it was implemented is bunk. It cost in the BILLIONS, and effectively had zero effect on reducing crime.

 

But now we have a community that we have created an industry in Merimishee, albeit a unneeded industry based on actuality, that rely on the registry to support their families.

 

A small, be parallel example of how an industry is created from bunk…

 

I bet the next phase is as more of the untruths are uncovered is we should hold truefast on this path, `just in case`as the possibility of Global Warming is too great to ignore and we have already developed a road map to possibly reduce it... And you can not ignore the name change to `climate change`..

[canadensis]

So where exactly is the lack of credibility? He seems committed to what he is doing. Don't give me the weak crap about how big his house is (rich and always has been, remember). He spends much of his time working for something that, to all appearances, he completely believes in. He has never seemed the type to me that did things for personal gain. He didn't need to. Whether or not you agree with his position should not mean you should doubt his commitment or credibility.

 

C`mon Rick. Al Gore is the biggest Global Warming huckster out there. And yes it is pretty tough to respect someone who does not walk the walk when they pedal all the doom and gloom that Gore spoon feeds the media.

 

At least Suzuki lives by the credo he puts forth...

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Never understood the rancor against Gore. Unless someone bought into the right wing bs that he ever said "I invented the internet". Total BS on the part of the Republican party. Here is a quote from the man who is considered the "father of the internet" defending Gore: Vint Cerf response on MSNBC

 

So Gore grew up rich, like Bush. Grew up in a political family, like Bush. Went to Vietnam, very much unlike Bush who to some reports spent his military career drunk a lot and in Alabama. Won the popular vote in a presidential election against Bush.

 

So where exactly is the lack of credibility? He seems committed to what he is doing. Don't give me the weak crap about how big his house is (rich and always has been, remember). He spends much of his time working for something that, to all appearances, he completely believes in. He has never seemed the type to me that did things for personal gain. He didn't need to. Whether or not you agree with his position should not mean you should doubt his commitment or credibility.

 

I will say one thing I agree with is that he seems to have come from money...which is irrelevant.

 

However to say he does not want more...like supposedly 99% of people in North America is a little to presumptuous. I suspect the more money he makes the happier he is. The more money he makes in the global warming business the more power he gets. More money = more power. Like anyone he has a multi high millions of dollars in profit coming from global warming businesses. As such he would be plain dumb to not protect it and rather promote it above all else. I don't fault him for it and quite frankly I expect it and respect it. Protecting your job when you own the business just makes sense.

 

That being said it does not mean he is any less or more credible than a farmer growing tobacco or tobacco companies selling cancer sticks.

 

In the end...it is you and I that will pay for global warming one way or another... I just want to pay with the correct knowledge in front of us.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Here is a quote from someone else...

 

"From what I’ve seen of all this so far, I do think that, contrary to what some of the most excitable on the web have been saying, nothing in the hacked files (as yet) has done any sort of death blow to AGW theory. On the other hand, and contrary to what the “warmists” say, there is plenty in the hacked files that is embarrassing at the least, if not outright damaging.

 

Basically, the emails pretty clearly demonstrate ongoing and concerted efforts by a small clique of highly influential paleoclimatologists to: stifle dissent by (in effect) blacklisting journals and editors that publish skeptical papers; and, to circumvent freedom of information laws with regards to their own work. Many had suspected all of this, of course, but now it’s been shown pretty conclusively.

 

There appears to also have been some effort to hide the now apparent truth that tree ring chronologies do not correlate with temperatures very well, particularly after 1960, and that artificial data was likely grafted on to such chronologies after 1960 in many published studies and IPCC reports. This is important because a big part of the “we must act now” case as presented by the IPCC is built on the foundation that these chronologies show that the past four decades have warmed at an unprecedented rate to unprecedented new heights. If the chronologies are wrong, much of that case vanishes. While there is no evidence yet that the pre-1960 chronologies are wrong, there are many, many people asking serious questions about them. I mean, if they don’t work post 1960, what makes anyone think they work pre-1960? It is also clear that efforts have been made to hide or minimize the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to make the current warm trend seem even more extreme – very misleading if not downright fraudulent.

 

What is of more interest to me than the emails is the code and data that were also included in the hack. All that stuff is exceedingly complex and will take a LONG time for people to go through it and see what it says. Maybe it will confirm what these scientists have been saying, maybe serious flaws will be found. No one knows yet. That part is gonna take months.

 

From my perspective, I suspect we may see some action taken on the FOI stuff, and I’d bet a lot of related journals are reviewing their editorial and peer review practices, which may help competing viewpoints and scientific dissent find a better airing. This will be a good thing. I think the claim of “science is settled consensus” is now rather in tatters, too, when it’s obvious the consensus was derived through behavior such as noted above.

 

So, breath of fresh air, at least… but it remains to be seen whether it’s much beyond that.

 

If you are really interested in digging in to some of the details, I recommend this site:

 

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/"

 

kinda summarizes nicely in a nut shell.

 

 

 

[reevesr1]

C`mon Rick. Al Gore is the biggest Global Warming huckster out there. And yes it is pretty tough to respect someone who does not walk the walk when they pedal all the doom and gloom that Gore spoon feeds the media.

 

At least Suzuki lives by the credo he puts forth...

 

I don't agree. I think he completely believes what he is saying. Whether or not you agree with his politics, it's hard to see where he is doing this for his own benefit. And while I've never claimed any sort of expertise on this subject, and don't know why I wasted my time on this subject again, the preponderance of the evidence is certainly on his side. Doesn't make him correct, but doesn't make him wrong either. By the way, he's donated 100% of the profits of the book to spreading his message. I don't see the personal gain. If anyone tells me how much he's making on the speaking circuit (and I have no idea if he does or not), I would counter with he would have made that anyway. He was VP, and won a presidential election, almost.