Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 0
This printed in the new your times, no less. Following the link is/are snippets.

This is some juicy steff about the fraud of Global Warming. Even this story has some cover up to it. (new york times)
How about:

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

and then there's:

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

but wait, there is more:

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart

and even much more:

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

the accused fraudsters want victim status too. That is a laugher.

The documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

The rest of the article goes on and on blah blah. Mostly of the article writter getting the spin right on how to treat this fraud exposure. You know they will try to spin this.

FRAUD IS OUT THERE. AND IT IS EVERYWHERE. Involved in every important aspect of our lives.

and of course there is this reality:

But on Friday, he said, after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected a concerted effort to block the release of data for independent review.

He said that some e-mails mused about a way to discredit him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong.

“This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said. <i/> <b/>

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But Wait, There's More!!!

This is from the wall street journal. Following link is a snippet:

(no wonder they {democrats/liberals} are in such a hurry to pass climate change laws. Before the fraud is exposed!

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor<i/>


The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.

Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet.

The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence policy makers around the world.

The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in climate models such as the IPCC's.

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.

Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate scientists have dismissed those claims.

The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.

Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.

Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.

Write to Keith Johnson at
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This sure did make it into Wikipedia fast. Even calling it 'climategate' in memory of President Nixon and his 'Watergate'. (I am not a crook) Following the link is a snippet:

Climate change sceptics asserted that the e-mails showed scientists had colluded to overstate evidence for man-made global warming.<i/>

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just a reminder of how serious this fraud is to pass in politics, and how devious (and well connected) the fraudsters are, don't forget the "faulty sensor" (post 16 of this board) and the crash of the NASA Climate Satellite (post 17 of this board).
Connect the dots, its right in front of you.
Follow the money, it goes to the U.N. They are not just some little community charity down the street.
And of course, there is Al Gore and his group. (a nobel and an emmy?... to further the belief of this fraud in the public eye?)
Idiots are everywhere, don't be one yourself.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here is a great article. Following the link is a snippet:

The great 'global warming' hoax
Exclusive: Roger Hedgecock uncovers media efforts to bury 'climate change' truth
Posted: November 23, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Roger Hedgecock

While all eyes focus on the unfolding drama of the "health-care reform–health-insurance reform–jobs bill," another critical part of the "Change America" plan just took a torpedo midships.

Some 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit at the U.K.'s University of East Anglia (where the "world's leading climate scientists work") have been leaked. The blogosphere is on fire – cover-up, falsified studies, intimidation of skeptics. It's all there.

The Cap and Trade bill to lower our standard of living and subject our consumer choices to government diktat is based on the public agreeing that what we once called "progress" threatens the planet with destruction and we must stop it. It is a matter of accepted dogma among the collectivist lemmings of the Left that the Earth is warming because of our insatiable appetite for food, clothing and shelter – and cars, big-screen TVs and a zillion gadgets run by electricity.

The industries producing these things produce "greenhouse gas emissions," threatening mass starvation, drought and hurricanes – a slow motion "2012" that must be stopped by decreasing "greenhouse gas emissions." Cows will belch less if we stop eating them, that sort of thing.

The collectivist Left in academia, media and politics got away with imprinting this dogma on the popular mind only because generations of government-school graduates have been successfully stripped of knowledge of history, geology or climate science. There was a time when "science" was a rigorous search for truth that required an open skeptical mind, double-blind studies, multiple repeated experiments, peer-reviewed published data and a strong belief that if you are proven wrong, someone else got it right and the world will benefit. This approach was good enough for Pasteur, Newton and Ben Franklin, but not for today's crowd.

Earlier generations knew that the Earth's climate was constantly changing, affected by numerous influences, some known (sunspots, Earth axis wobble, El Nino), some presumed still to be discovered. Historians knew that European history was influenced by periods of warming and cooling. The Vikings didn't call it "Greenland" because it was covered (as now) with ice. Geologists knew that, in geologic time, the Sahara Desert was a tropical rainforest, glaciers covered Chicago and numerous other wonders.

While people could certainly affect the environment around them to their benefit by agriculture, animal husbandry and industry (this used to be thought of as an indication of intelligence), our grandfathers would have thought the idea that puny mankind could affect the climate of the whole planet absurd.

Whatever change did occur in what was then called "the weather" would require mankind to adapt – a trait of our species that our ancestors celebrated. How times have changed.

(Column continues below)

Today, Al Gore leads the pack asserting the truth of anthropogenic global warming. Complicated computer models spewed forth Gore's PowerPoint presentation, which begat Oscar and Nobel. And it came to pass that the Prophet Gore gave stirring lectures to masses of the adoring initiated, traveling from place to place in a private jet, from hotel to speech in a caravan of SUVs whose motors were kept running to warm (or cool as the season required) while Gore lectured the world on the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions.

Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the fact that from 1998 to 2008 (the last full year of surface temperature readings), the Earth did not keep warming (as the models had predicted). It actually cooled. Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the dramatic drop in the number and severity of Atlantic hurricanes when both the models and Gore had predicted ever more Katrinas every year.

Now this. The final nail in the "climate change" dogma's coffin?

The CRU e-mails expose a priesthood in inquisition mode, masquerading as scientists and protecting their preconceived conclusions from any contradictory data or the questioning of skeptical scientists. For example, the leaked (or hacked) e-mail correspondence includes fundamental challenges to the validity of Siberian tree-ring studies that helped "prove" anthropogenic global warming, and supported the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report – a report that Gore has waved everywhere like a bloody shirt, saying the debate on global warming "is over."

While the blogosphere buzzed all weekend with the contents of these e-mails (see for example and analyzed what many began calling the biggest scientific scandal of all time, the Old Media went into protection mode. This scandal threatens the whole scientific rationale underpinning the campaign for world government, higher taxes and a decreased standard of living for all (except the Chinese). You'd never know it in the Old Media. The New York Times reported it as a third-rate e-mail burglary "causing a stir among global warming skeptics."

Move on, nothing to see here.

The Washington Post ("Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center") quotes the "researchers" at the CRU saying "that the e-mails have been taken out of context." No analysis of the "context" is provided.

The BBC assured its listeners that "the police have been informed" of the break-in. Just another hacker story. Ho hum. Just as the scientific method has suffered a reversion to dogma in the climate-change campaign, so too the "journalism" of the Old Media has degenerated into laughable propaganda.

The real story here cannot be so easily buried. Climate-change prophets threaten millions with poverty if their schemes become law. A preview can be seen in the "man-made dust bowl" of Central California where water has been cut off to one of the most fertile and productive agricultural areas on Earth to "protect" a small fish that one judge thinks might be harmed if the water was used to grow food....

Just because these people are 'exposed' does not mean they will stop. There are 'Billions of Dollars' at stake. The U.N. alone wants 10 billion a year as 'start-up' money for their programs. That is a lot of magnificent estates to be built so they can monitor the poor countries progress. (maybe you can be a butler at one of them, or slop the horse barn)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here is another one, not nearly so nice, and looking at a bigger picture (like I do).
Following the link is a snippet:

Monday, November 23, 2009

The global warming fraud exposed
Exclusive: Vox Day celebrates leaked information from Climate Research Unit
Posted: November 23, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Vox Day

I have an old T-shirt that I used to wear from time to time during my techno days with Psykosonik. Eric Bloodaxe of the Legion of Doom created it in honor of the "Hacking for Jesus" tour, complete with a listing of ISP addresses that were supposedly hacked during the LOD's Internet World Tour of 1991. But last week, an anonymous hacker achieved a feat that will long be lionized by computer pirates, libertarians and genuine scientists alike, as he broke into the Climate Research Unit's computers, copied 172 megs of data, and then released it into the digital wild.

Information wants to be free. And this information desperately needed to be freed.

Upon perusing the searchable archive of the online data, most of which consists of e-mails being exchanged between a small coterie of climate-change charlatans who presume to call themselves "scientists," it soon becomes very clear why the anthropogenic global warming–climate-change industry has been so deeply and unscientifically secretive about the data they have used to reach their conclusions of imminent climate-based apocalypse. First, the data simply does not support their conclusions. Second, they know the data doesn't support their conclusions. Consider this amazing admission by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Scientific Assessment of Climate Change:

"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 (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong."

(Column continues below)

The degree of intellectual and scientific malfeasance is simply astounding, and will shock even those who have been anthropogenic global warming–climate-change skeptics from the beginning. Jay Currie has chronicled how the e-mails offer substantive evidence of the following:

1. the suppression of data
2. the destruction of data subject to FOI requests

3. the organized subversion of the peer-review process

4. the blacklisting of a scientific journal for political reasons

Even worse, it is clear that the fundamental reason underlying their Chicken Little approach to the matter is not scientific at all, but ideological. As John Hindraker of Powerline points out, what these "scientists" are doing is politics, not science, as they are cherry-picking a few useful facts to reach a predetermined conclusion instead of simply collecting the observable evidence, examining all of it, and only then reaching conclusions. By their own admission, their science is "mission-oriented." But what is that mission? Another e-mail provides the answer:

"One particular thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalization agenda driven by organizations like the WTO."

As climate skeptics such as Ian Wishart, author of "Air Con," have warned, the hacked e-mails indicate that the climate-change industry is merely the pseudoscientific tool of the international fascists presently ensconced in various national governments who are seeking to evade the limits of national sovereignty by creating a post-democratic system of global governance. The fake science is supposed to provide an emergency which will justify the establishment of a system of global taxation and regulation, which will provide the means for the transfer of power from the sovereign nations to supranational organizations which have been formed to regulate economic and political activity in the name of saving the planet.

Ein Klima, ein Reich, ein Führer

Even if the science behind the climate-change industry had been legitimate, it defies all reason and human history to attempt to argue that the only way to save the planet is to convert mankind into the hapless slaves of a global dictatorship. And since, as the Climate Research Unit correspondence shows, the science is rife with fraud and fiction, there is simply no excuse for viewing "climate change" as anything but the shameless propaganda arm of those who wish to crown themselves the kings of Gaia.

Put fraudsters in prison. (Al Gore, too)

p.s. in a previous post I suggested Al Gore was given an 'emmy and a Nobel'. It was an Oscar and a Nobel. Shows were those two groups are coming from. They are complicit.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
oops, forgot to add the link to the last post. Here it is:

... Have a Nice Day. :)
Print the post Back To Top