By It is official now, the global warming scaremongering is a coordinated conspiracy after someone leaked a number of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit , which is one of the premier locations for global warming scaremongering:
So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below – emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.
This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle. [Andrew Bolt]
Andrew Bolt’s site has a number of the emails posted. Here is an example of one that shows the collusion going on to explain why global warming has stopped:
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael OppenheimerHi 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).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***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: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***
For those of you that read Real Climate, here is an email that shows how that website has been coluding with the global warming scaremongers to stifle debate:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidtguys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…
Of course the mainstream media is in no hurry to report this news and it has been left to media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch to report this news such The Australian newspaper:
COMPUTER hackers have broken into Britain’s leading climate science research centre, making public thousands of private emails between top climate change scientists and, in the process, laying bare their bitter disagreements about the cause of climate change. The emails — more than 2000 of them, plus 3000 documents — began appearing online late on Friday, and are widely available.
Some are malicious — in one, the head of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, says he is “cheered” by news of the sudden death of a prominent Australian climate sceptic, John L. Daly, who died of a heart attack at his Launceston home in 2004.
Others show scientists referring to sceptical colleagues as “prats”, “charlatans” and “idiots”.
The emails also acknowledge the frustration of trying to find evidence to “prove” man-made climate change. [The Australian]
Of course Fox News has picked up on it as well:
The ClimateGate scandal is growing that eventually the rest of the media will have to cover it just like the ACORN scandal took time to grow in the mainstream media as well.
We know for a fact that these emails are not a hoax because the global warming scaremongers are now claiming that their words have been taken out of context:
Sceptics say the emails are evidence of a conspiracy by climate scientists to bully into submission colleagues who challenge the theory of man-made climate change.
The authors of the emails, including many who contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, say their words have been taken out of context.
So we now have documented fact that climate scientists are colluding to mislead the public and actually cheerful that climate skeptics pass away and the mainstream media is slow to report on this?
Now if someone leaks Sarah Palin emails now that is a whole different story.
Make sure to head over to Anthony Watts site as well that is all over this story.
10:03 am on November 24th, 2009 1
The AGW(anthropogenic global warming)camp has never provided solid evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of the increase in temperatures and due to the fact that tempatures have been falling in the last 10 years despite a continued rise in CO2 levels indicates that the AGW computer models showing the end of the world in our lifetime are seriously flawed. This data leak shows that they know this and are trying to hold on in the name of CASH MONEY and job security.
No one in the AGW camp can provide us with actual scientific evidence that reducing CO2 in the atmosphere by X will reduce global tempatures by Y and yet they are willing to mandate a Global CO2 tax on every person on the planet.
Carbon Trading and Taxes WILL destroy the world economy and make sure that the poor stay really really really poor and the rich (who support carbon trading) become even more rich.
Ask yourself: Who Benefits?
BTW: Al Gore is the primary owner of the major Carbon Trading market in the U.S. and stands to make Billions if the CO2 Cap and Trade system is applied.
10:13 am on November 24th, 2009 2
According to my environmental science professor, cyclic variations in ocean current temperatures affect the concentration of CO2 dissolved in oceans, and thus has a strong impact on the climactic conditions as gases are less soluble in warmer water. He estimated that the cycle was roughly 75 years long and at its peak in the 90's (hence the cooling down we have been seeing in the last few years). If he's correct, and I'm starting to believe that he was, we'll hear about global warming again in 60 years.
11:20 am on November 24th, 2009 3
[...] here: Climate Scientists Emails Leaked On the Internet Show Global … Share and [...]
10:23 am on November 24th, 2009 4
From a few years ago:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01…
10:30 am on November 24th, 2009 5
There are still plenty of reasons why we should get off fossil fuels…Too bad governments and corporations are only motivated by greed.
10:55 am on November 24th, 2009 6
I concur. We need to move on from Fossil Fuels since they are not sustainable and do much more harm than just releasing a little CO2.
Integral Fast Reactors are the answer. We already have an almost limetless supply of fuel for them just sitting around in concrete casks or in depleted uranium stocks. We just need to get past the unfounded idea that Nuclear Power is not safe. Just like AGW, Nuclear power has been portrayed in the Media as evil without any scientific facts to back up the posistion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reacto…
11:05 am on November 24th, 2009 7
While I'm not a student of such things, my general interest combined with my distrust of those pushing Climate Change, caused me to do abit of research. Said research would point to your science professor being correct on the likely cause.
1:58 pm on November 24th, 2009 8
I have always been an advocate of nuclear power, and a skeptic of 'global warming', even when yelled at "its people like you who fail to understand that the world is warming because of us".
The media has hyped this so much and given credence to false science. Another reason I enjoy the internet. The media will, as usual weasle out of the reports as reality sinks in.
It is also a sad state of affairs that the US government has bought into the issue 'big time'.
2:00 pm on November 24th, 2009 9
It doesn't need to get any bigger than 'Fox News" as that is what most people watch. And their viewership is growing. I wonder why?
2:05 pm on November 24th, 2009 10
The hoax is that man cause's global warming. Global temperatures are controlled by forces that are out of our control. Solar cycles and sun activity are two of the largest contributors to global warming / cooling. It was actually hotter in the middle ages then it is now, and we didn't die off, the polar ice caps didn't melt causing Armageddon as we know it. That fact is the number one thing the AGWers tried to hide, the second thing is that its been getting cooler in the last 10 years not warmer. We've increased our CO2 production yet the worlds got cooler, but this fact doesn't jive with their theory so they find ways to hide it or just ignore it.
Science is based on objective study and analysis. You make a hypothesis, collect data, do experimentation, collect more data, then finally you either prove or disprove your hypothesis. If its true great, if its false then great too. Either you you've contributed to the grand collection of knowledge. Its when scientists put their personal feelings and political views into their work and allow that to effect their collection / study of data that we have a problem. As is apparently what happened at the CRU. This throws their entire credibility into question and ANYTHING they've published / studied must be reevaluated through independent third party's, all with transparency of both data and method.
3:32 pm on November 24th, 2009 11
Dude you should of seen the reaction when I brought this up to my liberal coworkers. Talk about a cold shoulder, they didn't even want to admin anything said in the emails. They said it was all taken out of context. I then asked if they even read what was released, to which they replied that they hadn't. I said how can you form an objective opinion about the validity of the exposed data if you refuse to look at it. Then I got the cold look / shoulder and they quickly changed topic.
Its the thing I love about being a independent moderate, I don't have to subscribe to any party line or otherwise affiliate my beliefs with anyone else. Lets me rib on both the conservatives and the liberals, of course I tend to piss off both groups as well.
6:15 pm on November 24th, 2009 12
Don’t forget about the Termites!
http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?s=termites
6:43 pm on November 24th, 2009 13
I agree that we need to get off fossil fuels, but imposing carbon tax’s is not the idea. It was a scheme thought up to make money off the “green movement” by a few individuals in key positions of power.
Nuclear is definitely the future, regardless of what the greenies want. Modern Gen IV reactors are many times safer / more efficient then anything we got built in the USA. That and fusion is finally taking off, just not in the way we first expected.
7:03 pm on November 24th, 2009 14
Sorry, this is not enough prof that the Global warning is a hoax. However the way the climate pannel have ignored people which are against is indeed pretty bad (and nothing new).
Im not an enviroment expert but its pretty clear to me that the industry is bad for the enviroment and that limmiting this would be good. Its also pretty clear for me that it gets warmer, more people that has lack of water etc. So basicly I don’t care very much if they have a 100% proof or not. Anyway, the evidence that Global warning is a hoax is according to me very much weaker.
This hacker thing will not become any big story except at Fox News.
7:39 pm on November 24th, 2009 15
“Sorry, this is not enough prof that the Global warning is a hoax.”
Actually the change in global tempatures is not a hoax and actually happens and it is called Climate Change.
The “Hoax” is the false premise that Man and CO2 are responsible for an increase in global tempatures. (which by the way have been declining for the last 10 years). The Climate changes and we are not in control of it by any stretch of the imagination.
“So basicaly I don’t care very much if they have a 100% proof or not.”
The issue is that they have NO proof. None. Zero. There is actually more evidence that it is a rise in temperture that CAUSES the rise in CO2 and not the other way around.
Get a fresh cup of coffee, take a piss, change your socks… whatever you need to do the relax and open your mind and then spend some quality time reading this page:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
I mean actually read and understand it. Do some follow up. Check the sources.
It may have some impact on your point of view.
7:49 pm on November 24th, 2009 16
And straight from the horses ass… err … mouth.
http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/11/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming.html#more
7:55 pm on November 24th, 2009 17
I don’t know if you saw this but Global Warming is actually being slowed down by “Global Dimming”. In other words, if we clean up the air we will drastically cook the planet.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
9:11 pm on November 24th, 2009 18
The carbon tax is simply taxing/preying on people's guilt for their relatively opulent lifestyles. It releases them of their guilt without having any measurable affect on them.
Ironically, keeping a dog is just as bad for the environment as driving an SUV.
9:12 pm on November 24th, 2009 19
Of course the mainstream media is in no hurry to report this news and it has been left to media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch to report this news such The Australian newspaper
I disagree. I first read about this at the LA Times. Other "mainstream media," including news outlets considered liberal, have been reporting on it from the beginning. Some of them have put a little spin on it, but they have been reporting it.
From the New York Times:
Hacked email is new fodder for climate dispute
Stolen emails sharpen a brawl between climate scientists and skeptics
From the Los Angeles Times:
A climate change dust-up
From the Washington Post:
Op-ed: climate of denial
From AP:
Hackers leak emails, stoke climate debate
Key scientist says politics behind stolen emails
I found nothing at CNN. ABC News and NBC News have no original content but carries several AP stories.
9:16 pm on November 24th, 2009 20
It's certainly not the beginning of Armageddon, as Fox News's the majority of target demographic probably believes.
10:33 pm on November 24th, 2009 21
This is so obvious..it is all about $$$… you guys are smart enough to figure out who gets the $$$.
10:46 pm on November 24th, 2009 22
LOL. An "Adapting to Climate Change" Banner Ad just showed up on the top off this page. Talk about targeted advertising.
11:34 pm on November 24th, 2009 23
Will be interesting to see how the Copenhagen climate conference discussions go, and how the media covers it, now that a little sunlight is on this global warming cabal…
1:27 am on November 25th, 2009 24
How about the New York Times…
Last week: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here."
Last Year: Here are links to screeshots of Sarah Palin's hacked Yahoo account, private e-mail exchanges and her list of contact.
1:47 am on November 25th, 2009 25
I have seen nothing on CNN or the major networks on the leaked email scandal. Maybe they had a brief mention and I missed it, but I know for sure Fox has been running with it. This is playing out just like the ACORN scandal. Major networks slow to pick up on it while the liberal papers play damage control.
Most of the major liberal papers as Chickenhead points out below with the NY Times are in excuse making mode. Look at this excerpt from the Wash. Post:
The fact that scientists have been manipulating data and conspiring to silence critics and are even glad to see them die doesn't undercut the "scientific consensus"?
And people wonder why Fox News gets so much viewership despite being as bad as it is?
2:46 am on November 25th, 2009 26
So Obviously, you don't watch that show.
But that does not stop you from making assumptions about a "target demographic". Interesting!
What ELSE do you assume?
2:49 am on November 25th, 2009 27
Can we say, "agenda" pertaining to NYT?
5:09 am on November 25th, 2009 28
Oh, clearly some of the things I linked above are heavy on the scientists' side of things, like the one about politics being behind the stolen emails.
I presented the list of reports only to counter the claim that "the mainstream media is in no hurry" to report this, when that's where I had first read about it. In fact, at the LAT, it was a prominently placed article.
I think that this is quite the slam dunk against anthropogenic climate change that many skeptics are making it out to be. Nor is it something that can be easily brushed aside as illegal activity and taking things out of context, as the consensusists are making it out to be. A more accurate picture, like so many other topics that end up being talked about at Fox and/or MSNBC, probably requires some triangulation.
One of the articles I posted (maybe the WaPo op-ed) went into the problems of withholding information and not letting it air out for scrutiny.
And while I think it's wise to find out who makes money if the global warming "consensus" is followed, it's equally wise to consider who gains if it's discredited.
I am curious, since there seem to be so many skeptics commenting, what other anthropogenic atmospheric/environmental issues they accept or reject. The ozone hole, air pollution, red tides, acid rain, etc.
9:58 am on November 25th, 2009 29
Great, lets start off with "Al Gore" at the top to make money if the "consensus" is followed. Many, many, millions of greenbacks.
10:02 am on November 25th, 2009 30
The NY Times? The fish wrap of choice? The same newspaper that regularly print government secrets on surveillance of terrorists? Say it isn't so. Not an American newspaper.
1:16 pm on November 25th, 2009 31
I wouldn't be so fast to pass judgment against global warming. There are two sides to every coin.
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNe…
3:36 pm on November 25th, 2009 32
Please. Would you also argue that the Left Behind book series's "end of times" theme doesn't reflect the actual worldview of millions of Americans?
3:37 pm on November 25th, 2009 33
Global Dimming, aka. the Fox News Effect.
3:44 pm on November 25th, 2009 34
Why does Al Gore always come up around here when Global Warming is discussed? Because nobody really likes him, so by associating him to Global Warming you somehow manage to discredit it?
7:42 pm on November 25th, 2009 35
Teadrinker,
Al Gore, for financial gain and an attempt to stay relevant, he has positioned himself as the Face of Man-made Global Warming.
That's why he comes up.
When I watched An Inconvenient Truth, after hearing all the hype, I expected to walk away understanding the true urgency of Man-made Global Warming. I really did. I didn't recognize it as a left/right/control/freedom/tax/power consolidation issue.
What I got instead was the same feeling a little kid gets when he opens his Christmas present expecting something really cool and finds a big peanut-filled turd sprinkled with glitter with mommy and daddy laughing uncontrollably in the background.
To all but the zealots with preconceived notions based on idealism, it felt like an infomercial selling an inferior product… high on emotion, low on fact. With a growing sense of unbelief, I quickly recognized a few suspect statements… and, later, statements I knew to be false.
Further, half of the movie was something about how man is destroying the planet and needed to lower his lifestyle and the other half was an Al Gore promotional video. Insulting.
He finally lost me when he continued to lecture about how I needed to lower my lifestyle so as not to destroy the planet… FROM THE DRIVER'S SEAT OF AN SUV!
It takes a certain type of communist-style dumb to see this and nod one's head in worshipful agreement.
I can recognize a limousine liberal when I see one… and I can recognize when whatever they are pushing (usually restrictions) don't apply to them… mostly because the real goal of the agenda has nothing to do with its stated goal.
The entire Man-made Global Warming Industry is constructed in the same way.
Instead of video conferences, world leaders jet off to exotic locations to hold meetings on how the little people need to pay more taxes and reduce their lifestyle. Talentless entertainers lecture everyone on carbon reduction from the decks of ships and the backs of limos. Politicians raise taxes and tighten regulations on daily living while supporting two open-ended carbon-belching wars and needless carbon-intensive projects in their districts. Companies charge extra when they write "green" over all three layers of plastic packaging on the disposable crap they are producing in a smoke-vomiting factory in China. "Scientists" try to out-alarm each other in hopes of getting more funding to find new ways to cook the numbers to support policies and agendas dreamed up by the politicians controlling the funding.
And Al Gore is the face of this… its largest and most vocal proponent… and a leader by example.
And that is why he comes up.
12:24 am on November 26th, 2009 36
Unlike the CRU or RealClimate I won't delete your comment or try to silence you.
The article you linked to does nothing to diffuse ClimateGate. It just more media damage control.
2:51 am on November 26th, 2009 37
Teadrinker
I'm sure the Left Behind series DOES "effect" the view of many Americans.
Just as many Americans believe in Vampires.
I never said American (general population) was all that bright.
But Fox "target demographic)" is hardly a believer in either.
The left likes to demonize christian beliefs. I don't really understand that desire myself, since Islam can do no wrong.
But there are "nuts" on both "all" sides.
I never read that series, nor do I have a desire too. I also have no desire to watch the "new" crop of vampire movies. But I do like the old ones and sometimes have to fight the desire to buy a cape.
2:56 am on November 26th, 2009 38
I'll give you props for being clever.
So what's the Communist News Network (CNN) talkin about these days?
3:07 am on November 26th, 2009 39
Your smarter than that — I hope.
Big Al is makin the bucks on this. He made a movie and won a NPP for it —- remember?
Like him? Don't even know him. Now if he would point out some good investments for me, I would like him even MORE!
How bout those Nuke power plants that will be comin online to relieve our dependance on oil!
Who was protesting those back in the past?
Somebody tell me—-
3:32 am on November 26th, 2009 40
Kushibo this is why I am so against the global warming eco-faith because it obscures real environmental issues. Take for example the Yellow Dust issue in China.
http://rokdrop.com/2007/05/17/yellow-dust-linked/
There are few environmental problems that rank up there with Yellow Dust and it continues to get worse and worse every year and this is something that has actually be proven to change the weather and have negative health effects.
Yet how many people even know of this issue and how much money and effort is being allocated to deal with it compared to global warming? The global warming eco-faith and their missionaries have totally obscured and even stigmatized legitimate environmental issues.
I am a member of the Sierra Club because I believe in conservation efforts that the group promotes, but I am seriously considering canceling my membership because more and more of the organization's efforts is going towards the global warming eco-faith instead of conservation. I get my bi-monthly newsletter and more and more of its causes are to get people to attend global warming protests instead of conservation efforts. It's sad.
This is the true harm the eco-faith and their false prophets like Al Gore have caused.
10:45 am on November 26th, 2009 41
Al Gore is the global warming poster boy. Why wouldn't you expect his name to come up?
Its not that I don't like him, I don't believe the false alarmist science he is spreading. It will hurt any real inquiry on climate change for many years to come, as more and more become unconvinced of the current 'conscensus'.
It will make many future skeptics of 'any' scientific reviews in other fields that are credible and well researched.
His actions are probobly doing more to set back science than any other scam in recent time. Science is losing credibility over this issue and the world is watching.
And yes these 'e-mails, documents' etc have seriously hurt the claims of scientific proof when they talk about doctoring the truth so it fits the concept.
5:51 pm on November 29th, 2009 42
I agree there are many environmental problems on this planet. Many things we are doing that is causing significant damage to the environment. Pumping small amounts of CO2 (relative to the amounts already present) into the atmosphere isn't one of them.
Putting nasty chemicals into the air, that later come back down onto our heads and homes is a bad idea in general. Eroding away our environment makes the planet less capable of supporting us as a species. Destroying your own home is a bad idea no matter how you frame it.