Hacked email accounts reveal scientists were lying about global warming

[Bill Mattocks]

Interesting...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
...
The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence policy makers around the world.
...
A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."
...
Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.

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.

When it is finally revealed that this whole issue of anthropogenic global warming is one big canard, a fake, a fraud, and utterly without merit...I am going to have myself a good long laugh at the expense of the bleeding hearts. I'll buy two SUV's and strap one to each foot. I'll spray cans of aerosols into the air just because. Hahahahaha.

 

[Sukerkin]

A little over the top there Bill :lol:.

Climate change is happening and it is not a surprise to hear that there has been dissent in the ranks - you should hear the rows that Newton got into, let alone Einstein.

Personally, I have held steady to the idea that the changes required by the 'anthorpogenic' camp to just be sensible anyway, given the scarcity of the resources involved. Some elements have pushed for ridiculous things that harm more than they help e.g. CAT's on every car exhaust, no lead in the fuel, no coal fired power stations et al. Those are the problems. Greater efficiency, less resource use and less environmental damage are only common sense at the end of the day.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A little over the top there Bill :lol:.

Climate change is happening and it is not a surprise to hear that there has been dissent in the ranks - you should hear the rows that Newton got into, let alone Einstein.

Personally, I have held steady to the idea that the changes required by the 'anthorpogenic' camp to just be sensible anyway, given the scarcity of the resources involved. Some elements have pushed for ridiculous things that harm more than they help e.g. CAT's on every car exhaust, no lead in the fuel, no coal fired power stations et al. Those are the problems. Greater efficiency, less resource use and less environmental damage are only common sense at the end of the day.

Climate change is happening. I'm still a little unclear how it came to be something we caused, or alternatively, something we can correct.

And disputes between scientists? No problem. Aggressive attempts to stifle opposition? Also normal. However, when the leaders of the world pronounce with straight faces that this is 'settled science' and that virtually every climate scientist agrees that global climate warming is real and we caused it - oops. That would be a lie.

Not over the top. They got caught with their hands up the puppet's backside, is all.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ah I get you. Well that would be the politicians that lied then surely?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ah I get you. Well that would be the politicians that lied then surely?

Absolutely, but remember that they were lied to first. Once it became a political issue, it took on a life of its own. So at first, it was scientists raising the alarm to politicians and world leaders. Then it was impossible to climb down, once the politicos got their teeth into it.

This is an ugly thing. We're going to end up spending trillions of dollars to 'fix' a problem that we didn't create, and that (IMHO) stands precious little chance of being 'fixed' by us anyway.

 

[Makalakumu]

Ban Ki-Moon admitted that the Copenhagen summit would be used to turn the UN into a "Green" global government. The allocation of resources and the industry of various areas would be controlled by the UN-IMF-World Bank. That's the political agenda behind the global warming debate. It's not a scientific issue anymore. Now it serves a purpose.

 

[Makalakumu]

After all of the flame wars, after all of the money spent by these huge foundations, after all of the time I wasted trying to argue for this...it turns out that the scientists were lying the entire time. I jumped on the skeptic band wagon a few years ago when the UN started to push for a complete de-industrialization of the first world complete with "re-wilding" and all of this apocalyptic Green stuff started coming out. This is the nail in the coffin. As far as I'm concerned, the debate is over. Global warming is dead and people need to wake up and realize this.

These e-mails PROVE they have been lying the entire time. They have been targeting critics for persecution. They've attempted to link climate change skeptics with holocaust deniers. Enough is enough. It's over.

WAKE UP!!!

 

[Bruno@MT]

Except these mails were found to be doctored and taken out of context. If the latter is debatable, the former is not.
Good thing you didn't jump to conclusions yet.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Except these mails were found to be doctored and taken out of context. If the latter is debatable, the former is not.
Good thing you didn't jump to conclusions yet.

I'd like to see a link to anything you have showing the emails were modified rather than posted verbatim. So far, all I've seen (on both left and right-wing oriented websites and so on) have been attempts by the people affected to explain why their statements are being taken out of context (your second point) and not that they were untrue or that they never said that.

I agree with 'taken out of context' being a concern. And if they've been modified before being posted, then of course they prove nothing at all. So I'd be glad to see your link to where they were "found to be doctored" if you don't mind.

Thanks!

 

[Big Don]

But, it has to be caused by man. If it is natural and cyclical there isn't a way to make money and take power from it, without looking like, well, an ***.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I'd like to see a link to anything you have showing the emails were modified rather than posted verbatim. So far, all I've seen (on both left and right-wing oriented websites and so on) have been attempts by the people affected to explain why their statements are being taken out of context (your second point) and not that they were untrue or that they never said that.

I agree with 'taken out of context' being a concern. And if they've been modified before being posted, then of course they prove nothing at all. So I'd be glad to see your link to where they were "found to be doctored" if you don't mind.

Thanks!

Have you ever posted something which you KNEW you had read, and then later you can't find it anymore?
It just happened to me. GAAAAH.
I know for sure that I read it on my regular (flemmish) news site, yet the article is not there anymore. They regularly remove stuff that is older than a day, probably to get people to actually buy the newspaper.

Short of it: I can't find it anymore. I found lots of -speculation- that they could have been doctored, I found statements that they were spin-doctored, but nothing indicating that they actually were doctored.

What I did find was that the mailed themselves were taken out of context, written by people assuming privacy, and quoted only partially in some cases.
I am pretty sure I've written stuff that can be taken out of context.

In any case, I apologise for not having included he link immediately. I should have done so because now I can't bloody find it anymore.

 

[Deaf Smith]

You guys here the New York Times (NYT), the pargon of virtue, said today they would not publish the hacked emails cause, "We Won't Publish Statements That Were Never Intended for the Public Eye".

Yea, they are ones that leaked the "Pentagon Papers"and over the years all kinds of Anti-Bush information, why they all the sudden have this fit of virtue!

It simply means all the liberals know the game is up. Global Warming is a hucksters dream. It made Al Gore $300 million. It made GE Billions. It made, well fools out of alot of people.

Oh, and two nights ago I let the dogs out to wee at about 1 AM. IT WAS SNOWING. Yes here in Texas. Pretty much East Texas. Not big snow but little stuff. I wondered if Al Gore had came to town!

Deaf

 

[Makalakumu]

Except these mails were found to be doctored and taken out of context. If the latter is debatable, the former is not.
Good thing you didn't jump to conclusions yet.

The closest thing that I could find of that was that The Guardian insinuated that the e-mails might have been tampered with. The University is saying that they are being taken out of context.

At any rate, here's some quotes from the "e-mails" they are easy to find. It's a 60 MB zip file.

"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."

"It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?"

"In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC."

"2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this."

"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!!"

I seriously don't feel like I'm jumping to conclusions. I started having some major doubts in 2004. Before then, I was a true believer. I've got articles that I wrote from back then that I can only shake my head at now.

 

[Archangel M]

To some people questioning "global warming" is akin to questioning the religion of a true believer.

 

[Deaf Smith]

To some people questioning "global warming" is akin to questioning the religion of a true believer.

And questioning Obama's ability is like questioning Jesus. After all, Obama does feel he's been sent by God.

I feel Obama and Gore are in for a rough night in Jericho. And about time.

Deaf

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's another thing. As soon as I found out about this, I downloaded the original zipfile. I suspect that in a few days, we'll be seeing "new material" inserted into these files and attempts to discredit the whole bunch will be attempted.

The other thing is that individuals involved admit that these are their e-mails. They claim they are being taken out of context, but they also say that yes, they said all of this. It's like any criminal spouting off before they get their story straight.

The gig is up and these guys have been caught red handed. These emails show that their was a conspiracy to demonize rivals, have scientists programs defunded, manipulate and control scientific journals, use statistics to hide negative data, completely fabricate data, and hide pertinent data. I'm going through these things and my head is spinning.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Have you ever posted something which you KNEW you had read, and then later you can't find it anymore?
It just happened to me. GAAAAH.

Not a problem, I'm hip. And for the record, if it turns out that the emails are doctored and not truthful, I'll be the first to eat crow. I agree with you that you can easily take certain things out of context, and that's bad. But what I've read so far seems to indicate a pattern of deception and really, it does not look good.

I have always been willing to believe in climate change. Hey, it happens. As a child, we talked about the coming ice age, and they still talk about in terms of a bigger picture - we are living in a 'bubble' that has extended much longer than last generation's climatologists thought would last. Some have even dared to whisper that this current global warming, if caused by humans might (dare I say it) be pushing back the onset of the next ice age.

I don't know, and I don't pretend to know. I have no confidence that man caused global warming and no confidence that man didn't. And that's the point for me, I guess. If we don't know, and there really isn't consensus here, then is it really a good idea to be spending these trillions of dollars on something that might not even be real?

The only argument I've gotten out of proponents of anthropogenic global warming is that 'there is consensus amongst scientists, so we should trust them'. And if that's not really true...

 

[Xinglu]

Even if it is all a sham, it won't stop me from making eco friendly choices. Just because we can **** where we sleep doesn't mean we should. :wink2:

I have always viewed the whole thing as a personal choice. You won't see me yelling at they guy driving a hummer. That's his choice.

 

[Sukerkin]

Like Bill, when I grew up the consensus was that there was going to be a new Ice Age in the not too distant future. I still hold that to be probably given that glaciation is generally presaged by warming leading to a tipping-point and inversion.

A colleague at work and I have argued this through so often that we have now reduced the debate to two phrases - I'll walk past his desk and simply say "Ice age!" to which he will reposte "Global Warming!" :lol:.

 

[crushing]

A colleague at work and I have argued this through so often that we have now reduced the debate to two phrases - I'll walk past his desk and simply say "Ice age!" to which he will reposte "Global Warming!" :lol:.

Fire and Ice
by Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.