Environment

Climategate Part II? New Leaked Emails Again Point to Global Warming Activism

What’s infamously known as Climategate began in late 2009 when emails of prominent climate scientists were leaked to the public, revealing exaggerations made about man-made global warming. While the scientists claimed that the content of the emails were taken out of context, the scandal marred many’s opinions of global warming science, confirmed suspicions of others and lead to distrust.

Now, as The Telegraph blogger James Delingpole reports, a case of deja vu is happening as a second round of emails has been leaked, featuring some of the same scientists including Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth and Keith Briffa. The British university whose leaked emails caused a global climate science controversy in 2009 says it has discovered a potentially much larger data breach and confirms that the emails are real but they are old. Scientists involved are again saying that they are being taken out of context.

The Telegraph has more:

[...] what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011’ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

FOIA 2011, whomever that is, says he has more than 220,000 emails and here are just a few choice ones pulled together by The Telegraph:

Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:

<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and b) in order to get into the media the context between climate extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and energy

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed “global icons” [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...] It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an “unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate change

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming

Pierrehumbert:

What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate “scientists” to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

New Scientist reports Mann as calling this new batch of exposed emails “truly pathetic:”

Regarding the content of the emails, he said: “I hardly see anything damning at all, despite these snippets all being taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled, in the first round, the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

The Guardian reports Mann as saying he thinks those with interests in the fossil fuel industry are behind the second release of these emails:

He said, the people behind the release were “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”

Here are some opinions surrounding this second round of emails from the Twittersphere:
Second Round of Leaked Climate Emails | University Confirms Genuine But Old

Second Round of Leaked Climate Emails | University Confirms Genuine But Old

Second Round of Leaked Climate Emails | University Confirms Genuine But OldSecond Round of Leaked Climate Emails | University Confirms Genuine But Old

University of East Anglia spokesman Simon Dunford said that while academics didn’t have the chance yet to examine the roughly 5,000 emails apparently dumped into the public domain Tuesday, a small sample examined by the university “appears to be genuine.”

The university said in a statement that the emails did not appear to be the result of a new hack or leak. Instead, the statement said that the emails appeared to have been stolen two years ago and held back until now “to cause maximum disruption” to the imminent U.N. climate talks next week in Durban, South Africa.

If that is confirmed, the timing and nature of the leak would follow the pattern set by the so-called “Climategate” emails, which caught prominent scientists stonewalling critics and discussing ways to keep opponents’ research out of peer-reviewed journals.

Although several reviews have since vindicated the researchers’ science, some of their practices — in particular efforts to hide data from critics — have come under strong criticism.

Mann goes on to compare the leak as ”an attempt to dig out 2-year-old turkey from Thanksgiving ‘09. That’s how desperate climate change deniers have become.”

You can take a look at all of FOIA 2011′s releases here. FOIA 2011 wrote in the release of the emails that the thousands of others are encrypted for now with no intent to release them publicly yet.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Comments (126)

1 2 3
  • Paul -Indiana
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:39pm

    If it wasn’t for that naturally occuring global warming, the earth would be mostly glaciers. Don’t knock a good thing.

    Report Post »  
    • 00gabooga
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 9:15pm

      Exactly, and we‘d have Polar Bears kickin’ our doors in and pushing us around like they own the place!

      Report Post » 00gabooga  
    • lukerw
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 9:16pm

      … where the Moon’s orbit creates a stabilized Axis… making the Equator warm and the Polls cold.

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Tim Law
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 10:05pm

      It’s all B/S always has been. If you think back remember the hole in the Ozone? It would just keep getting bigger and bigger if we don‘t get rid of all the spray can’s. The hole will never heal, we can only stop it from getting bigger. Then wow we woke up one day and it was like it was never even there. If you think back that was the start of the EPA and others regulating our job’s out of the country. How’s that working? Very well for the socialist. Not so good for us.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 10:20pm

      You guys need to give this up. Climate change sceptic Richard Muller, bankrolled by $600,000 of Koch Brothers money, looked to disprove conclusions about global warming. Despite the bias of those paying him he concluded that, yes, the world is warming, and at a dramtically faster rate than the world has ever seen. He was an denier but now he’s a believer.

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870

      This isn’t about out of context email quotes, this about if about data and science.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 10:41pm

      Hey JZS,

      You have an impostor.

      See the Barney Story.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 10:43pm

      Yes JZS,

      It’s about faulty data, and faulty science.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Starkadder
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 10:51pm

      Tim Law
      I do remember the ozone hole “crisis” of the 70′s I was very young. Even at the tender age of 8, I simply asked my environ-mental activist teacher “Why don’t we just use ozone as propellant in our spay cans?”
      Problem solved.

      Report Post » Starkadder  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 11:24pm

      @JZS

      Richard Muller was not an AGW skeptic..

      from sfgate article in 2006, you have to look it up the link gets blocked here

      “”Although Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are causing global warming, “the fact that the original conclusion of Mann et al. is ‘plausible’ is damning with faint praise,” he said. “Theories are plausible; discoveries are supposed to be proven.”"”

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • phil65
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 6:20am

      jzs
      Dude do you even believe your own crap? Surely you are old enough to remember in the 70‘s and early 80’s when they were saying that we were going into an ice age? You don’t find it odd that they have changed the title from global warming to climate change? Why do you think they did that? They did it because the actual scientific evidence was pointing toward a slight cooling trend and they wanted to cover the rough winters under one climate title. Go ahead and be a twit and believe anything that these ecoterrorists say and give them all your money on false hope that what humans do or don’t do can actually effect the earths climate.

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:30am

      JZS, they can’t predict the local weather half the time. What on God’s green earth makes you think they can predict the weather in 100 years. It‘s already been proven by NASA that all their supposed climate models are based on trapped heat that’s not happening. Fact is NASA data showed heat escaping the Earth at 10 times the rates the ICCP (not to be confused with ICP). All though there’s probably more truth in an ICP lyric than an ICCP report.
      The problem with the world is you as you are one of two things either a gun for hire for the liberals,or a lockstep nimrod who just roots for the team reguardless of the outcome. Either way your cancer in the Republic. Do us all a favor question everything no matter from where it comes you might one day see the truth.

      Report Post »  
    • smokeysmoke
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:51am

      i love to make this point…… THE CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING…. look at the portrait of george washington crossing the deleware river… washington and his army are crossing a river that is full of ICEBERGS… the deleware never freezes any more..thats far southnext to E maryland… the earth was in a mini ice age 200 years ago and WE HAVE BEEN COMMING OUT OF IT… so saying were warming is bad, SEEMS DUMB… Thank you blaze FOR NOTING THAT MOST ENVIORNMENTAL DAMAGE is done AND CAN BE CORRECTED by adjusting local practices, or have occured by local disasters… it is the truth…. we need to incentivise locals to know how to be the BEST STEWARDS OF THEIR OWN LAND… and thus they will have no incentive to hurt their own buissneses in the process of cleaningn up after their local community…. F GLOBAL ACTION… TAKE LOCAL ACTION

      Report Post » smokeysmoke  
  • Secessionista
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:29pm

    The energy of the sun impinging upon the earth is 100 quadrillion times more than the impact of all CO2 ever released.

    100,000,000,000,000,000 times.

    So, to put it in terms even a dolt can understand. All of the fossil fuel ever burned is this period —-> .

    The sun’s heat on the earth, relative to that period, would then be equivalent to… drumroll… all of the rest of the internet.

    The sun’s output changes on a decade cycle, and it also has longer cycles. Starting to see the picture now?

    Report Post » Secessionista  
    • Mikev5
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 8:14pm

      Just look what it does in winter if it wasn’t for the sun we would be frozen that is how much it changes our planet.

      It’s not even proven CO2 changes our climate at all the evidence shows CO2 is increased with warm temps not the other way around that we get warmer with more CO2 look it up.

      You global warming people need to read more books and fat Al’s hockey puck is shown to be so far off as to be junk science at the best if it was correct we should be burning up now what a laugh.

      Report Post » Mikev5  
    • brickmoon
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 9:20pm

      No, Dr. Mann, it is not ”an attempt to dig out 2-year-old turkey.” It is a phoenix, rising from your now definitively exposed attempt to peddle agenda-driven “science” as real science. And that bird is now biting you in your well-funded hindquarters.

      Now for a little entertainment:

      Blackboard Theater: Scientific Consensus
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS0EMx6dkv0

      Report Post » brickmoon  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:41am

      @Secessionista: “The energy of the sun impinging upon the earth is 100 quadrillion times more than the impact of all CO2 ever released.”

      No. Do you even understand the science behind it all? It’s very simple – CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have different absorption spectra for different wavelengths of light. High energy, short wavelength light gets transmitted more easily by CO2 than longer wavelength light reflected back from the earth. This retains a certain amount of heat. You can shine a laser through a glass box filled with CO2 and measure this yourself if you don’t believe me.

      The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere due to human output is relatively small (about 107ppm), which results in a net radiative forcing of about 1.5 additional watts per square meter. This isn’t much when compared with the total solar output of 343 W/m^2, but it’s not insignificant either.

      How much will this additional forcing heat up our atmosphere? It works out to about 0.8C per W/m^2 (though the sensitivity might be as low as 0.5 or as high as 2.0), so the impact of the anthropogenic CO2 releases is to create an increase of 1.5 * 0.8 = +1.2 degrees C.

      This is basic science, and not really debatable. The complications arise from trying to model these effects, but any argument that AGW *isn’t* true has to deal with the basic science of the radiative forcing.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 11:59am

      @FOOBEAR

      Sounds impressive, but not so fast, you have some of it right but,,, it is not so simple..

      AGWers confuse hypothesis with scientific fact. The following calcs are based on underlying assumptions built on more assumptions and the misapplication of experimental data from a simple environment to a complex one. The Earth is a very complex and dynamic system, the underlying application of “greenhouse gas theory” in its context is flawed. Simply, the Earth is not a glass jar and using these calcs in computer models is purely speculative, not factual.

      The AGW argument is based on the C02 forcing numbers, these are not based on real world measurements but instead by proxy. Like saying wet sidewalks cause rain… the Earths system is far too complex for this simplistic analysis.

      Don’t believe it, look up the GG theory and the actual science behind it, it is based on flawed proxies and assumptions, the numbers are bogus. They may be accurate in a glass jar but unless you can argue that the Earths system is identical to a glass jar, it is only hypothetical. I am not saying that gases can’t raise the temp but that the C02 forcings are assumptive and invalid.

      “You can shine a laser through a glass box filled with CO2 and measure this yourself if you don’t believe me.”
      “It works out to about 0.8C per W/m^2 (though the sensitivity might be as low as 0.5 or as high as 2.0), so the impact of the anthropogenic CO2 releases is to create an increase of 1.5 *

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 3:20am

      @Sue: ‘AGWers confuse hypothesis with scientific fact.”

      There’s several different components. Some are easy to measure and calculate, and you might as well call them scientific facts (even though philosophically speaking, there’s issues with such a term) – things such as the absorption spectra of CO2, and the anthropogenic CO2 production. Some things are pretty firmly established, but some skeptics have some doubts as to the overall accuracy – such as the global temperature record. By this point, though, the modern temperature record has been shown to be pretty accurate; the paleontological record somewhat less so, though there‘s good reasons to believe it’s roughly accurate.

      Other things are less certain, or even impossible to be sure about, such as how much CO2 humanity will produce in the future, which is why scientists will run a variety of guesses and compile an ensemble of estimates for the future. They also use larger error bars around quantities such as the behavior of the Greenland ice sheets which there’s not a particularly good understanding of.

      >>The AGW argument is based on the C02 forcing numbers, these are not based on real world measurements but instead by proxy

      No, this is simply not true. You can directly measure sunlight coming in from the atmosphere, and the amount being radiated back into space by satellites.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 8:20am

      @FOOBEAR

      Yes, you can estimate anthropogenic C02 and global temps are not very accurate though that is improving. If you have read the procedures for deriving the historical temp data in Manns earlier stuff, you will see that he manipulated data from many sources in a fashion that is truly astounding. He created a second “primary” data set that he determined more accurate and represented it as science. His work was horrifically juvenile and misrepresented the real primary data and was no better than a guess at historical global temps. Realistically there is no way to get an accurate historic global temp without a huge margin of error. Proxies have been proved to be very inaccurate.

      “You can directly measure sunlight coming in from the atmosphere, and the amount being radiated back into space by satellites.”

      This is true but in the context of isolating C02, it is false..

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • M 4 Colt
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:19pm

    Yes people climate change is real, BUT IT’S NOT MAN MADE!!!!! If you take a little time of your own and do as Glen has always told us to do and research it yourself you will see that the Earth’s climate has always been changing and one of the BIGGEST CAUSES FOR THIS CHANGE IS OUR SUN. All this crap about it being man caused is all about one thing, THE MONEY and lots of it!!! If the UN can get this to stand a few people and governments stand to make ONE HELL OF ALOT OF MONEY all at Americans expense. Just take a little of your time and do some research on a man named Maurice Strong he use to work for the UN on climate change and if you think Al Gore has made alot of money off of climate change it’s nothing compared to what Mr Strong and the Chinese government will make if this passes. Like the old saying goes follow the money and you will see the truth behind climate change it’s all about making a few people VERY RICH at our expense!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:43am

      It’s not man-made? Certainly the CO2 increases is man-made. You can measure the amount of fossil fuels and etc. burned every year, and divide it by the volume of the atmosphere and get a very close match to the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration levels.

      Increased CO2 levels result in increase heat retention.

      The climate is a complicated beast, but the basic science behind AGW is very solid.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:01pm

      @FOOBEAR

      You say the climate is complicated but the science is simple and basic… contradiction..

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 6:32pm

      Sue, the thing confusing you is that some parts of global warming are very well understood, and some parts are highly speculative, but this is not a contradiction.

      For example, it is possible to know how much CO2 we currently produce while it is impossible to predict CO2 emissions in the future. Hence, the IPCC and others use a variety of emissions scenarios to calculate forcings for the future.

      The forcing of CO2, likewise is easy to calculate, but how much heating we’ll actually see depends on a complex and interdependent feedback mechanisms. But any claim that CO2 will not drive temperatures up have to deal with the basic science of the forcing to begin with.

      To put it simply, if you eat an extra slice of pie every day, the basic science of the calories says you’ll gain one pound per week. How much you actually gain is much more complicated, but it is unlikely you’re going to lose weight.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:02pm

      @FOOBEAR

      Actually the pie is a great ananolgy..

      If you are in a glass jar and eat pie all day for a month science says you will get fat…

      If you eat a single bite of pie per month living your life in the real world that bite of pie is insignificant and completely overwhelmed by a multitude of variables. In fact, if you are undernourished or active you may still lose weight. That bite of pie may even help keep you alive if you were starving.

      This is the achilles heel of the AGW hypothesis, a single variable in isolation can be tested like in a glass jar, but the Earth is not a glass jar and has many many variables in a complex and dynamic system which are not well understood.

      There is no credible baseline for Earths temperature, there are assumptions, not facts.

      When C02 is warmed in a glass jar, and it is allowed to expand as it does in the atmosphere, there is no difference in temp between air and C02. Why, the thermodynamics of molecular density, C02 is more dense than air. Therefore, the glass jar experiment is not predictive of atmospheric forcing. The glass jar experiment when sealed C02 temp rises more than air, but it is due to density within the jar as it is sealed. The Earth is not sealed. The metrics from the glass jar experiment are used to model atmospheric forcings of C02 and they are false, the atmosphere is not a sealed glass jar.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • frust@ted
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:13pm

    As more of these Climategate type emails come out this is my prediction.
    First they call it Global Warming People Get Skeptical Next it’s Climate Change after climate change becomes unpopular it will be some form of “Air and Particulate quality” . It has very little to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with money.

    When somone truly belives that a habit will kill them and they want to change what do they do they change their behaivor. Look at most of the high profile environmentalists that are so called die hards like Al Gore, he hasn’t changed his behavior at all and he beleives we are doomed. He is a charlatan along with thes climategate folks.

    Report Post »  
  • babylonvi
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:10pm

    So, all those fossils in North Dakota are from the arctic breed or was it once quite warm up there? Too many raptor SUVs rolling around?

    Report Post » babylonvi  
  • thegodfather
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:10pm

    Time to start prosecuting these criminals. Al Gore is lying to the world.

    Report Post » thegodfather  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:45am

      Al Gore is indeed lying to the world, there’s no doubt about it. (Look up his drowning polar bear myth, that has now caused Coke cans to turn white…)

      That doesn’t mean that Climategate is what AGW skeptics thought it was, or that Climagegate II has any explosive revelations either.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:04pm

      @ FOOBEAR

      Climategate proves motive was ideological and not adherent to honest scientific methods.

      Since the new emails were just released it is presumptive to dismiss them when you have not even read them, isn’t it?

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 3:14am

      @Sue: I’ve read the “best hits” of Climategate 2.0 and haven’t seen anything particularly noteworthy in them. There’s a difference between idealogical dogma, and being convinced by the science that something is true.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 8:30am

      @FOOBEAR

      True, but there are 5000 emails and apparently another 200000 that are password protected and not released.
      These emails won’t prove AGW false. You can’t disprove a falsehood.

      These emails show the character, ideological agenda and unscientific procedures of the primary researchers behind AGW. These emails expose the ideological subversion of the scientific process, since all AGW science uses these core group as the foundation for nearly all the research, this is extremely damning. and questions all of it.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 5:21pm

      McIntyre, Watts, Pielke, etc., have been able to publish papers, which have even been referenced in major climatology papers, so it‘s quite quite true there’s a complete freeze out on dissenting voices. Climategate did reveal serious issues with how the science was being conducted at a high level, but absolutely did not show any evidence for “fraud” or “hoaxing” or similar claims that have been made all over the place here.

      If anything, revealing Jones’ private emails showed there is no secret conspiracy to hide data or invent global warming out of wholecloth.

      Report Post » foobear  
  • hatemonger
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:08pm

    I actually have no problem with man made global warming. I am looking forward to California falling into the ocean, and Vegas being ocean front property. Bring it on and warm it up as fast as possible. If we are lucky San Francisco will fall in first while Pelosi is working so hard for the childrens.

    Report Post » hatemonger  
    • littlemissy
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:54pm

      Lmao

      Report Post »  
    • Joe Bonham
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 9:59pm

      HATEMONGER:

      Heh, at least you live up to your username.

      Have you ever BEEN to San Francisco? What happened that made you hate it so much? Did all those scary gay people and Muslims frighten you? Were you slipped a mickey and date raped?

      Report Post »  
  • geonj
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:51pm

    climate change is cyclic and has very little if anything to do with man made factors. there are heating and cooling periods on small medium and large time scales. green is all about government setting a corporate agenda at the expense of people and the gas pump pricing.

    Report Post » geonj  
  • jnealer
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:43pm

    In the war for the public’s perception on climate change, do you honestly believe that more money is being funneled into the climate scientists’ cause? Seriously, EVERY oil, coal, gas, car, chemical, ect. business has a stake in having you NOT believe in climate change. The Koch brothers alone have poured WAY more money into climate change denying than Soros or Gore could ever muster. Thousands of scientists from around the world haven’t devoted their entire lives to lying to you…that would be insane. Believe what you want about climate change, but at least realize that your opinion is exactly what every energy corporation out there has paid for.

    Report Post »  
  • Eliasim
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:38pm

    Let it rain.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlF2p1UPt8Y

    Report Post »  
  • garbagecanlogic
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:38pm

    I knew it!! Bush put them up to it.

    The U.S. Out Of The U.N.
    The U.N. Out Of The U.S.

    Report Post »  
  • South Philly Boy
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:31pm

    Global Warming +algore + COMMUNIST SCIENTIST = FRAUD

    Report Post » South Philly Boy  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:40pm

      Indeed, if the most basic of information and data is manipulated and fabricated to achieve the desired ending, then all of it is discredited across the board.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Grandmadar
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:53pm

      Today in my newspaper a small article on Pg 8 of first section is…“Gigures called dire on Global Warming”
      ..Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level that world leaders have agreed upon sa safe.
      New figures from the U.N. weather agency Monday showed that…….”

      Propaganda.

      Report Post »  
    • Mikev5
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:11pm

      They are supposed to be non-biased scientists showing us concert facts not doctored/tweaked facts they are especially not supposed to be talking on how best to manipulate info to better there global climate agenda that’s not being non biased that’s pushing an agenda plain and simple pulling the wool over our eyes. These scientists should be kicked out for manipulating data no matter how small a change.

      Report Post » Mikev5  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:48am

      @South Philly Boy: Actually, “fraud” means they (the scientists at CRU) were fundamentally lying to people, which isn’t the case. Al Gore, contrawise, certainly lied a number of times in An Inconvenient Truth, but it’s not his emails on display here.

      Climategate DID reveal Phil Jones was avoiding FOIA disclosures, which was bad. But it turned up no evidence he was lying about the science, BLAZE OMG Hyperbole aside.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:07pm

      @ FOOBEAR

      Is not lying, intentionally misleading and when science is politicized is that not fraud?

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 3:28am

      @Sue: What, in particular, are you claiming they’re lying about? Science being politicized is not “fraud” unless you can demonstrate an intentional misleading to the public. I followed Climategate I closely, and didn’t see any outright fraud in any of it.

      Their only misdeeds (and they were serious misdeeds at that) were to hide data from the skeptics wanting to double check their analysis and avoid FOIA requests.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 8:35am

      @FOOBEAR

      Hiding data, manipulating peer review process, smearing and attacking critics, colluding with media and government agencies. This is not science, it is propaganda presented as science. Therefore fraud.

      Science is a search for the truth, this was an ideological sell job.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • Sue Dohnim
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:22pm

    This is exposing the Technocracy. a form of Authoritarianism an d Tryanny, leading to a global Communism, call it NeoCommumism. Faith in corrupt Science and technology who are the priests in the new religion where the individual is subjugated to the collective. It Is Orwells 1984. Soros and his coalition is creating 1984… through the technocrats.

    Soros funds it, the Government funds it. Obama pushes the agenda… Look it up, we are being consumed by a Technocracy that feels like communism, socialism and fascism… but it is much worse.

    Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • TLS
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:18pm

    It is funny Liberals can see the end of the world from Carbon dioxide but medicare and social security are ok! Maybe it is math.

    Report Post »  
  • Silversmith
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:15pm

    The problem is, whether it’s cholesterol, cancer, reflux, nutrition, or the environment – if they are cheating, for whatever reason, it taints the whole scientific community.

    Silversmith

    Report Post » Silversmith  
  • Eliasim
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:15pm

    That’s kind of funny that this article is in regards to Climate Change, and the person who posted the article has the last name “Klimas.”

    Report Post »  
  • Exrepublisheep
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:14pm

    None of the e-mails dispute climate change, They are only discussing how to get the message out more efficiently.

    Report Post » Exrepublisheep  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:21pm

      More effectively? You mean “more deceptively” don’t you? The emails actually confirm the criticism that they changed their selling pitch from “global warming” to “climate change” because the colder weather has been a publicity problem for them. When did credible scientists begin worrying about selling pitchs? Idiot. There’s a saying in scientific circles…”no problem..no grants”. In the seventies it was “Global Cooling”….same idiocy.

      Report Post »  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:16pm

      @XSHEEPIE You are so wrong, this is just the beginning

      Best email till now, from Phil:

      Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days,
      these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from
      looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original
      unadjusted data (which we don’t have) and then move onto the software used
      to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release).
      CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t
      have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past
      is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
      discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are
      happy about not releasing the original station data.
      (…)
      Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office
      to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I’ve ascertained it most
      likely came from there, as I’m the only one who knows where the files are here.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • Secessionista
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:25pm

      However, the scientific papers declaring climate change have been scientifically refuted. That’s that, and no new measurements have revealed anything at all.

      Even the latest news, sounding so alarming, really isn’t. The media has twisted the true facts into another hysteria, and it will probably take years more to undo these new lies.

      Doesn’t it bother any of you in the least bit that none of these climate scientists can present a simple chart of the yearly temperature, unadjusted with their hockey-stick algorithms, straight from the sensors themselves, that shows ANY change in temperature?

      I am amazed that the dirty unwashed masses are so gullible. My reason? They have temperature sensors in their skin. They have a memory from year to year. They would know it themselves if the climate were changing. They have parents and grandparents and great grand parents, a hundred years of memory right there in their family. Nothing has changed, and a tenth of a degree is not a calamity. The weather changes plus and minus 50F every year!

      But in spite of all of this obvious evidence that AGW is a scam, there is also the raw data. I have looked at it. Carefully. I have read the papers. They are intentionally distorted, as no PhD could ever make such blatant mistakes accidentally. The weather is not changing, except by the sun’s natural variation. I don’t think carbon credits are going to impact the solar surface temperature. Not unless algore really is the messiah.

      Report Post » Secessionista  
    • Komponist-ZAH
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 7:32pm

      Really? You obviously didn’t read the Telegraph blog. Here’s the most damning e-mail quoted:

      ” Thorne/MetO:

      Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
      troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
      wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
      uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
      further if necessary [...]“

      Report Post »  
  • louise
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:12pm

    When we start having significant stretches of bad weather events, they will bring out the climate change thing again and say, “see I told ya so”.
    When that happens don’t fall for it because the cause will be solar activity, not human activity.

    Report Post » louise  
  • EqualJustice
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:08pm

    NO WONDER so many people bought into this crap! So much BOGUS science! We all used to TRUST scientists and most of their research. Now we have to QUESTION everything!

    Report Post » EqualJustice  
  • goodgrubguy
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:00pm

    soooooo…….it’s not true? I would think all the hot air Al Gore expells would heat the earth quite a bit!

    Report Post » goodgrubguy  
    • jblaze
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:02pm

      By: Robert MorleyColumnist

      Canada wants to open the tap for a huge supply of oil to America—but we won’t let it.

      What if America discovered it had a Saudi Arabia worth of oil under its own soil? It could change global energy politics overnight. At the very least, it would make the United States much less vulnerable to Middle Eastern oil powers.

      Guess what? We found that oil—rather, the Canadians did. Reserves are already drilled and measured. And new advances in technology make it ours for the asking. It just needs a way to get to market.

      But here is the catch: The oil is trapped in Canadian oil sands and will stay there if we can’t disentangle ourselves from a mess of special interest politicking, bickering and environmental tunnel vision.

      The question went all the way to the highest office in the land. But on November 10, President Obama announced he will postpone his decision on the TransCanada Keystone Oil Pipeline until after the 2012 elections. With Obama’s environmentalist base at war with his labor union supporters (who want the jobs), the delay might have been a keen political move—but at the detriment of the oil project.

      The Keystone pipeline was to deliver a whopping 700,000 barrels of oil a day—each and every day—for at least the next 50 years—to U.S. refineries in Texas. Read the rest of the article: at
      http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8841.7609.0.0

      Report Post » jblaze  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:51am

      @Goodgrubguy: “soooooo…….it’s not true?”

      Sorry. Climategate I & II have done nothing to refute the basic science behind AGW, which even the Koch-brothers funded study has admitted is solid.

      It found flaws in how the science was conducted, namely icing out journals and skeptics from the scientific process, which is, actually, a pretty bad thing to do, but it found no evidence of fraud about the science.

      So, sorry.

      The good news is, if we ever muster the political will to do so, we can safely switch from Coal to Nuclear with no increase in power rates, and thereby almost halve our CO2 output without forcing people to drive crappy hybrids or institute more draconian measures.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • expatinontariocanada
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:39am

      @FooBear…there are none so blind as those who won’t see. From Komponist-Zah’s post:

      ” Thorne/MetO:

      Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
      troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
      wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
      uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
      further if necessary [...]“

      “Observations”, “accept one single study”, “discount a wealth of others”…seems like a lot of “science” in this one email post, all to the contrary of your prevailing view. And what about “hide the decline”? The decline is “science”. Watchout, you might become as much of a laughingstock as these people now are.

      Report Post » expatinontariocanada  
    • foobear
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 3:26am

      @Expat: Right, that’s the process of science in action there. What do you expect when people disagree about papers? Having a cuppa tea and biscuits?

      Or are you confusing tropical warming with global warming? You might notice a difference in the qualifiers.

      Report Post » foobear  
  • biohazard23
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 5:59pm

    Oops….. Heh heh heh……

    Report Post » biohazard23  
  • Eliasim
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 5:59pm

    Woo, Global Warming, so buy some land in the foot-hills of the mountains and invest in pineapples and coconuts.

    Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:02pm

      And if you prefer a cooler climate, then move to Antarctica to live on the newly exposed ground.

      Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:06pm

      Scientists are morons anyways, and I bet they didn‘t take into account when if all the ice melts that the amount of water coming from it won’t be nearly as much ice and snow that it amounts to because when water freezes it takes up more space, and that’s why 2 inches of rain can amount to 20 inches of snow.

      Report Post »  
    • Al Gored
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:40am

      Or, buy a condo in San Francisco next to Al Gore’s condo.

      Al bought the the condo about the same time he was telling us the area would be under water.

      Report Post »  
  • TRONINTHEMORNING
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 5:58pm

    “How can we make the lie believable?” This is the main thrust of these failed, faux scientists. Laughable and wicked at the same time. Of course, these people are all true capitalists as they do want to sell us something. Their self-loathing keeps them from admitting it to themselves and the world. On it’s face, global warming is a man-made myth. A bad man-made myth.

    Report Post »  
  • Meyvn
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 5:56pm

    Say it ain’t so. /sarc-off

    Report Post » Meyvn  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:23pm

      Quick…someone send another 14 million dollars to Solyndra..oh wait..the Labor Department just did that..to pay for “retraining” and 130 weeks of unemployment and health benefits for it’s employees. Don’t believe me?…look it up.

      Report Post »  
    • EqualJustice
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 6:28pm

      I SAW THAT! Where does it end….??

      Report Post » EqualJustice  
  • YoungBloodNews
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 5:55pm

    The the whitewash squad will be on this in 3, 2, 1…. Oh wait, Penn State has it’s hands full at the moment ;)

    Report Post » YoungBloodNews  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love