Enjoy Denninger's take on things. More quotes from emails than my previous post on the subject.
Awww poor babies caught with their hands in the cookie jar our pockets.
"Global Warming" SCAM - Hack/Leak FLASH
Friday, November 20. 2009
Posted by Karl Denninger in Corruption at 12:01
Source The Market Ticker
"Apparently a "Global Climate Center" was hacked and the contents have been posted to the Internet. A ZIP file exceeding 60MB and containing a huge number of emails and other documents has been posted worldwide.
Original speculation as to whether the files posted were legitimate or some sort of spoof appears to now be confirmed as legitimate:
“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
I have not had time to read all of the material yet (there are over a thousand files involved!) but what I have skimmed looks VERY <snip>ing. Contained within the documents are what appear to be admissions of intentional tampering with data as well as intentional falsification of results to "show" man-made global warming.
One of the emails says:
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
That is, to hide a decline in global temperatures.
It gets better. Another message, this one allegedly from 2000:
It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?
Oh, so it's not about the planet getting warmer, but rather is a convenient means of advancing an agenda that has already been pre-determined?
Then there's this:
In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
(Pardon the formatting, it's text-mode email 'yanno.)
Guess who that was addressed to? Michael Mann. You know, the (infamous and now discredited) "Mann Hockey Stick"?
Guess where that email originated? NASA.
Yes, I have the file. So do a few million other people.
There's enough evidence in there, in my opinion, of outrageously fraudulent conduct to make this the scandal of the 20th and 21st century.
Sorry folks, there's no science here - this is, from what I see, a massive and outrageous fraud, and now that the documents have been confirmed as authentic it is time to pull the curtain down on this crap and start locking up all of the proponents - starting with AL GORE.
Here are some interesting "meta statistics" on the documents, and the number of times the words referenced appear:
Just for starters.
If you think that's bad, you might like this - from the file "ipcc-tar-master.rtf":
The idea that climate without human intervention can only undergo “natural variability”, and that “climate change” can only result from human activity is false and fallacious. It is in conflict with all that we know of evolution and geology. It is simply wrong to assume that “ climate change” automatically implies human influence on the climate.
This fallacy is embraced by the Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the IPCC (Footnote to “Summary for Policymakers. Page 1) claim that they are prepared to accept “natural variability” as “climate change”. They are, however, unwilling to accept the truth, which is that climate can change without human intervention.
47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?
Update 12:58 - Oh oh.... From Phil Jones... and its recent:
From: Phil Jones <email@example.com>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "raymond s. bradley" <email@example.com>
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: "Caspar Ammann" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.
And then there's this...
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
One has to wonder: was the "way around it" (the FOI) mentioned in the first correspondence to intentionally destroy the emails requested? "