http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

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.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? 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. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

If true, those so-called scientists should be fired and censured for life. Science is supposed to be about the truth, no matter what the truth is.
How shameful and so very disappointing.

mmmmmm hmmmmm

falsification or manipulation of data to massage a result is the most cardinal sin of scientists

get caught doing that and your career is history

false.. Science is about evidence and observation. Philosophy is interested in truth.

but your point is well put, otherwise. these otherwise well-meaning and rigorous scientists are more beholden to their ideology on this issue than they are to science..

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/256509

Not verified yet as valid by the way.

Ya know....I think....even if it was posted in big neon letters in the middle of Times Square...you still wouldn't accept it.

So what part aren't you willing to accept?? The existence of the emails??? The lies contained in the emails??? Is it all a Right Wing conspiracy to discredit the Liberals???

Ohhhhh!!! That's IT isn't it???

Someone FAKED thousands of emails and documents JUST to make the Liberals and people like Al Gore look bad!!!

Wow. I should have KNOWN.

On the other hand, this is why the Republicans (and Hillary Clinton)never want to conduct their own discussions out in the open. When you aren't carefully watching and weighing every word you type, thinking of how it might look to others, you'll say all kinds of things that can be misinterpreted, quoted out of context, or taken as serious when you are kidding.
Anyone who buys into the notion that these email exposures "prove" that global warming is an evil plot, are fooling themselves, and/or have not studied enough history of human behavior.

and dont be blinded by facts that very rich, powerful people with stakes in fossil fuels pay scientists to fudge,manipulate,just plane lie about..
it would be very blind indeed to say we as a people have not impacted the climate/invironment at all...we are like a virus to the earth

Why would those who have a stake in fossil fuels promote a pseudo-scientific theory that would harm them politically and financially?

No one would say that man can't temporarily damage the earth, but human is nothing compared to the powers of nature. Earth has outlived periods much colder and much hotter than this-it can easily outlive the finite ability and imagination of humans.

simple...money..it wont hurt them financialy....look at the banks as an example...money to bail them out that they dont lend like they're suppose to instead spend it on bonuses and further lobbying to keep things the way they want, all the while businesses fail unemployment rises,less people barrow money & they dont care as long as they are rich..but in the long run it will hurt them... they should fail

The banks aren't a good comparison because they are part of the Federal Reserve banking system (aka fractional reserve banking). To understand this you'll have to read up on Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Too much information for me to write up here.

i've read tons of stuff from both sides of the issue & watched the news & specials on discovery/history..and i am smart enough (and not niave) to know that both sides embelish their causes to get their desired outcome no matter what it is...

oh for crying out loud....seriously, you're seriously saying science isn't about finding out the truth of the universe? You seriously mean philosophy has anything at all to do with truth?

do us both a favor, ignore anything I ever write anywhere, forever.
Seriously.

<3%: The amount of artificially made carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere every year

Being able to con people into buying carbon offsets: Priceless

There is enough historical data to prove that the earth warms and cools without the help of humans.

On previous postings on this site I referred to the Medieval Warming Period as proof that unusual warming has occurred without any contributions by human beings. I find it interesting that this group went out of their way to obscure this historical fact.

I've always held to the belief that this is nothing more than Global Wealth re-distribution. The more truth that comes to light, will no doubt prove I'm correct.

One vulcanic eruption puts out as much carbon dioxide into the air, than humans in 100 years.

Al-Gore should go and try to talk to the vulcanoes and put a carbon filter on them by himself. Air drop him above one, I would support.

I just watched a rant from Ed Begley Jr which amounted to him pushing his green living and screaming at the interviewer about corruption in the media. Totally ignoring the point that this is about Global Warming, not green living. Have people really lost site of the usefullness of green living, and it's validity despite global warming? Or is it just in the Hollywood bubble?

I think the science from BOTH sides of the Global Warming community needs to be peer-reviewed and scrutinized, instead of leaving it as a political and economical tool.

Between money, politics and Copenhagen, however, I half expect this to be brushed aside as the corruption of one institution giving a blackeye to the global warming community.