Climategate one year later.

I don't normally repost an article from another website, but, I felt that this particular piece was worthy because it underscores what occurred a year ago and where it may be going now. We rational folk always knew that the anthropogenic global warming/climate change was a hoax and when science colludes with government, disastrous legislation is always looming in the District of Crime we know as Congress. To be sure, Cap and Trade was passed in the House, but died in the Senate.

On November 17, 2009, person, or persons still unknown to this day, "hacked" East Anglia's Climate Research Unit servers and uploaded data to a Russian FTP server and subsequently announced it, via a post at Air Vent. This post went viral within hours and the contents of the file was eventually broken down and posted in a searchable database.

These emails, which contained datasets, should have ended this hoax once and for all. Alas, this wouldn't be the case. However, events on November 2nd, which changed the House of Representatives red, may change the tone and set the course for a proper investigation into these emails.

Courtesy goes to Marc Sheppard via American Thinker.

Excerpt:

It’s been one year to the day since hero or heroes still unnamed and unrewarded bestowed upon the world a virtual dossier, the contents of which should have ended the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate abruptly and evermore.  Remarkably, it didn’t.  Despite the revelations exposed in the now public climate huckster’s handbook, one year later the specter of governance and wealth redistribution both national and international based largely, if not solely, on pseudo-scientific hocus-pocus persists.

By all measures, last year’s U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen was an embarrassing flop for those who again tried to sell an international progressive fund reallocation scheme as the “last chance to save the planet” from runaway climate change.  But with Cancun’s “last chance to save the planet” climate talks just around the corner, the media is working overtime to explain away previous failures as anything other than the product of bad policy toward unproven hazards that they indeed were.

Read the entire article at American Thinker

That's right Michael Mann, science and politics don't mix

Science is a strange area of our world that many don't understand, some don't care and others think they know, but don't. Despite all of that, science is a necessary part of life that has put us in the world we are in today.

The problem comes when science and government collude in order to push legislation. One particular issue that's been at the forefront of Congress is global warming/climate change; a ridiculous notion that the modern human industrial population is somehow responsible for the planet's climate to change.

Climate change/global warming skeptics, which have been likened to Holocaust deniers, have always known that the science was being manipulated, we just never had concrete evidence. That is until last fall when someone had the cajones to swipe years worth of back and forth emails between scientists at the Hadley Climate Research Unit at East Anglia.

One particular scientist came to the forefront of the scandal, who was investigated by Penn State University and was quickly exonerated, wrote a piece on the Washington Post today complaining that politicians need to stop attacking climate change scientists.

If you don't who Michael Mann is, just Google his name with "misused Keith Briffa tree ring data". I'm not going to get into this issue, but, there is no doubt that Mann's conclusions were completely wrong. Whether it was done purposely or not is up to you to decide, but, suffice it to say that the infamous and thoroughly debunked "Hockey Stick" was born out of it. If you want to see the email exchange between Phil Jones and Michael Mann on his "nature trick", click here.

In his WaPo article, Michael Mann bemoans:

As a scientist, I shouldn't have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I -- and indeed all my fellow climate scientists -- do.

You're right, Micheal. But, not having a stake in it prevents further grants to continue the man made climate change absurdity.

He further complains:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.

You reap what you sow, Michael. I'm sure you've heard of the old saying about sleeping with the devil. As to wrongdoing, the emails make it quite clear what was going on, just looking at the data tells us that. If there wasn't anything to hide, then why force other scientists to use FOIA to get the data?

Continuing on, he talks about his quick exoneration:

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.

Which means nothing. I wouldn't expect anything less of Penn State University to support their faculty members, particularly when it means no more government grant money if they threw you to the wolves. As for the EPA, they have the same agenda as climate change scientists do, so there's no surprise there.

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

That's right, Michael. Because the questions still haven't been satisfactorily answered. We all know that it's not the emails in and of themselves, it's the data contained within those emails that screams abuse. Particularly when it's used to sway Congress to pass job killing legislation, like Cap and Trade.

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?

The truth is that they don't expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

Gee, I don't know Michael. How about REAL questions, instead of the likely softball queries you got from Penn State? You claim Issa wants to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, however, you fail to understand that it's not the research, it's the suspect data that is vomited from it.

Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my fellow researchers. Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character to challenge Barton's attacks. We need more political leaders like him today.

That was in 2005 and your point is?

We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work, questioning the reality of climate change.

You just had to go there. Remember this from Congressman Ed Markey:

MARKEY:  The evidence is overwhelming.  There are a few people who are still fighting it in the same way that there were people still fighting the science of whether or not tobacco caused lung cancer but we could not rely upon that small minority when the overwhelmingly majority said the fumes in human beings were killing them in the same way that we new see that the fumes going into the atmosphere is having a dramatically negative impact on our planet.

This logical fallacy of a weak analogy is how they are trying to steer this issue. During Congressional hearings, it was discovered that the CEO's of big tobacco had lied all along about their research. This is the crux of the matter behind the anthropogenic climate change hoax, not the science, which is sound, but, the manipulation of said data from the science. Science demands that evidence be verifiable and results be reproducible in the real world, not ten, fifty or a hundred years into the future.

The rest of his article can be read at the Washington Compost

UKIP To Ban Al Gore From Schools?

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

The party, that has traditionally campaigned on the anti-European Union vote, launched a manifesto for the environment.

Following a number of scandals around the science of climate change, UKIP are promising to launch a Royal Commission led by a High Court judge to investigate whether global warming is man-made.

Pending the results of the commission, the party, that has no MPs at the moment, have promised to build new fossil-fuelled power stations to meet energy demands and scrap subsidies for wind farms. Global warming 'propaganda' like the Al Gore film Inconvenient Truth will be banned in schools and public authorities will not be allowed to spend money on climate change initiatives.

Read the rest at the Telegraph.

Weather Is Not Climate? Yeah, We Already Know That

Climate drives the weather. What drives the climate is a combination of things, such as the Sun and for the most part the oceans. The recent snow storms on the north east coast isn't indicative of anything, except that the climate is unpredictable; last winter we here in the Pacific Northwest got hammered just like what's going on now in the New England states. This winter, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing a very mild winter and I hope it stays that way.

The climate is constantly changing and it's been doing so for 4.5 billion years. We skeptics don't deny this. What we do deny is the anthropogenic part of it, which alarmists keep trying there best at blaming sans the sun and oceans.

First it was global warming, when that didn't work it was renamed to climate change and now that's no longer working. So what's next? Who knows what these people will do; after all, what's in a name? When progressives realize that things are not quite working out their way, they tag and rename it thinking that people are too stupid to know what they are up to.

Ever wonder why the weather forecast is never given on television or the radio as fact, but as chance? It's because the weather can never be one hundred percent accurate on any given week, it's impossible because weather is a fluid thing that always changes. Go to bed with stars in the sky, wake up to showers. It happens, I know it because I live in Northwest Washington State.

But, the weather going on right now across the fruited plane is anecdotal; a snow storm or an off season hurricane does not global warming make.

One would think that the recent Hadley Climate Research Unit emails would have quelled the average climate change/global warming alarmist, but that's like asking a progressive to read the Constitution...ain't gonna happen. On top of the damning emails and the altered program code, Phil Jones' admission that the data was deliberately skewed still hasn't convinced alarmists, including politicians which is the dangerous part of this whole scam.

Global warming/climate change/whatever it's going to be called next, is ranked at dead last for the concerns of American citizens. Yet, the Obama administration is tone deaf because they are continuing to push cap and trade (aka cap and tax). In other words, sit down, shut up, we know what's best.

Want proof? Listen to one of Obama's mouthpieces respond to us skeptics:



Remember when Al Gore claimed that hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming? Will Jane tell Punxsutawney Al he was wrong? Probably not. It's not the alarmists that need correcting, it's us skeptics because we are too stupid to know better.

So, to quote Jane that weather is not climate, we skeptics already know that. However, as one commenter put it on Brietbart TV, "Let me fix that statement for you, lady: “Weather is only climate when WE want it to be.” And this about sums it up.

Other sites:

Breitbart.tv

Phil Jones Admits Manipulating Climate Data

Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud By Marc Sheppard By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let’s get right to it.  In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented.  As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering. Of course, much will be made of Jones’s claim that the refusal to share raw temperature data was partially based on the fact that it “was not well enough organized.” And rightly so, as the very idea that the major datasets CRU released for use in vital anomaly and temperature reconstructions were based on data not “organized” enough to be made public reeks of fraudulent behavior. Read the rest at American Thinker Related story at BBC News

More False Data Issued By IPCC?

The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage. The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage. The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change. Read the rest at FoxNews

More Fallout From The IPCC Chief

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt. Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists. The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions. Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.” Read the rest at TimesOnline

Times Online - Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach. Read the rest at TimesOnline

IPCC To Retract False Claims On Himalayan Glacial Melting

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it. Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. Read the rest at the Times Online

Michael Mann Of The Hockey Stick Chart Received Stimulus Money

Washington, DC - In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy. "It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal.  Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project. Read the rest at Planet Gore

Rush Limbaugh Makes The Connection

Now we know why he is right 99% of the time. Rush Limbaugh nails it in one by comparing anthropogenic climate change/global warming and whatever it's going to be called next, to the big tobacco scandal in the 90's.

And they both tie in to manipulating the research data.

When is science not science, even though the methods may be sound? When the data is being withheld from other researchers and the data is manipulated to support a preconceived notion, or to make something out to be not as bad as it really is.

On his radio show yesterday, America's truth detector and Doctor of Democracy played this exchange between the leftist, state run media hack Andrea Mitchell and Congressman Ed Markey:

MARKEY:  The evidence is overwhelming.  There are a few people who are still fighting it in the same way that there were people still fighting the science of whether or not tobacco caused lung cancer but we could not rely upon that small minority when the overwhelmingly majority said the fumes in human beings were killing them in the same way that we new see that the fumes going into the atmosphere is having a dramatically negative impact on our planet.

This is why you should always know at least a little of our current history. By comparing the climate change hoax to big tobacco, Markey unwittingly committed the weak analogy logical fallacy and Rush caught it (emphasis added):

RUSH:  That's their new argument.  Now they're trying to compare these two things when there's no comparison.  If you want a comparison to tobacco companies, I brilliantly came up with this last week.  What nailed the tobacco companies?  What was it?  Remember when the CEOs of Big Tobacco were up testifying and it was discovered that they had lied about their research. They had lied about the impact of smoking on health. They had made up studies which showed that there was no connection to smoking and respiratory health and heart disease, and they had lied about it.  And when the lie had been uncovered there was a whistle-blower that went on 60 Minutes, sat behind the black screen, blew the whistle and that was the end of it.

This is the crux of the matter behind the anthropogenic climate change hoax, not the science, which is sound, but, the manipulation of said data from the science. Science demands that evidence be verifiable and results be reproducible in the real world, not ten, fifty or a hundred years into the future; unless you have a time machine that everyone is unaware of. Data should also be freely shared between other scientists and not forced to use the FOIA to get it.

We now know, thanks to a whistle blower who leaked emails and program code, that the climate data was being manipulated by top climate scientists at East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit. Just like researchers did to make it look like cigarette smoke was not the cause or played a role in lung cancer.


And the science is never settled. They come to a general agreement, but, scientists always leave room to change that agreement should any new evidence be found and all it takes is one person to do it.


This is the danger of conducting research, using the scientific method, when there is a preconceived notion. What happens, because scientists are human too, is that evidence is being sought out to support the preconceived notion and any evidence, no matter how overwhelming it refutes, is almost always discarded, hidden or destroyed.

Read the entire transcript here: Markey on Climate and Tobacco; Hoaxer Hansen Does Letterman

Geoff Jenkins - The G. Gordon Liddy of Climate Gate

Watergate was a political scandal that had many twists and turns. Ultimately, the event forced the resignation of Richard Nixon and led to several indictments of White House officials known as the Plumbers, with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt at its head. The recent events surrounding emails and documents being leaked by some whistle blower at the East Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit, which incidentally is hot on the heals of the Copenhagen Conference, clearly show that Climate gate is not unlike the Watergate scandal with Geoff Jenkins at the center.

Who is Geoff Jenkins? In 2004, the UK Guardian described him as "the man Tony Blair turns to for the facts about climate change." But, to really know who he is, because he is not one of the top names in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement, we need to go back to 1988.

Geoff Jenkins started his climate prediction business when the IPCC was created in 1988, with Sir John Houghton leading it; Jenkins' job was to put data together from science to create the Group One Report in the 90's for the IPCC. In May of 1990, Jenkins was among the first people to staff the newly created Hadley Center and after the Rio de Janiero Earth Summit in 1992, Hadley moved into the policy area and researched ways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, which ultimately led to the Kyoto Agreement in 1997. Three years later, Hadley's mission statement changed again due to flooding in the UK when the UK's environmental department set up a Climate Impacts Program to cope with adaptation.

And Geoff Jenkins was at the center of all of this.

Now that we have revisited the brief history of Hadley and Geoff Jenkins, let's move on to the leaked emails and documents and we will revisit him later to tie it together.

Sometime during the third week of November, a whistle blower at East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) uploaded emails and documents in a 61 megabyte compressed file to a message board. A message was attached to the post that said something to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret and the file would be up for a short period of time.

The file went viral and spread around the Internet so fast, the USS Enterprise would look like a Model-T in a race. Climate Audit was shut down because it couldn't handle the bandwidth usage and a mirror site was created to handle the enormous traffic. Torrent sites had it and other obscure websites uploaded the file.

Then people began to scour through the emails and had a look at Oz behind the curtain:

- Michael Mann talks about ruining a peer review journal (1047388489).

- Tim Osborn discusses how to alter data to stop a cooling trend (939154709).

- Phil Jones asks his colleagues to delete FOIA requests (1212063122).

- Email showing that Greenpeace is involved in drafting a letter to The Times (872202064).

You can read the rest at the Doug Ross Journal.

At any rate, what these leaked emails reveal is a history of academic fraud that has led many governments to enact laws that have, or will be, costly; Spain is realizing this already. Keith Briffa's fraudulent tree ring report, which Michael Mann relied heavily on to create an equally bogus graph, known as the Hockey Stick Chart was cited numerous times in the IPCC's reports. What they failed to include was the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, which would have shown a completely different conclusion.

Michael Mann is a contributor at Real Climate's blog. In October of 2005, Scientific American called Real Climate, "A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming."

Getting back to Geoff Jenkins, slowly.

The significance of Real Climate is that it's hosted by Environmental Media Services. Activist Cash describes EMS:

If you’ve ever been advised to steer clear of a food, beverage, or other consumer product based on the claims of a nonprofit organization, you’ve likely been “spun” by Fenton’s multi-million-dollar message machine -- and Environmental Media Services (EMS) has probably been the messenger.

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994.

Arlie Schardt founded EMS (now called Science Communication Network) in 1994. Twenty years before that, he was a writer for Sports Illustrated and left the magazine to lead the Environmental Defense Fund. Interestingly, he was also in charge of the Tides Center when it was led by non other than Wade Rathke of the now discredited ACORN.

Now we get to Geoff Jenkins.

In the mid 90's, a report was issued using faked data that still didn't show any warming effect between 1995-96. In an attempt to explain it away, he made a suggestion that there was a NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation, aka La Nina) reversal.

On March 18, 1996, Michael Fumento caught the scandalous suggestion and wrote an article in the Washington Times:

Global-warming enthusiasts desperately grasp at anything to prove their case. In early January, the Climatic Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia made headlines, including the New York Times, with a preliminary report saying 1995 was the hottest year on record. But their data were for only 11 months. Rather than risk December's temperatures spoiling everything, they jumped the gun and sent out their press releases.

Their fears were fulfilled when December's average temperature came in at the lowest in 17 years. "It was a pretty ordinary year," said NASA scientist John Christy, who has been analyzing satellite data on temperature since 1979. And James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who pretty much started the whole global-warming scare, admits his study of land areas – where the effects of global warming would be most severe – revealed that 1995 was about 0.02 degrees celsius cooler than 1990.

In a 1996 email to Phil Jones, Geoff Jenkins writes:

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

Jenkins' "cunning plan" was to spoon feed selected information to Nick Nuttal, who is the head spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, for his articles. The "via Oz?" comment in regards to this "cunning plan", is most likely referring to Senior Research Scientist at Australia's Climate Forecasting Group, Neville Nichols.

By selecting which media sources to spoon feed selected information to, Jenkins would have caused a frenzy. After the real temperature data was issued, "We relesae (sic) the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then."

The fringe, state run, lamestream media can spin this topic however they want. However, much like an event caught on video, nobody can deny the blatant fraud that was occurring all these years. We "climate change deniers" knew that these hucksters were "cooking the books" all along and the emails should not be the central issue, but the code that was created to alter the data is, the emails merely reinforce the fraud that was going on behind closed doors.

AoD - The Ghost of Lysenko

By Bruce Walker

Excerpt:

The imaginary science of man-made global warning can now be entered into the infamous history of politicized science, the results of which have threads in our lives today. Consider the residue of such frauds as Rachel Carson, Alfred Kinsey, and Margaret Mead. Carson's invented findings and unscientific methods led to the banning of DDT, which in turn cost the lives of tens of millions of children in undeveloped nations. Kinsey's tortuously doctored "sex research," as Dr. Judith Riesman has so amply demonstrated, was not only invented to sate his perverted lusts, but created scientific myths about normal and abnormal behavior which haunt us to this day. Mead also simply invented research to fit her idea of what the science of anthropology ought to be in order to justify her own immature and immoral behavior. Carson, Kinsey, and Mead had an agenda before they did any research, and this agenda governed everything else.

Read the rest at American Thinker

EPA Relied Heavily On Hadley CRU Data

With all the hullabaloo about the leaked emails from East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit, one aspect of it that's not being talked about too much is agencies, such as the EPA and their reliance on that data to make energy policy. The continued analysis of the code contained within the leaked information clearly shows that fraud was the flavor of the day. Not only does it prove that data was deliberately being manipulated, but, databases were clearly in disarray and what one email from Phil Jones seems to indicate that he wanted material destroyed when skeptics discovered that the UK had a freedom of information act.

What one has to understand is that Hadley CRU wields enormous influence in outside circles and purportedly has the largest climate database in the world; it's models were used in the IPCC's 2007 report, which the EPA has acknowledged it relied upon very heavily when making conclusions that carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public health.

As more and more information is being brought out by coders looking at the data, it seems that much has to be explained in those emails and data sets. But, what seems to be going around in the state run, fringe media is the legality of these emails being "hacked" and the predictable downplaying of its contents.

What these reporters are ignoring to ask is four important questions:

1. Is this the first time data has escaped Hadley?

2. Since the emails and data go back a number of years, how would a hacker know which emails were relevant and which emails were not?

3. Since the Copenhagen conference is fast approaching, isn't it a little odd that these emails were "hacked" and released to the world?

4. Why hasn't any investigation been called for?

Of course, we can't expect the fringe media to ask questions that may lead to unwanted answers.

Even though Senator Inhofe has called for an investigation, whether or not he will get the support of other Congressional members is the question. Many politicians have been bamboozled into believing the anthropogenic global warming hoax and are not likely to change their view points, particularly since a new revenue stream is in the works with cap and trade legislation.

In 1988, this entire issue was started by Maurice Strong and further propagated by James Hansen with a preconceived notion that the modern human industrial population was causing the earth's temperature to rise. Preconceived notions are supposed to be anathema to scientists, because it tends to send them looking for evidence to support it and discarding any that disproves it. What these emails and data sets show is that these scientists were doing everything they could to manipulate data and, in Phil Jones' own words, hide the decline when results were showing the opposite.

Science also demands sharing of data. Evidence must be verifiable and results must be reproducible in the real world by other scientists, this is how it goes through the filters to keep everyone honest in the process. However, this didn't seem to be the case with the Hadley scientists. Many times data had to be obtained from skeptical scientists through the Freedom of Information Act, which seems to indicate that something was trying to be hidden.

Eugene Robinson's Hot Air

Eugene Robinson's article at Real Clear Politics is long on spin and short on facts. Let's pick it apart:

Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week -- portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories -- does not prove that global warming is a fraud.

We "climate change deniers" are not saying that global warming is a fraud, we are saying the junk science used to purvey it is the cause and the fraud, so I guess, in a sense, global warming is man made considering that the emails prove that Michael Mann, et al tried to hide the decline and it's not just the emails, it's the code that is damning. Incidentally, Mr. Robinson which is it, climate change or global warming?

If I'm wrong, somebody ought to tell the polar ice caps that they're free to stop melting.

Really? Real science says that it's cyclical and currently they are building up in some places and decreasing in others.

That said, the e-mail episode is more than a major embarrassment for the scientists involved. Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real -- a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make to begin seriously limiting carbon emissions. But consensus on the nature and scope of the problem will dissipate, and fast, if experts try to obscure the fact that there's much about the climate they still don't know.

More mindless "consensus" claptrap. Of course climate change is real, it's been going on for 4.5 billion years and throwing money at a non existent phenomenon isn't going to 'fix' anything, but it will destroy the economy if this preposterous cap and tax bill gets passed and signed into law fast. As for "scientific consensus", there is no such thing. Let me repeat that: there is no such thing. When are you climate change alarmists going to realize that? But, if you want to play the consensus game, may a I direct your attention to the Global Warming Petition Project?

Here's what happened: Someone hacked into the servers at one of the leading academic centers in the field -- the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England -- and filched a trove of e-mails and documents, which have been posted on numerous Web sites maintained by climate skeptics.

Nobody hacked into anything, Mr. Robinson. If that were the case, then why hasn't an official investigation been started yet? Those emails go back a number of years, how would a hacker know which emails were relevant and which emails were not? This isn't the first time data has been leaked by Hadley CRU, ask Stephen Mcyntire at Climate Audit. Then there is the timing of this event. Since the Copenhagan climate conference is looming, don't you think it's a bit odd that these emails were leaked?

Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, released a statement Wednesday saying, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published e-mails do not read well." That would be an example of British understatement.

"Don't read well"? That's beyond any understatement, considering that violence was suggested by one "scientist".

In one message sent to a long list of colleagues, Jones speaks of having completed a "trick" with recent temperature data to "hide the decline." The word "trick" is hardly a smoking gun -- scientists use it to refer to clever but perfectly legitimate ways of handling data. But the "hide the decline" part refers to a real issue among climate researchers called the "divergence problem."

Ah, yes it is Mr. Robinson and here's where you climate change alarmists are missing the entire point. The code (IDL) clearly shows that the data was altered involving data manipulation going back to the 60's to make it look as if there was a warming trend.

The rest of Mr. Robinson's article is more claptrap and apologist rhetoric that is always vomited by those who venerate anyone that creates a feel good campaign. These scientists are the epitome of why PHD means Piled High and Deep and should have their credentials revoked, because this is clearly academic fraud.

Indexed and Searchable Hadley CRU Emails Now Available

The leaked Hadley CRU emails are now indexed and searchable.

Searchable Hadley CRU Emails

It's Official - Senator James Inhofe Calls For Investigation

Senator James Inhofe has officially called for an investigation into the emails that were leaked from the Hadley Climate Research Unit. The contents of some of the emails leave no doubt that the climate change alarmists were deliberately cooking the books to make it look like humans were causing climate change.Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones and many others have a lot to answer for. The timing of this couldn't have come at a better time with the talks at Copenhagen nearing.

Hadley Climate Research Unit Emails Show Academic Fraud

Perusing the 1,073 emails that were leaked, not hacked as many people are claiming, leaves no doubt in my mind that these so-called climate scientists were committing nothing short of academic fraud. I say the Hadley CRU server wasn't hacked and their email stolen based on a number of reasons: 1. This isn't the first time that data has been leaked from the Hadley CRU. 2. For what purpose would hackers have to gain access to data that is more than likely beyond there understanding? 3. Assuming that hackers did gain access, how would they know which emails were relevant and which ones were not? 4. Hackers do not waste their time without some sort of returnable value. In other words it must be worth their time. 5. People readily blame something malicious as opposed to their incompetence. From Real Climate: At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server. They then created a draft post that would have been posted announcing the data to the world that was identical in content of the comment posted on The Air Vent later that day. They were intercepted before this could be posted on the blog I don't buy it for a second. I certainly hope that Senator Inhofe hauls each and everyone of these reprobates before Congress to answer to this falsified data to "hide the decline". More on this topic as more details are gleaned.

Hackers Expose The Truth About Global Warming

Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in data about temperatures.The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data. Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA." Read the rest at FoxNews

Kill Yourself To Save The Planet?

Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planetIt's not the growing number of people in poverty who are causing climate change, it's the rich The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO² every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government's target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately. And if that makes sense, why not start cutting population everywhere? Are condoms not the greenest technology of all? Read the rest at the Guardian