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?
So what other form of global ‘disaster’ will they come up with in order to try to control us? Aliens from outer space coming to attack?
If this one finally bites the dust, they’ll think of something else. I hope people don’t swallow the koolaid again. There’s probably going to be fools who still believe in man-made global warming no matter what the facts say.
Wait til the EPA starts regulating based on the flawed SCOTUS ruling that CO2 is a pollutant.
AP has reassigned it’s 11 fact checker ‘journalists’ from Sarah Palin to this bust......right.
I’ve see and read and heard ZERO about this, other than right here...(and now the source link)
No, the evidence would be admissible as long as it wasn't the government that stole the evidence.
They won't be prosecuted because the Government is part of the conspiracy.
Latest Weather Channel Headline:
GORE’S GLOBAL FLATULENCE CAUSED DEATH OF PILTDOWN MAN!
Either way, well done!
If Sarah posted this on Facebook MSM would jump all over it.
Do your courts allow discovery? If these frauds try to being a suit against him he can request all of their documents involving global warming. And really blow the lid off of this thing.
Best line of the article: “Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesnt and it is enough to destroy all their careers.”
Yep, that's right. Even Dirty Harry couldn't get away with it.
“Since the info was gotten illegally, I guess these crooks cant be prosecuted?”
In this type of case, where much worse crimes than distribution of the information occurred, the whistleblower (I believe this was an inside job myself) is absolved, and the guilty prosecuted. At least here in the US. Besides, all of this came from a publicly funded institution, and should have been accessible under FOIA laws over there. I understand a flood of new requests were made yesterday. ;-)
We’ll see how it goes, but I’m guessing the guilty at CRU didn’t sleep too well last night.
“A lot of powerful people have a lot invested in the Global Warming theory ...”
ie. bailed-out GE/NBC/MSNBC
Any wonder why they are covering the story?
GE’s Jeff Immelt: Global Warming ‘Compelling’; Cap-and-Trade Most ‘Effective’ Way to Go
CEO of parent company of NBC Universal argues for carbon price to create ‘certainty.’
Isn't he the dude Queen sings about in that really long song they did?
Any wonder why they are NOT covering the story?
Yes, they do, as one of the valid defenses against defamation is "truth." Canadian courts tend to be less accomodative of fishing expeditions than American courts, though.
Yes, my list of the offenses on another thread went:
1) Illegal resistance to FOIA requests
2) Tampering with scientific data to support CAGW
3) Probable destruction of data to prevent peer replication (or not) of results
4) Suppression of scientific data that contradicted their theories
5) Suppression of opposing scientific viewpoints in peer reviewed publications (then claiming that due to few peer reviewed papers being published the other side had no evidence)
6) Guidelines for brainwashing the gullible masses with their viewpoint
7) Probable money laundering
Several major players (including the creator of the “hockey stick” graph) are in big trouble.
Yes, they can. They have violated the FOIA on numerous occassions. If this information came from an internal “whistleblower” source, then they’re up a very “muddy” creek without a paddle.
Unless the statute of limitations pre-empts, all you'd need is an aggressive prosecutor.
None. The day the talking points go out, they will all lockstep it with whatever liberal spin they are instructed to give it.
“One important point: they could well be nailed without reference to any of those leaked E-mails.”
Many of those emails were to folks here in the States, which can now be requested under our own FOIA laws.
I don’t think the “hack” aspect will be significant going forward. It was the last, desperate, line of defense for CRU - and it’s crumbling.
FOIA certainly applies. But so do the basic tenets of science in the West.
When you put forward an important scientific hypothesis, such as AGW, then you need to make public the evidence on which it is based. This gives other scientists the opportunity to check the evidence and to check your math.
Refusal to make the evidence available undermines a scientist’s scientific credibility in the most basic way possible. It’s as if Galileo had said, “The earth moves,” but refused to supply any of the evidence on which he based that hypothesis.
The climate skeptics asked these climatologists, “Where’s your evidence.” And they replied, “Shut up! You’re not an accepted member of the Gang. No grants for you, and no academic tenure, and no chance to publish in any of the journals we control.”
The larger science community cannot be silent on this appearance of gross fraud by this small group.