Home » Global Warming » More on ClimateGate

More on ClimateGate

Here’s today’s Wall Street Journal on ClimateGate:

Global Warming With the Lid Off
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.

‘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 U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to “Mike.” Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU’s servers were hacked and messages among some of the world’s most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.

The “two MMs” are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a “unified” view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the “common cause”; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to “hide the decline” of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

SOURCE

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

52 Responses to More on ClimateGate

  1. Dr. Dembski,

    In the interest of fact checking, transparency, and the public good, will you post all emails from swbts.edu, The Discovery Institute, and any other consulting/collaborative efforts you are involved in?

    I’m sure there isn’t anything to hide, and you’ve set a firm standard to live up to.

    Scientists share their data through the literature. Hacking email accounts is unseemly, however nicely the results fit your worldview.

  2. Apparently this is merely the start. There’s an additional 100MB of documents and emails to come. I’m Loving It™.

  3. These guys should be criminally charged. This is conspiracy and collusion against the public, especially if they are holding investments in carbon credit or similar businesses that TOTALLY benefit from this fraudulent science.

    If science is a verb they have been “doing it” dishonestly and illegally.

  4. I and hope they go over EVER word and detail with a fine tooth comb and pull out and publish every damning comment. People have a right to know. This is “transparency” baby.

  5. I would file a law suit and compare what they allegedly said in these emails to what they have actually done in their fraudulent climatology work- whether that be those computer models or what have you. Based on the FACT that they are working on FEDERAL grants, and if they are presenting fictitious data- or omitting essential data- they should be investigated by the BFI and the individuals should be changed according based on any violation of federal law.

    They need an investigation immediately- the amount of money, motive and political influence involved is extremely substantial.

    and if the information in the emails correlates to actual actions taken by those individuals- they should be fired immediately.

    If i had the money and power- I would be taking this to the national level. It is of the utmost importance to the public’s knowledge that everyone be informed if the climate science is being forged.

  6. If this had been a conspiracy within government institutions or privet businesses against say “minority” rights- the ACLU would be all over this thing in no time.

  7. Haha I see there’s a wiki page up trying to do some damage control @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

    Page is locked for editing as expected.

    Excerpts from the correspondence have been promoted by global warming skeptics, who say the private correspondence shows that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change. The university responded that “the selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way” and expressed concern “that personal information about individuals may have been compromised.” Leading climate change scientist Kevin Trenberth said that it “may be aimed at undermining talks at next month’s Copenhagen global climate summit”. Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating.

  8. The truth about “climate science”, as currently practised – in my view – is that it is a way for some people to wield enormous power over other people’s lives without doing very much of anything useful.

    Recently, Norman Borlaug, the founder of the hybrid food grains, passed away. He fed millions, despite all kinds of trouble from cranks and crackpots.

    Now, instead of jeremiads about starvation in developing countries, I hear the UN issuing jeremiads about obesity.

    Well, good!

    Obesity is a choice. Starvation? Rarely, and then only among love-starved teenage girls.

    They sure change their tune when they are happily married and having a baby.

    Soon, I hope, places that used to be haunted by starvation will be hosting “healthy weight loss and exercise” seminars.

    To some people (Eric Pianka? Paul Ehrlich?) that is a disaster. To me it is real progress – whether the seminars reduce dress sizes or not.

  9. VPR is showing how the conspiracy predictably goes right through that agenda controlled wicked-pedia. Same people who control wiki are also forwarding the global warming exaggeration because it is part of their religion and agenda as well.

  10. Obama science czar John Holdren has, predictably, turned up in the emails.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

  11. This is all interesting stuff, but as a newbie here, I have to ask: how does this relate to Intelligent Design?

  12. RE: This is all interesting stuff, but as a newbie here, I have to ask: how does this relate to Intelligent Design?

    Evolution as a “fact” is to Global warming “consensus” as
    Intelligent Design is to skepticism about Global Warming.

    For years, the mainstream media have been telling us that the scientific consensus is that MAN-MADE global warming is REAL and anyone who denies it is akin to someone who believes in the flat earth.

    So prevalent is this belief in anthropogenic global warming that congress is now considering a huge cap and trade bill that will threaten to kill our already sick economy.

    We even have the Nobel Committee awarding the peace price to Al Gore ( apostle/prophet of global warming ).

    Now, we are being told that all scientific dissent against man-made global warming is actually being DELIBERATELY WITHHELD.

    When there is a concerted effort to ostracize the work of people like Stephen Meyer and Guillermo Gonzalez, you should see a parallel.

    The moral is clear — be very intellectually cautious when someone tells you that there is a CONSENSUS in the scientific community regarding something as controversial as “global warming” or “Darwinism”.

    THAT is the point of this thread.

  13. Retroman,

    It is often discussed here because global warming skeptics get the same treatment as Darwin-skeptics. The unfair tactics shown in these emails, including the abuse of the peer-review process, is exactly what ID-ers have been complaining about for years. Remember that the Dover decision said it was significant that ID has not published in peer-reviewed journals.

  14. Retroman,

    Go to this website for one man’s experience trying to get a paper past peer review.
    http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldane.htm

  15. Tragic, great article and link.

  16. RobertC

    Scientists share their data through the literature. Hacking email accounts is unseemly, however nicely the results fit your worldview.

    Do you have any idea how ironic your post is?

    “Scientists share their data through the literature?” Climategate is about the failure of scientists to do exactly that and worse.

  17. the global warming controversy is just like the Darwinism controversy not just because of the peer review- but because of a claimed “consensus” among scientists- when there is a significant minority opinion in direct opposition. And the minority opinion is growing largely against both doctrines. And both majority opinions use their power and positions to utterly silence the other view from being heard. In a honest and free society both the majority and minority opinions should be heard as long as they are both reasonable- and of course anyone who actually studies ID and the skeptical position in man caused climate change can see both positions are perfectly reasonable and possible.

    SO this is about fighting for minority rights, for freedom of thought- and a right for both sides to be openly heard and debated scientifically. And it looks as though the more we learn about each of these theories of the majority consensus- the more questionable and problematic they become.

  18. Robert @ 1

    Are you upset about the convenient uncovering of this scandal??

    Anyway…While you’re at it, I asusme your willing to go after the Smithsonian, NCSE, PNAS, Nature’s editors, Science magazine, and person like Dawkins, Harris and Dennet’s emails too? My bet will be that you will find more damning information there.

  19. Jehu is exactly correct. And worse it shows that the current system has no adequate checks and balances to prevent this kind of tribal political mentality. There is no protection for the minority view to be heard and read along side all of this grant induced speculation of mankind’s impact on climate.

  20. THis just goes to show that movies like Al Gore’s inconvenient lie are not based on honest saintly people concerned with the truth at all. We all ready know that people like George Soros who influences are political system with millions of dollars in campaign contributions (some suspect illegal campaign contributions) is trying to get all of this global warming or climate change legislation passed so he can makes money on the carbon credit businesses.

    And of course Al Gore himself is the one WITH the carbon credit business. So these people are just out for their own personal benefits. They are basically waging political war on middle class America trying to force everyone to accept this insanity- unchecked by the opposing point of view.

    These people, from what I am clearly reading, should be thrown in jail if they are shown to have done these things skewing data. I am talking 10 years minimum. And once again if they are abusing federal grants then this automatically becomes a necessary investigation by the FBI. And they should be tried for breaking federal law.

    This is how you clean up the broken system- you ENFORCE the laws. Then all of this lying about the data stuff will stop.

    And quite frankly even if you think man is causing global warming you should STILL want these people indicted if they were doing what these documents imply. Because the truth can only be best served when people go about pursuing it honestly- man induced climate change or not.

  21. Denyse.

    Are you willing to reconsider the conspiracy view in light of some mentions regarding Holden’s views?

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

    If their corresponance about Holden is true, then he’s a hard core globalist associated with a private globalist think tank – the Club of Rome.

    And global wamring threat is exactly the kind of thing that they want to acheive global governance.

    The writing is practically on the wall.

  22. JGuy at 20: Here is my view re conspiracies, for what it is worth, in three brief parts:

    1. Citizens of a constitutional democracy cannot be enslaved; they can only enslave themselves – maybe to TV, Lotto tickets, donuts, whatever.

    There is no conspiracy among the people who sell these products.

    They do it for the money, and so they all tend to act and sound alike, even if there is no conspiracy.

    If victims choose to grow a fat belly or a fat behind in front of the TV, listening to propaganda every night, it is their right.

    Here in North America, they are not forced to. They choose to.

    It’s not good for them, of course. But I am not a food, exercise or broadcast fascist. I can only warn them twice and be gone.

    2. The real attraction of “global warming” is that it exports the problem to everyone else. I simply cannot tell you how many two-car family people have preached at me on global warming – implying that I am especially guilty just because I exist – when I do not even keep a car.

    What I do keep is quiet – in the studio, until my cue.

    3. Like many journalists, I am skeptical of conspiracy theories. Most people who are not now part of the atmosphere (= Mohammed Atta and friends, cf 9-11) can’t resist adding to their social importance by telling what they know. They don’t hold out for long, once you click the Record button.

    A lot of journalism is based on that.

  23. Denyse. Thanks for your reply.

    But if two or more people hide a secret to their propganda – such as some fact that the propaganda carries more than a view but a trojan horse (ie. global governance) – then how is the average joe/jane considered complicit to the enslavement?

    Wouldn’t the veiling of an alterior agenda to propaganda classify as conspiracy against those receiving the propaganda – nothwithstanding their complicitness to receive the tainted public announcement (aka. propaganda).

  24. A few more important thoughts,

    I have noticed that most sites or videos on youtube that cover AGW have far more comments against the AGW view than for it. So the truth is getting out there.

    Well if so then the question becomes,

    Why are the politicians in power who are trying to pass this nonsense? And the answer is that is because in the two party system each arty mixes platforms- so the anti-Bush, pro abortionist, pro unions (teachers in particular), pro minority rights and affirmative action*, pro environmental extremism in general, and pro big government groups (regardless of their individual views on AGW all vote together for their own self interests and AGW politicians get into power by combining all these issues.

    Another thought I had is that this is WAY bigger than the Madoff scandal. Global warming propaganda can influence much larger sums of money than Madoff stole. And the influence of the world policy in regards to this skewing of the skewing of the data is enormous.

  25. in regards to the back and forth between jguy and Oleary-

    I dont think it is always as clear as conspiracy or just personal choice and stupidity. I think climategate proves there is both. There is conspiracy among some – particularly those in power- and then there is also the segments of society that just make bad choices.

    But then there are things like commercials which actually are kind of like a conspiracy but don’t quite cross the threshold. Commercials try to control people’s minds and businesses throw lots of money out in an attempt to control or at least influence people’s minds. This is a conspiracy of sorts- or at least conspiracy light- as many people know exactly what they are doing- especially when they lie about their products- and when the products are fraudulent or even bad for the consumer (ie. credit default swaps)

    SO it is not as clear cut as conspiracy or not. Clearly some conspiring went on here with climate gate- that is just an absolute fact BUT-

    that does not mean it came as orders from some “Reptilian-Hybrids” controlling the world through the Illuminati.

    Lol. David Icke lost a lot of his followers when he proposed that theory.

  26. Btw, Bill Dembski, or for anyone who wants to read some of the climategate emails…

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/g.....it-mean/2/

    Should do the trick.

  27. actually go to http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ to read them all.

  28. Okay, moderators I think it’s time to get rid of our friend Frost here. I’ve been keeping quiet about this but these last few posts he got too cocky. This dude is probably one of the internet fanboys of Colbert posting here just for his own kicks and giggles. They run around online trying to make everything into one big joke, and they usually succeed. Not surprised they ended up here.

  29. No I am serious tragic. I thought Bill might want to be able to read these. This is a huge scandal.

  30. RobertC, I think what you mean to say is these emails conclusively destroy your “climate change” sweetness and light liberal worldview. Right?

    GLOBAL WARMING TAX AND CENTRALIZATION SCAM IS OVER. DEMBSKI, MYSELF AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS WHO CORRECTLY SURMISED THE SCAM EARLY ON AND COMMUNICATED ARE VINDICATED. Now it’s only a matter of time.

  31. Joke’s over man. Are you from the RELEVANT boards? Because I posted that exact same link there.

  32. Really? How’s that?

  33. Criticizing me for no reason- asking to have me removed from a site I have been posting at for over 2 years. I posted a great link- to the actual emails so everyone can read this amazing stuff. It is too much for anyone to read themselves probably- but it very revealing. I happened to find one of the really good ones from very recent October 2009:

    “Kevin Trenberth wrote:
    > Hi all
    > Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are
    > asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two
    > days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high
    > the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
    > previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also
    > a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January
    > weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday
    > and then played last night in below freezing weather)..,

    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. The CERES data published in the
    > August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
    > warming:”

    So…

  34. tragic mishap, frost

    I make the moderating decisions, and frost, you appear legitimate to me. Now you both need to quit bickering.

  35. Here’s another classic quote from october 2009,

    “The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
    > climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
    > as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
    > travesty!”

    By their own admission – They “cannot account” for what is happening in the climate. And of course they dont want any new clean sources of energy cause they are so full of it that they choose to only claim they “wont be able to tell if it is successful” while yet they are all for global governance and control over people’s lives and the quality of life through carbon rationing. And they sure want more grant money according to these emails so that they can continue to be unaccountable for what the weather does.

  36. Quick – someone tell me this is any different than what ID is facing.

    Of course, its completely different. The two issues could not have less in common.

    After all, all that talk of design in the biology textbooks is only “apparent design” not “real design”.
    Therfore (please follow the logic here) there is no cover-up even necessary.

  37. For what it may be worth; I believe it may be a little premature to write off AGW yet.
    And that reflects upon bragging like

    Evolution as a “fact” is to Global warming “consensus” as
    Intelligent Design is to scepticism about Global Warming.

    It seems a safe bet that we soon will know with a high degree of certainty whether AGW is true or not.
    If it should turn out that AGW is indded a fact, are you prepared to concede “ID fails against ToE as it fails against AGW” instead of “ID trumps AGW as it trumps ToE”?

  38. I know here in Maryland we had the coolest summer in years because I love hot weather and could not stand it in the low 80s so much- when in most years I can remember it is near 100 mid summer for many days. Not surprising though that no one is talking about the cooling summer here- except for average people I see around who agree with me when I bring it up.

    Here is a site devoted to global cooling

    http://isthereglobalcooling.com/

  39. 39

    “If it should turn out that AGW is indded a fact”

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Btw true believers already believe it’s a fact. Obviously you show some degree of skepticism. That’s good because there is no real empirical data that shows categorically that man made CO2 is responsible for the low level non-catastrophic warming that has occured over the last 100+ years. Furthermore there has been no significant warming in the last 10 years in spite of man made CO2 increasing significantly.

    Manipulated Climate Models are not empirical science but this is what principally drives the AGW alarmism.

    Does it not strike you as interesting that money grabbing left leaning governments are the greatest supporters of this myth? Gives them another way of accessing your wallet. For “scientists” like those at CRU it’s an on-going source of research funds.

    There’s more politics than truth in this scam.

  40. Here’s one of my all time favorite global warming quotes…

    “The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Artic zone. Expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

    —US Weather Bureau, 1922

    Temperatures go up and down all throughout time. They are cooling now- they WILL warm again- when they warm again all the global warming advocates will be saying it is man induced again.

  41. Cabal (#37)

    While I’m skeptical of the danger posed by anthropogenic global warming, I agree with you that it would be premature to write it off. And if it does turn out to be true, we do at least have an affordable, no-nonsense, technically feasible solution at hand. See http://bravenewclimate.com and especially http://bravenewclimate.com/int.....ear-power/ and http://bravenewclimate.com/200.....r-q-and-a/ . That’s I have no time for the gloom-and-doom mongering of self-styled ecologists.

    You asked:

    If it should turn out that AGW is indded a fact, are you prepared to concede “ID fails against ToE as it fails against AGW” instead of “ID trumps AGW as it trumps ToE”?

    That’s a good question. I think the case for ID and the case against dangerous AGW are quite different. The case against dangerous AGW is principally a negative one: proponents have not established their case; other possible causes of the warming observed to date have not been ruled out; and there may well be natural mechanisms which keep global warming in check. In a Scottish court, a fair-minded jury would return a verdict of “not proven,” if presented with the relevant evidence for and against dangerous AGW.

    By contrast, the case for ID is built on solid mathematics. The emergence of the kind of order we see inside a living cell through undirected natural processes is astronomically improbable, as Dr. Stephen Meyer’s latest book, Signature in the Cell , convincingly demonstrates. Intelligent agency is the only thing we know that can generate order like that. ID should be the default hypothesis for the origin of life, and it would take a lot of evidence to overturn it.

  42. I believe it may be a little premature to write off AGW yet.

    If you want to convince me, the believers in AGW ought to start acting like they do.

    They ought to be picketing in front of coal plants with signs saying “Replace this with a nuke” and in front of dams scheduled for demolition with signs saying “Save this green source of energy.”

    They ought to be demanding turnpikes become freeways and government encourage telecommuting.

    But they aren’t and it looks like the reason they aren’t is because the leaders knew it was just a fraud all along.

  43. For the following quote, I’m not syaing…. I’m just saying. This is perfectly consistent with the allegdly “Most Successful Literary Hoax” ever written – published in 1967. That a government report was generated from a small think tank to determine how to transition from war time to a time of peace, and whether that was desirable. The report focuses on substitutes for war.

    An excerpt on possible substitutes – see how many you can specifically identify today – from a small section of the report:

    SUBSTITUTES FOR THE FUNCTIONS OF WAR: MODELS
    The following substitute institutions, among others, have been proposed for
    consideration as replacements for the nonmilitary functions of war. That they
    may not have been originally set forth for that purpose does not preclude or
    invalidate their possible application here.
    62
    ECONOMIC. a) A comprehensive social-welfare program, directed toward
    maximum improvement of general conditions of human life. b) A giant openend
    space research program, aimed at unreachable targets. c) A permanent,
    ritualized, ultra-elaborate disarmament inspection system, and variants of such a
    system.
    POLITICAL a) An omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force.
    b) An established and recognized extraterrestrial menace. c) Massive global
    environmental pollution. d) Fictitious alternate enemies.

    SOCIOLOGICAL: CONTROL FUNCTION. a) Programs generally derived from
    the Peace Corps model. b) A modern, sophisticated form of slavery.
    MOTIVATIONAL FUNCTION. a) Intensified environmental pollution. b) New
    religions or other mythologies. c) Socially oriented blood games. d)
    Combination forms.
    ECOLOGICAL. A comprehensive program of applied eugenics.
    CULTURAL. No replacement institution offered. SCIENTIFIC. The secondary
    requirements of the space research, social welfare, and / or eugenics programs.

    There are those that say it is a hoax, and others that say it isn’t. Consider for yourself:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....n_Mountain

    It could be a haox…but it’s successfulness at predicting future actions is still continuing

    I’d argue it is either genuine or the author was very insightful about the world and a genius strategist or very very lucky (chance:P).

  44. Additional excerpt (emphasis mine including in the prior comment):

    POLITICAL. Like the inspection-scheme surrogates, proposals for
    plenipotentiary international police are inherently incompatible with the ending
    of the war system. The “unarmed forces” variant, amended to include unlimited
    powers of economic sanction, might conceivably be expanded to constitute a
    credible external menace. Development of an acceptable threat from “outer
    space,” presumably in conjunction with a space-research surrogate for economic
    control, appears unpromising in terms of credibility. The environmentalpollution
    model[Anthropogenic Global Warming] does not seem sufficiently responsive to immediate social
    control, except through arbitrary acceleration of current pollution trends [Climategate]
    ; this in
    turn raises questions of political acceptability. New, less regressive, approaches
    to the creation of fictitious global “enemies” invite further investigation.

  45. I apologize if anyone think it unwise to entertain that literature, but it seems oddly accurate or consistent to [since-then] history. So, consider it at the least for academic purposes.

    As for myself, I’ll consider most ideas that are outside of the cylinder (i.e. the container of “the box”) :P

  46. Cabal @27:

    It seems a safe bet that we soon will know with a high degree of certainty whether AGW is true or not.
    If it should turn out that AGW is indded a fact, are you prepared to concede “ID fails against ToE as it fails against AGW” instead of “ID trumps AGW as it trumps ToE”?

    Cabal, your “soon” has already happened, since 1998. Eleven years of cooling have put the lie to what has now been discovered to be a fraud anyway.

    AGW has already been proven wrong, empirically. CO2 has gone up (slightly) but temperature has decreased (significantly in the last few years). End of argument. So are you prepared to concede the ID parallel?

  47. I have to agree with Cabal (#37) and vjortley (#41) that it would be unwise to so enthusiastically hitch the ID wagon to that of the anti-AGW movement. While I’m skeptical of both Darwinism and AGW, the cases against each are very different, and I believe the case against Darwinism is stronger.

    If AGW turns out to be conclusively false, it would at most be a victory for the scientific minority, and may instill a healthy dose of skepticism towards scientific “consensus” in the government (although I wouldn’t count on it).

    If AGW turns out to be conclusively true (however unlikely you may feel), those who’ve linked ID and skepticism of AGW will become disillusioned, despite the arguments being completely different.

    Each argument must be weighed on its own merits, with the only link being the (possible) abuse of power within the scientific establishment.

  48. I apologize Frost I was mistaken. I do think however maybe we should tone down the conspiracy rhetoric just a bit. Lack of integrity is a human failing we are all susceptible to. There is no requirement for a James Bond style evil villain for people to make mistakes and get carried away in a particular belief.

  49. “Climategate” is a good description of this. It’s interesting that there doesn’t seem to be any condemnation of the act of (in effect) breaking into someone’s office, bugging it, and using their private communications against them. Who couldn’t be made to look bad if a huge volume of their personal emails was seized and selectively published out of context? Disgraceful. I can’t believe anyone who cares about their own integrity would hitch themselves to this tactic.

  50. tragic.
    For what it’s worth. I’d think my postings are more inclined to point at conspiracy than what I have read of Frost’s. I often try to distance myself from any dogmatic views about it. However, I do like to point out how the figurative fingerprints seem to match one…and I am not afraid to consider the possibility, especially when so much money and power are at stake. Keep in mind, the money at stake is not simply a few grants… we are talking about arguably the largest increase of taxes on humanity ever. Why – for example – does Al Gore insist so fervently on his position? Why the rush to save earth? The kind of speak like we have 2 years (or so) to act or we all die rhetoric. He has always been portrayed an intelligent guy in political circles. If he really is, he should not be so blatantly willfully ignorant of the issues with the very bad science he is hell bent to use. This is just a clue in my book, not a smoking gun..and when you look at the larger picture, you see a pattern. So, I think it fair to ask…whence comes so suddenly and momentum of this hysteria that has such huge implications on our countries and lives? Governments are not that noble, especially when the science is clearly jacked up…and when our leading scientists should be listened to, and not systematically avoided in serious debate.

  51. Another question. What I find mysterious is the hacker.

    How did he know what to get?
    Who is he/she really?

    I suppose this could be a very elaborate hoax…but indeed it would have to be very elaborate and very well thought out.

    If it were a hoax, what would be the reason for such elaborate measures?

    If they can use FOI to get the emails at each university, I think this could be all verified. Guess we’ll see how that turns out.

  52. This is currently top of the “MOST VIEWED” list at The Daily Telegraph here in the UK: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n.....l-warming/

    Enjoy

Leave a Reply