Skip to comments.The Death Blow to Climate Science (Great read!)
Posted on 11/21/2009 6:30:39 AM PST by maggief
Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.
CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in I told you so.
Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Excellent talking point. I used to call it a hoax, but I now call it a fraud. Different connotation, with facts to back it up. We need to put a nail in this coffin.
>> I now call it a fraud.
Another point: hoaxes don’t have a profit motive, whereas frauds usually involve $$$$$MONEY$$$$$.
That’s what Global Warmism is all about... MONEY fraud of breathtaking proportion never before seen in the history of mankind.
Since the info was gotten illegally, I guess these crooks can’t be prosecuted? Boy wouldn’t that be sweet, the courtroom circus and all. The DBM couldn’t avoid covering it.
One of the CO2 Liberals on a RANT on a conservative talk show... when the Host got the LIB to SHUT UP for a second, he asked...
when we INHALE, we take in OXYGEN.. what do we release when we EXHALE?
The caller said... Im NOT a SCIENTIST and never CLAIMED TO BE.
I Laughed until I realized it was not a setup
Best article yet on this.
To slightly misquote Dan Rather, “Fake but Real”.
**Boy wouldnt that be sweet, the courtroom circus and all.**
All the Info the DEFENSE would have to Demand for a proper defense..
A lot of powerful people have a lot invested in the Global Warming theory so I suspect these miscreants will not have their careers destroyed as they deserve, but they will lose influence.
Most common case is vengeful about-to-be-ex-wife who turns evidence of crime over to the police. It's not a Fourth Amendment violation because the police didn't lift a finger to get it -- even if the wife used improper means to obtain it. Same is true for roommates, landlords, ex-girlfriends, etc.
So the hackers, not being government agents, didn't render this evidence inadmissible in court. Stand by for some fun and games!
I think that restriction only applies if law enforcement collects the info illegally. That isn't the case here, this is a private individual or group. Any lawyers here know???
As I said on another thread, demonstrating legal fraud would require a private E-mail that: a) admits that the data for a paper was salted, and b) says the data-salting was necessary to secure further funding. Both establish that money was appropriated on false pretenses. Data-massaging that isn't used to secure further funding may be breach of the contract with the grantor.
Which lefty in the MSM is going to be the first to break away and admit they’ve been pushing the biggest fraud in history?