[excon]

avoiding the facts that we have been proven right that the science behind GW is a complete fabricated fraud ?

Hello again, tom:

So, then throwing your trash into the air is GOOD?

excon

[tomder55]

Non sequiter

These scientists weren't fudging data about "throwing garbage in the air" .They were fudging data related to human carbon emissions and it's impact on global temperatures.

[excon]

human carbon emissions

Hello again, tom:

So, if we STOPPED throwing our trash into the air, "human carbon emissions" would continue? I didn't know that.

excon

[tomder55]

Hello... the data was falsified to support a preconceived conclusion ;and opposing data was suppressed . This has already cost us untold $$$$ and policy makers are about to make decisions based on this that will break the bank.

I thought you opposed this type of thing. I thought you cared about the integrity of the scientific method .

[speechlesstx]

The way to stop "human carbon emissions" is to give out free condoms according to the U.N. No word on how to deal with the environmental impact of all those condoms however.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

You should excuse me, I'm not talking about global warming or the study or those crooked Democrats and those sneaky scientists. I'm just talking about throwing trash into the air.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Steve:

If you quit smoking because you thought the dollar fairy was gonna lay a million on you, would it matter to your lungs that you quit for the wrong reason?

excon

On the other hand, if you quit chewing tabbaco because someone claimed it was bad for the environment, would it really help the environment if you continued producing pollution? What the government is trying to suppress isn't what's causing the problem and stopping it isn't going to fix the problem.

Pollution isn't the issue. CARBON DIOXIDE is what they are trying to suppress, not pollution. Nobody in the global warming community is trying to stop pollution. They are trying to stop carbon dioxide, which isn't a pollutant. Stoping carbon dioxide won't stop pollution. Stopping carbon dioxide won't clean up the environment.

Therefore, your cause-and-effect argument is a false one. Stopping carbon dioxide doesn't stop pollution.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

You should excuse me, I'm not talking about global warming or the study or those crooked Democrats and those sneaky scientists. I'm just talking about throwing trash into the air.

excon

Still waiting for you to answer: what trash?

Elliot

[tomder55]

Yeah we've gone over that every time this topic is raised. No one disagrees that "throwing garbage in the air " is a concern. But it is not related to the hoax being perpetrated by "concensus science"... and now we have smoking gun proof of it.

[TUT317]

non sequiter

These scientists weren't fudging data about "throwing garbage in the air" .They were fudging data related to human carbon emissions and it's impact on global temperatures.

Hi Tom,

No, they were 'fudging data' in relation to temperature, not carbon emissions. Carbon emissions can be investigated by taking core samples from ice sheets. They can also be estimated by looking at tree rings.

There are a large number of agencies who use climatic data for any number of reasons. Some related directly to climate change and others indirectly. Depending on what you are trying to prove or disprove you choose the data you think will be most helpful.

I would avoid jumping to conclusions before we know all of the facts.'Fudging data' in this case is only one possibility on a continuum of possibilities. It may also turn out ( as outlined above) that some scientists were being selective in the data that they used.
Again, we don't know the facts.

Just because someone or some organization is involved in the collection of climatic data does no make them part of a world wide conspiracy. If it turns out that the 'fudging' of data has taken place in this organization then other agencies with more reliable data can 'pick up the pieces'. The climate debate will continue. Whether global warming is true or false will not be determined one way or the other by one (albeit powerful) climatic organization.

[tomder55]

No, they were 'fudging data' in relation to temperature, not carbon emissions. Carbon emissions can be investigated by taking core samples from ice sheets. They can also be estimated by looking at tree rings.

Even more simply stated ;they were fudging ;doctoring and suppressing data to support a predtermined AWG position. It's like the Catholic Church building a case for the Earth being the center of the solar system after evidence was presented to dispute the dogma.

(albeit powerful )

That is an understatement .This UN organization has been steering the course of policy(with all that encompasses in funding /taxing ) in many countries for a long time based on a premise they have been advocating . Countries are prepared to converge in Copenhagen and steer global policy for the next 50 + years based on what is probably conclusions based on fudged data ; data suppressed and dissenting scientists squeezed out of the peer review process.

I know it is early but a smoking gun is a smoking gun. I have no doubt the UN will stonewall this like they did the Oil for Food scandal and it will eventually be swept under the rug.


And ;destruction of evidence following a FOIA request is a criminal activity here and I suspect in England also.

Just because someone or some organization is involved in the collection of climatic data does no make them part of a world wide conspiracy.

It very well could be because the collection of the data and the reports about eco-disaster that they were generating was being compiled ,steered and submitted by about 50 close knit agenda driven"scientists" even though they boast of having 2,500 scientists .

Meanwhile ,just based on what the emails reveal ;shouldn't the Nobel committee compell the IPCC to return it's Nobel Prize ?

[speechlesstx]

I know it is early but a smoking gun is a smoking gun. I have no doubt the UN will stonewall this like they did the Oil for Food scandal and it will eventually be swept under the rug.

Of course they'll stonewall, there's too much at stake. The spin is beginning to take shape and it's further evidence that the agenda is more important than the facts. The LA Times says the emails won't make a difference anyway and that Congress just doesn't care, it's about economics.

But advocates of action to curb global warming dismiss those claims, and political leaders and analysts say the Senate bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions will sink or swim based on economics, not science.

Six weeks ago - just six weeks - the Times was critical of Bush's EPA for suppressing scientific evidence that could affect legislation.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by George W. Bush administration officials who had concluded -- based on science -- that the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.

What a bunch of pathetic frauds all around. But at least one prominent activist is showing some character over this, George Monbiot. He believes the emails are genuine and he's "dismayed and deeply shaken by them."

Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…

If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

I'm waiting for the Goracle to follow suit... could be a long wait.

[speechlesstx]

CBS is taking notice. I'll just offer the last paragraph.

The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.

He's almost right, it should not be that "most of us" should expect such things, everyone should. Now, will they take it to their broadcast news or just stick to Obamacare poetry by Katie Couric? As of yesterday Fox News was the only network that had covered it at all... but then they aren't really a news outfit are they?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

So, what am I missing?? Some Yahoo university got caught cheating, therefore the entire body of science is out the door??

Is THAT what you're saying?? Really?

Excn

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

So, what am I missing?? Some Yahoo university got caught cheating, therefore the entire body of science is out the door??

Nope, this is the first step to exposing the systematic fraud perpetrated on the global public. All I've ever said in essence is we need an honest discussion and it's clear that the AGW religionists don't want that.

Seems you were all worked up on the Bush administration allegedly fudging on WMD's in Iraq - "fudging ;doctoring and suppressing data to support a predetermined position" as tom would say. One would think you'd be at least a little bit ticked that scientists are "fudging ;doctoring and suppressing data to support a predetermined position" on a global scale in ways that will affect every one of us unnecessarily. But then I know that as long as you get your way you don't care if it was done for fraudulent reasons.

Is THAT what you're saying?? Really?

Sorry buddy, but you suck at putting words in my mouth.

[excon]

Seems you were all worked up on the Bush administration allegedly fudging on WMD's in Iraq - "fudging ;doctoring and suppressing data to support a predetermined position" as tom would say. One would think you'd be at least a little bit ticked that scientists are "fudging

Hello again, Steve:

I don't like cheaters... But, presidents who cheat in order to go to war, are substantially different than scientists who cheat on a report.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

I don't like cheaters... But, presidents who cheat in order to go to war, are substantially different than scientists who cheat on a report.

True, scientists who cheat affect EVERYONE.

[tomder55]

Yeah yeah Tim Flannery, chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council says this is a desperate attempt by skeptics to discredit AWG before the Copenhagen meeting.
Malcolm Turnbull | Emissions Trading Scheme | Liberal Party | Copenhagen | Kevin Rudd | Australia and Environment policy

The dogma of AGW has been established and no 21st century Galilleo is going to roadblock the rush towards enacting new taxes ;destroying the old economic systems ,and reshaping the world under a socialist Green Framework.

[speechlesstx]

Robert Tracinski blisters theses frauds at RCP. It's worthy of a full posting here:

ClimateGate: The Fix is In
By Robert Tracinski

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

A hacker-or possibly a disillusioned insider-has gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and made them available on the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine.

Yes, this is a theft of data-but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU.

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... 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." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward " from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward " slope.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

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.... 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.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes.[/B] Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

Go ahead ex, tell me it's no big deal.

[excon]

Go ahead ex, tell me it's no big deal.

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, this teeny little university cheated... Does this scandal change the scientific consensus? No, unless, the entire scientific community relied on THIS university's data for their conclusions... I don't think that's so. Therefore, it's no big deal.

It's like you wingers caught a couple people trying to set up a prostitution ring with ACORN. As much as you'd like it to be so, it didn't bring down ACORN... and this little scandal isn't going to bring down global warming.

excon