Climate change skeptics use hacked emails as propaganda

The climate change skeptics are the paid agents of the fossil fuel industry who are bent on to spare no opportunity to thwart the alternative development of sustainable energy beneficial to mankind.
The climate change summit will spur the government's commitment to reduction in producing CO2 which means that less consumption of CO2 emitting fossil fuel and the fossil fuel industry does not want this to happen and there by they fund these skeptics to confuse the politicians. These stooges can not deny the strong 5000 strong climate change scientists spread worldwide and hence they resort to various methods to distract the attention of the leaders.
The opponents of the climate change resolution should be separated and the world leaders should show their resolve that they will work for the benefit of mankind and fund the research and development of clean sustainable energy for our future generations

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxi...

Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a paper entitled ‘Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics’.

The abstract of the paper reads in part:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical; (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

The study concludes:

Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth beyond physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a ‘mirage’ [205].The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training...

A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand [154], continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics. In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.

Climate Change exists it is a NATURAL phenomenon driven mainly by Sun spot activities. There is not ONE scientific paper which PROVES that the MINISCULE amounts of CO2 in the air emitted by MAN have any noticeable effect on climate whatsoever. The earth has been COOLING for the past 12 years while man's CO2 emissions have continued to RISE. The NATURAL state of the planet over thousands of years is FAR warmer than it is now. CO2 rises ALWAYS follow Global Warming they NEVER precede it ask a GEOLOGIST not a CLIMATOLOGIST who cant even tell you if it will rain tomorrow. CO2 is not a pollutant... it is a VITAL part of the cycle of life... it feeds plants plants feeds humans and animals..... MORE CO2 more plants more food better for life, LESS CO2 less plants man and animals starve. So apart from being TOTALLY wrong about AGW, Green NAZI's are also anti LIFE.

The core issue here is totalitarianism.

DDT was the spearhead of the WHO campaign to eradicate Malaria. Violet Carsons book "Silent Spring" , triggering the Environmentalist movement, lead to DDT being banned. The first big "Green" victory. Malaria remains endemic throughout much of the world. Since DDT was banned it has killed at least 100 million people. Ergo, Environmentalism has been responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin together. Truly, it deserves a place alongside the worst totalitarian dogmas in Human history.

Perhaps you are missing my point; I don't think this is all about regulations and government actions, nor do I think the sole purpose of so many scientist's work is for that. Your first paragraph would imply that every single earth, climate and atmospheric scientist spends their lifetime on research that is purely political, that the majority of them are knowingly changing their conclusions to fit this grand conspiracy and that all of their research is wrong. Pardon me if I don't believe that based on a few emails (which don't seem very incriminating to me) and because you say so.

No offense but I don't really care what your carbon footprint is, but I do think energy and water conservation is important and should be taught to people at a young age. I also believe in some degree of regulation of things; YOU might be an awesome farmer who knows how things should be done, but the majority of Americans can be quite lazy, stupid and apathetic. Then think about corporations, the majority of which are money hungry and don't give a fuck about the "right thing" to do. Right now America uses the most resources in the world... (I know China is up there too, and they have a huge air quality problem as a result! Are the clouds of pollution hovering over their country part of the conspiracy as well?)

We need a serious change in the way things are done in America in regards to energy- and for some strange reason, I don't see every American business owner, corporation head or even plain ole person rushing to change their ways. How does regulation on energy strip us of all of our freedom? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the proposed regulations that they are coming up with right now - but I do think it's the governments responsibility to make sure the country is functioning in an energy efficient way that reflects a mentality of conservation, progress and respect, and until those values become a regular part of our American Life, some form (or multiple forms) of regulation seems like a good idea to me.

Delia you are missing the point here...this has nothing to do with "saving the planet" this is all about POWER & CONTROL.To impose regulation you need to have a problem (problem,reaction,solution) in order to push your agenda.Carbon Tax will be the ultimate "weapon" for world governance.You are being lied too and led to believe HUMANS are the cause o "global warming" with the sole purpose of money making with the TAXATION of the entire PLANET. Thus creating and pushing all standards of equipment (made by the same people/companies "deemed" approved by "UN regulators") ITS THE STANDARDIZATION OF THE WORLD.Why you need this? Study marketing and sales and you will find out in 5 seconds!

The only thing you will be fucking in the future is not the planet.. without questioning any of this it will be yourself...your human condition (freedom) as you know it today will be gone forever...the planet will be just fine but us humans will be no more then the marked cattle we already started to become.
Delia i live on a farm and my "carbon footprint"(as you like to put it) is ridiculously low but do you think this is because i heard someone saying that I should do this or that? I live do way i live because that is how things SHOULD BE.Not because the planet heats up every time i fire up a tractor!Its simply because it doesnt make sense to waste energy!Period!

"Dowload the files and see for yourself..i warn you there are 1073 emails so you will have to dig."

Oh hell no, please just tell me what is so incriminating! For example, the fact that one guy uses the word "trick" is interesting but it's not a home run for "proof", because it's easy to see how one could throw a word like that into a causal convo and have it taken out of context.

I've read many articles from different sources and the most honest conclusion I think one could make is that there are many studies on climate change that say different things and scientists, just like everyone else, have email conversations. As Jubal also stated, I would never say personally that the "debate is over"- that's what makes science what it is; the debate is never really over, just continuing, expanding, refining itself. Keep in mind that despite this news there is a helluva lot of studies and research being done who's conclusions provide evidence for human involvement.

For doubters out there, I just want to ask you a question, and it's not meant in an aggressive way so I hope no one takes it like that...but can you seriously and honestly look at planet earth and think that humans aren't affecting it? Look even at just the face of the earth, hell, take a look outside your window...doesn't it seem possible that several billion people later we may be fucking a few things up?

KGB still lives, and not just on your phone.

The data has not been manipulated because it HAS BEEN CONFIRMED by the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) AS BEING LEGIT ("Victim"). (they are pressing charges to the hackers that did it).Isnt that a clear indication of the hack and the importance of the data "stolen"?

@jubal here are a couple of the "incriminating" emails

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.

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) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M,

This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.

I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.

How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.

T.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow some other comments about the email and data related issues on this site (@jubal i know there are 1073 emails but dont take it from "others" read them and make your own judgement,if you were a judge or lawyer what would you do make of it,on top of it all that other piece of info i collected about the data erasing for "lack of storage space"? common!)

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/4567/

So much fun

this is so sad

From what I can tell, these are the most damning things they found in those emails?

"Emails are peppered with disparaging remarks and a crude cartoon of sceptical scientists is also included in the archive"

"The documents also appear to highlight a chummy relationship between sympathetic journalists "

All this tells me is that scientists realize that there is an organized effort out there to take what they say out of context, and that like it or not, all climate science is politicized.

Them being cognizant of that seems like the logical consequences of the denier's work these last 10 years? Not an indication that the science is on their side?

lol they will try anything to trick you...

What's to keep a hacker from changing the information? Also I tried to download the emails but decided against it after my virus detection software kept quarantining the files. Looks like some sad fuck attached a couple trojans to the files.

can you please change the title of this story - it really is not relevant - it should read 'stupid people dont ask questions'

Bad headline.

The Earth is getting cooler, not warmer. Polar Bears are not endangered animals and are nowhere near being extinct. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. America does the World so much good. Socialist fear-mongers are the last people on Earth who should ever have anything to do with making laws. We are already being taxed way too much.

Well, I think we have gotten to the bottom of this story now.

I googled "Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data" and found the reference to the CRU destroying their raw data.
Now the hacking makes sense. This had to be an inside job. Someone who witnessed these guys manufacturing then destroying data turned them in.
I never thought I would say this, but this hacker is my hero. He deserves the Nobel prize for saving the World.

Check this story dated October 5, 2009

Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
CEI Petitions EPA to Reopen Global Warming Rulemaking

Washington, D.C., October 6, 2009―In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding.

In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.

In a declaration filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists.

CEI’s petition, filed late Monday with EPA, argues that CRU’s disclosure casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide. EPA stopped accepting public comments in late June but has not yet issued its final decision. As CEI’s petition argues, court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when those facts change the underlying issues.

CEI general counsel Sam Kazman stated, “EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU’s suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable. If EPA doesn’t reexamine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face.”

Among CRU’s funders are the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy – U.S. taxpayers.

http://cei.org/news-release/2009/10/05/govt-funded-research-unit-destroyed-origi...

Egate!

We have emails that apparently show how data has been fudged or withheld when it doesn't fit what the scientists wanted and you just want to call it propaganda? If the emails are not faked, then this is a huge blow to "man-made global climate change" being a "undebatable question."

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093....

Canada free press has a countdown to Obama leaving office. I would say that makes it an unreliable source and a tool for political mind fucking. So that source is shit.