Hacked climate e-mail rebutted by scientists (public doubt about irrefutable scientific facts)

SF Gate ^ | 12/05/09 | Peter Fimrite

[Libloather]

Hacked climate e-mail rebutted by scientists
Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, December 5, 2009

A group of the nation's top scientists defended research on global climate change Friday against what they called a politically motivated smear campaign designed to foster public doubt about irrefutable scientific facts.

The allegations came after skeptics seized upon a series of hacked e-mails at England's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit as evidence of a climate change hoax.

**SNIP**

Drumbeat of skepticism

Despite this, the drumbeat of skepticism about global warming has never been louder. The Internet and conservative news programs have been flooded over the past week with breathless accounts of alleged scientific fraud.

Exhibit A in the controversy are the stolen e-mails, which include messages between academics in the United States and Britain talking about getting greenhouse skeptics "ousted" and referring to research "tricks."

Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia research unit, temporarily stepped down Tuesday after the university began an investigation into the stolen files, which officials called a "criminal breach."

**SNIP**

Mountain of evidence

Schmidt and Michael Oppenheimer, the director of the Science, Technology and Environmental Policy department at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, said the mountain of scientific evidence pointing to human-caused climate change is all available for scientific review by any skeptic.

They said a colder than normal October in the U.S. - often cited by warming skeptics - does not make for a trend, no matter how often it is repeated on blogs and cable television.

[Libloather]

...a politically motivated smear campaign...

Isn't that what warmers do?

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Islam=Murder]

We can’t let the MSM win this.

Best ClimateGate clips (show everybody you know):

http://www.BraveNewCommie.com

[DB]

“They said a colder than normal October in the U.S. - often cited by warming skeptics - does not make for a trend, no matter how often it is repeated on blogs and cable television.”

Ya, well what is 11 years of declining global temperatures called you freaking morons.

[DB]

They all use Hanson’s and the CRU’s cooked data to say there’s been no decline - hence to hide the decline...

These people are pathetic. Science not.

[goldstategop]

Liberals want to change the subject since they can't defend the science. That's obvious. We don't have the original data so we don't know for sure if they told the truth then or if they are telling it now. In science, to quote the late Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." None of which has been forthcoming from the AGW crowd.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[MNJohnnie]

Did this idiot author even bother to read the emails? For example this one? The "evidence" he cites has been fraudulently manipulated from the start.

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

[MNJohnnie]

They said a colder than normal October in the U.S. - often cited by warming skeptics - does not make for a trend, no matter how often it is repeated on blogs and cable television.

This absurdity of this statement from the same people who point to every single hot day as "proof of global warming" speaks for itself.

[ricks_place]

Given the drumbeat is a “politically motivated smear campaign”, the ‘scientists’ are better served by examining the poor quality of the CRUminal temperature adjustment computer code. A “smear campaign” cannot change the inevitable conclusion that the temperature record is deliberately manipulated by advocates and an accurate record is unknown at present.

[WOSG]

“group of the nation’s top scientists defended research on global climate”

The Press Conference was put together by the liberal group “Center for American Progress” ... it was a political stunt by the embattled scientists caught making bad statements and doing bad things.

“hacked e-mails “

NO EMAILS WERE ‘HACKED’ NOR WERE THEY STOLEN - THEY WERE “LEAKED”.

[bt_dooftlook]

Too many lies in one article to bother rebutting.

[Arrowhead1952]

said the mountain of scientific evidence pointing to human-caused climate change is all available for scientific review by any skeptic.

Uh excuse me a second. Didn't they destroy the original data when they moved into a new facility? I think the leaked emails are like a hand grenade thrown into Algore's bunker.

[CRBDeuce]

group of the nation’s top scientists

Now that's funny...did it include Algore?

[rockrr]

I was going to remark about the "criminal breach" - you know, like what the New York Times gets away with all the time, but this was more interesting:

"They said a colder than normal October in the U.S. - often cited by warming skeptics - does not make for a trend, no matter how often it is repeated on blogs and cable television."

I want to take that one in and savor it for a moment.

There.

Breathtaking in its ignorant and hypocritical splendor!

So, if one places their finger in the breeze and then remarks that it is cool for "this time of year", that isn't a trend (even if it has occurred over and over in the last twelve years), but if some bloated gasbag makes a movie conjured up out of pure sick fantasy and proceeds to bash us over the head with it relentlessly and with the agenda of

1. Fleecing the public to line his own pockets and,
2. Legislating profound changes to our lifestyle and possible existence.......that is?!

OK, I've got it now (*snicker*)

[qwertypie]

This article is written with every imaginable slant included, beginning with the “stolen” emails. Comical, not serious.

[driftless2]

I just can’t get over all the “irrefutable” assertions by the warmists. They non-experts have no right challenging their “facts” as they call them. But when actual scientists (i.e Fred Singer, Tim Ball, etal) do challenge their facts, they ignore them.

[qwertypie]

http://wws.princeton.edu/people/display_person.xml?netid=omichael&all=yes

email: omichael@princeton.edu

Michael Oppenheimer joined the Princeton faculty in 2002 after more than two decades with Environmental Defense, a non-governmental environmental organization, where he served as chief scientist and manager of the Climate and Air Program.

Oppenheimer is a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, serving most recently as a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. He is currently a member of the National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on Alternative Liquid Transportation Fuels. He is also a science advisor to Environmental Defense.

His interests include science and policy of the atmosphere, particularly climate change and its impacts. Much of his research aims to understand the potential for “dangerous” outcomes of increasing levels of greenhouse gases by exploring the effects of global warming on ecosystems such as coral reefs, on the ice sheets, and on sea level. He also studies the role played by nongovernmental organizations in the policy arena, the role of scientific learning and scientific assessment in decisions on problems of global change, and the potential value of precautionary frameworks. Oppenheimer is the author of more than 80 articles published in professional journals and is co-author (with Robert H. Boyle) of a 1990 book, Dead Heat: The Race Against The Greenhouse Effect. Ph.D., University of Chicago.

Oppenheimer directs the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy (STEP), has a joint appointment with the Department of Geosciences, and is a Faculty Associate of the Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences program and the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies.

[Nateman]

Well at least we've gone past the "ignore" phase and are now into the "attack" phase.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

"There is so much information that tells us the planet has been warming," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "No independent study is going to come up with anything other than what we've already concluded."

Write this clowns name down....because now we have this:

UK: Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data [could take three years]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Great collection.