This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud
Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud
by Project Mayhem
Russian computer hackers have published emails and source code from the UN-affiliated Climate Research Unit showing profound corruption, fraud, and criminal activity. What's really behind the Copenhagen treaty?
Recently, Russian hackers published over 160mb of scientific emails and source code taken from the primary 'climate research unit' -- the University of East Anglia, which is the center of UN/IPCC-promoted global warming alarmism. What the emails and data prove is shocking, and may represent the greatest scandal in the history of science.
In the emails, these UN-funded scientists talk about deleting data under FOIA request, faking data for journals such as Nature, conspiring to keep opposing science out of peer-reviewed journals (which they controlled the editorial boards), using "tricks" to "hide the [cooling period]" etc.
A picture emerges of big science funded to the tune of billions of dollars for the purposes of an underlying international political agenda. The degree of collusion between big media, the UN, and corrupted scientists involved in frank criminal activity is deeply disturbing. As I have detailed before, the purpose here is a political one. Global warming, or now abstractly identified as 'climate change', has been chosen by international banks and think tanks as the method of induction of vast political and social engineering never before seen in the history of the world.
We see based on the activities of criminals representing themselves as 'climate scientists' that the politics came first, and the science came second. They were more than happy to represent the political interests of the UN and international banks -- as long as their lab was well-funded. But there are politics behind this indeed. Here is a small sample of the underlying political agenda: Billions in new taxes, International regulatory control under the UN, Goldman Sachs/CCX carbon trading, Obliteration of national sovereignty, extreme forced austerity and reduction of the standard of living, deindustrialization of the First World countries, and implementation of Orwellian state policies for the purposes of "carbon tracking". The science does not matter -- the politics does.
Let us consider for a moment the cynical political objectives behind 'global warming' before we delve into the mountain of evidence thanks to the leaked emails and source code.
Global Warming and Orwellian State Policy
The Dutch government attempts to introduce GPS tracking units in everyone's cars under the pretext of 'climate change'.
THE HAGUE — The Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a "green" road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.
"Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill," the transport ministry said in a statement.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYPTOtIepVKcGL_AcCZFe1ht99UQ
Global Warming and New Taxes
One of the primary political aspects of the global warming fraud is the imposition of a massive and bewildering array of new taxes. Obviously it is plain to see how this is in the interest of governments and banks, particularly if such taxes are imposed on an individual level.
Carbon Insurance For Your Car May Be Down The Road [Green Gas Taxes at Pumps] by Terry Tamminen (cnbc.com) - Nov. 13, 2009.
"A carbon insurance premium could easily be included in such a gas pump surcharge so drivers pay the true cost of operating their vehicles in terms of all relevant risks, including their fair share of creating both fender benders and climate change collisions."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33906802
Carbon ration account for all proposed by Environment Agency by Ben Webster (timesonline.co.uk) - Nov. 9, 2009.
"Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6909046.ece
Global Warming and Personal Autonomy
Selling your house? It could be a green crime
Queensland’s flailing government has now made it a crime to sell your house without first doing a big green audit:
QUEENSLANDERS selling their homes will soon have to complete a 56-point questionnaire detailing the property’s environmental credentials
Global Warming and Forced Austerity
The UN has advocated funding global birth control initiatives [read: 'population security'] in order to 'reduce CO2 emissions'. Of course now we know the connection between CO2 and temperatures is based on fabricated data . . . So where does that leave such UN population initiatives?
UN says Birth control the most effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions [UN Wants More Abortions and Sterilizations to cut Co2] by Ben Webster (timesonline.co.uk) - Nov. 19, 2009.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6922245.ece
The population control objectives of the global warming fraud do not end there. Andrew Revkin, an NYT correspondent identified in the leaked CRU emails exhibiting a very cozy relationship with the corrupt scientists, advocates restrictions on the number of children couples are permitted to have via the issuance of 'carbon credits'. This is similar to what was advocated by Obama's chief science advisor John Holdren in his book Ecoscience. There is a political agenda behind global warming.
"Should–probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children,” said Revkin. “So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit–If we’re going to become carbon-centric–for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three,” said Revkin.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=55667
The above is significant because Revkin is identified in the leaked emails corresponding with the corrupt Climate Research Unit (CRU) and has written many pro-global warming articles for the New York Times.
Global Warming and Systemic Financial Fraud
Where would we be in a Zerohedge article without mention of the fraudsters at Goldman Sachs. No doubt they are present in almost every evil or fraudulent enterprise known to man and global warming is no exception. Certainly these charlatans plan on making billions trading hallucinated carbon credits on Maurice Strong's Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).
Al Gore's "Carbon Trading" Scam Reeks of Who Else? Goldman
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/05/al-gores-carbon-trading-scam-reeks-of.html
These examples illustrate how the global warming fraud is used to push a far-reaching political agenda -- an agenda born out of the unholy fusion of governments , banks, and corrupt scientists. But let us consider now the content of the leaked emails.
Scientific corruption at the highest levels:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH nd N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
source: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810
Obviously the above email speaks for itself. Despite the glaringly obvious fraud, Phil Jones and his collaborators across the world would have you believe that "trick" and "hiding the decline" are simply normal procedures in any scientific laboratory. The FORTRAN source code tells a different story.
Climate Research Unit FORTRAN code backs up claims of fraud and corruption
Neal from Climate Audit writes:
"People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:"
function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
"Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.
Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result."
-Anthony Watts, Meteorologist
Discussion
The source code above shows that the scientists involved manipulated their data in order to achieve a predetermined outcome. This is fraud, plain and simple. What is worse is these scientists also deliberately deleted the paper trail showing their research was fraudulent when the FOA requests arrived. This is criminal activity at the highest levels, and these people should be investigated and prosecuted. The massive amounts of funding they were provided with was used to lie to the public , in order to achieve the objectives of the UN and its affiliated think tanks, whether these scientists were aware of the implication of their corruption or not. The point is these entire 'climate change' claims need to be thrown in the trash heap and evaluated by competent scientists without financial or political interests in the outcome of their research.
And above all, the UN's Copenhagen treaty for dramatic forced austerity and international political control should be exposed for the vicious and cynical hoax it actually is. Copenhagen is the culmination of these fraudulent policies. National sovereignty will once again be reduced under a treaty conceived and funded by think tanks and international banks. Massive taxes will be imposed. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan will make billions trading hallucinated carbon credits. Orwellian state policies for tracking individuals and interfering in personal autonomy will become acceptable under the pretext of 'stopping climate change', despite the entire rationale being fraudulent. Monopolistic international finance capital and the billionaire elitists behind it believe they are about to achieve another victory over the unwashed masses with the Copenhagen treaty.
The true political objective behind global warming was proven beyond a doubt in the Club of Rome publication The First Global Revolution. Keep in mind Al Gore is a member of this elitist group of policymakers, and even chaired a full Club of Rome meeting in Washington DC in 1997.
"“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
-Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991.
We should understand that the international political agenda underlying the falsified global warming scandal is, at its core, an ideology of corrupt banks and politicians intent on framing humanity as the enemy , in order to achieve purposes of social control. Thus, it is no surprise that the 'science' behind global warming has been exposed as fraudulent.
For in-depth coverage of this growing scandal, see:
You can download the full copy of the leaked documents and source code here:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009
»
- advertisements -
Mate, Andrew Bolt calls a spade a spade. No political correctness in his column! Go Andrew Bolt!
"So stop yelling conspiracy and go do something useful like reduce your footprint so we have more time to deal with the total shitfest we're digging ourselves further and further into."
5 gold Maple Leafs says most of the posters on this board are more environmentally conscious than any Greenshirt fascist. So you can take your pompous directive and shove it.
"Conspiracy" isn't the point, nor the lame rejoinder about "right-wing hacks employed by Rupert Murdoch." The point is that those who read and participate on ZeroHedge regularly DO NOT like being lied to. When correspondance from the scientists who have been promoting the "Climate Change Will Kill Us All!" theory show that they have been involved in deliberate obfuscation, data manipulation, deflection, lack of transparency, and fraud in the same way that the Fed, the banksters, or any government organization has, what the hell do you expect people here to say? "Oh, but the science is settled!" "There's a consensus!" "Peer review!!!"
If you honestly believe this was going to be the reaction, you clearly don't understand this site, which is dedicated to questioning the status quo and issues that the oligarchs consider "settled." Particularly those in a discipline who should not, IN PRINCIPLE, begin with a conclusion and accept only data that fits that conclusion, which these "scientists" clearly did.
BTW, as always nice work I enjoy reading your material on a regualr basis. It takes a lot to make an old sick man like me think, but you do the trick.
Yes, all these conspiracy theories are being shot down right-and-left... When will one bit of evidence ever come out?
God help your clients if you are dispensing financial advice whilst being utterly incapable of understanding materials such as these emails and data. What part of destroying evidence, falsifying data, stiffing FOI requests, libeling critics and marginalizing/silencing dissent do you not understand?
Gil was giving you the heavy dosage of sarcasm.
Gore was a fraud the moment he conceded the election to Diebold. He's a NWO bitch, just like mommy and daddy Clinton.
Good on you for reminding everyone about the 'man' behind the curtain of global warming. But don't forget to mention Morgan along with Goldman. They have their private hands in every piece of the charade, not just CCX.
i'm much relieved ... this explains why the antarctic and greenland ice shelves have been collapsing, worldwide glaciers have been retreating, and we're looking towards opening the northwest passage for shipping.
at least sea levels aren't rising and oceans aren't increasing in acidity or anything. then i'd be worried.
This doesn't answer the question of the anthropogenicity of any global warming. The glaciers in New Zealand have been shrinking since they were first measured two centuries ago.
Too early of a starting point.
In a first-year biology book for university I read few years ago that a glacier in Northern Canada is shrinking since the 1750's or so.
Too early again.
Ah, at least one useful idiot shows up, full to his craw with algore spew but loving the taste so fucking much... Please sir may I have more?
And we wonder why the BIG LIE ( ZH- maybe we need to tabulate all the current BIG LIES, it's getting hard to keep track ) can possibly be kept alive, no thrive, even with the blogosphere and other alternative media sources shining the light of truth on them daily, relentlessly. The truth truly is out there; the emperor actually has no clothes.
It's all the useful idiots who through either self-loathing, ignorance, apathy, or birth-bequeathed stupidity, are the willing fodder for the oligarchy's deceipt.
"and we're looking towards opening the northwest passage for shipping."
It never ceases to amaze me how truly stupid people can be... did you never learn anything in school? The northwest passage has been open many times in the past... this tiny boat below did it twice in the 1940's... where was global warming then????..... Duh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Roch
ok ... point for you ... i misspoke. while i don't think an icebreaker is a really good example for you to cite, its not like the northwest passage can't be navigated at all. it can't be safely navigated on a regular basis and certainly not on a year-round schedule.
put another way ... its unlikely that we'd see a whole lot of commercial shipping via the northwest passage, certainly not during the arctic winter, unless a considerable amount of melting were to take place.
WOODEN HULLED "ICE BREAKER" WITH SAILS?????
You are shitting me right? Look at the picture again... christ!!!
And was the passage open this year (2009) ????
Right!
And a considerable amount of melting happened since the last ice age. There was a lot less ice in the medieval warming period. More ice,less ice it's called change, it happens to everyone,everything, no matter what! Why are you so afraid of something you can do nothing about?
Here's the global sea ice anomallies since 1979... from government sources derived from satellite observations at that... maybe someone has been oh... lying to you perhaps?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
And did you see that polar bears are now falling from the sky... you forgot that one... (BTW... polar bear populations are UP from 8,000 - 10,000 in the 1960's to 20,000 to 25,000 today...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ&feature=player_embedded#
The above video is a must-see and captures the hysteria that is used to sell anthropogenic global warming dogma... WAKE THE FREAK UP people!!!
i think this chart from the very same source serves your argument a little better as it shows something of a [potential] trend reversal --
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
-- but this one is less 'helpful' or encouraging --
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007...
if we're actually talking about 'sea ice' ... and i haven't checked to see exactly what qualifies as 'sea' ice, then it probably doesn't include things like the greenland or antarctic ice sheets. north polar ice is in fact sea ice and when melted adds very little to sea levels. greenland ice sheets and much of the antarctic ice isn't [or shouldn't be considered to be] 'sea ice' as its actually on the land. when it melts the entirety of the ice mass is added to the water levels.
i'm not going to go anywhere near saying that you and the hackers are wrong and that there aren't conspiracists who want to drive a climate change agenda. and we've certainly seen an awful lot of nonsense from the folks on the other side, backed by the likes of big oil, who do everything they can to obfuscate the facts. all i'm saying is that there are clear, incontrovertible, verifiable changes taking place wrt to things like icemelt that can't and shouldn't be ignored.
there are obviously forces at work with a vested interest in encouraging clearly evil things like cap and trade. there are obviously forces at work with a vested interest in maintaining a very profitable status quo. somewhere in between is the truth of the matter. i confess ... i have a weakness when it comes to the status quo ... it hasn't served [many of] us very well so far.
Tell me exactly where I am wrong and I will listen and perhaps even change my mind...
What I really find disengenous about your link to that cryosphere graph is that can you tell me exactly how they knew with such precision without satellite data and a monitoring system to get area calculations of sea ice extent from 1900... not a lot of boats up there then buddy... and it looks solidly frozen in 1944 when the St. Roch sailed straight through... hmmmm... and then the series ends in the minimum year... why not 2009 rather than 2007? Oh I know... the ice is recovering...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
Check out the FOR REAL satellite data from the same site my friend... notice anything unusual?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Looks a little different from the stuff that they could estimate to leave some people with the perception that the ice is melting doesn't it? And the strong polar vortex as mentioned earlier is responsible for those lower years... not melting.
Really... just check it again... same source... same webpage and please tell me again how they got those early 1900's measurements will ya... guessing perhaps? Perhaps I is just too stupid to understand this stuff... just sayin'
There is an obvious choice open tall all in this, you either look at the raw data yourself or you allow scientists to anaylse it for you. What you don't do is cherry pick the raw data to critique the science.
Sea Ice extent a case in point:
In case you didn't know the Antarctic is very cold, and has a big landmass.
Hence sea ice extent has changed little:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
However the north pole is mostly ice covered ocean much more influenced by currents and sea temp:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
This is the same data you posted before but showing the north and south pole contributions. The north pole data looks disturbing.
Not to make a joke but this is all academic, another 5 years from now , in the middle of the next solar maximum, climate change scepticism will be seen as quaint.
I expected better from zerohedge respondants, most responders here are sheeple (your own response is much much better! looking at actual data), claiming its bullshit from listening to all the vested interests in keeping things going as they are.
You are creepy, dudette.
"verifiable changes taking place wrt to things like icemelt that can't and shouldn't be ignored." and neither should similar things like icemelt happening on mars.
please note that i personally am on your side of the fence wrt status quo. however, i also choose to believe that being forced to decide between 2 false choices both built upon lies, deceit, fear & need to control is actually what the status quo really is.
alas, i couldn't agree with you more. its a very sad state of affairs. i candidly don't know what to think any more about anything. all i see is deceit from every quarter.
i'm no ideologue and i prefer to try to arrive at conclusions based on sound rational analysis but these days almost nothing is what it seems.
i'd like to think that when when there are so many disparate sources who appear to be in agreement that perhaps there is some shred of truth to what they're saying. as to your last sentence about lies, deceit, fear and the status quo, i certainly can't argue the point with you.
now, if you'll excuse me, i need to go find some hammers and drop them. i feel the sudden need to validate the existence of gravity.
Agree with deep sadness. Can not trust your own government.Bankers are liars along with there financial buddies. Climate change is a political football along with peek oil, unemployment, inflation etc etc etc. Everything you are told is manipulated and deceptive. George Orwells 1984 mightt be a few years out, but its here.
Terry.
Glad to see the MSM is all over this. </que crickets>
Even worse - they've stepped up the hysteria and the "We must ACT NOW!!!"
I want to personally go up to each one of them and just shake them until they snap out of it and come to their senses.
You're a really nice person. I was thinking more along the lines of hammering thier computers into thier buttholes with a jack hammer. But I like power tools. And ending senseless suffering in dramatic fashions.
Wallstreetpro2 is that you?
The silence is not only deafening... it's astounding.
The Wall Street Journal actually had the guts to cover this issue... I'll post the article below...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
You guys should read more widely:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hacke...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/conservation/6642790/Climat...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2752337.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/24/24climatewire-stolen-e-mails-sha...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10404533-38.html
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-email...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2258373
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fd845ed0-d868-11de-b63a-00144feabdc0.html
Margin call,
You can't be serious. I opened each and every link. Most of them posed the findings as a question, make excuses, most of them are not even mainstream, and even Foxnews was posted in the OPINION section. I knew the second Obama bowed in front of the Emperor of Japan, and yet I have to scower obscure 'news' postings to find some apologetic articles on the issue? This is worse than watergate, this 'global warming' nonsense has permeated every aspect of civilization, it is being hailed as the biggest issue facing mankind, and it has come to light that the evidence supporting such claims has been fabricated. Where's the outrage? This should be frontpage of every major publication! The links you provided simply impact the point I made earlier; no MSM coverage of the issue. Crickets, indeed!
Thereis overwhelming pressure to dance for the Masters,
now we science $cience is not done by pure minded humanists, but rather by crass opportunists, a revelation!
The people be damned. As w/obamacare, the vampire squids will do as vampire squids do. To expect balance, is to believe in fairies.
Belief is Belief Daedal... it doen't require facts...
It's like trying to convince someone their religion is wrong... even when clearly all religions can't be right.
Global Warming is a religion. The physics don't support more than a .5 degree celsius increase from a co2 doubling... thats a fact. The rest is empty speculation and Nintendo games...
I really don't have time to read them all Margin Call... however since you did bring up the veritable New York Times... bastion of unbiased information that it is...
Why don't you reread the NYT article again... if you pay close attention you will see it is actually a damage control piece... or am I a tard? (I could be... heck sometimes I am even...)
Just askin'...
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/24/24climatewire-stolen-e-mails-sharpen-a-brawl-between-clima-19517.html
From the Gaurdian... a small (non-elaborated)segment of an email followed by lengthy defenses
Damage control again Margin Call...
"It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating," said Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. "You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."
If by "trick" they mean a clever way to disguise a cooling trend that does much to discredit the AGW thesis so that we mortals won't be confused by the facts...
Anyway there is nothing that I can do for ya except ask you to please read the emails...
Oh hey and the from the Telegraph article....
"But the scientific establishment remains united in the view that the documents reveal no smoking gun to manipulate data, and point out that the figures produced by the unit tally with two other major international studies."
Sounds like more damage control to me since they didn't even present what was actually in the emails...
I'm not supporting the viewpoint put forward in any one of the articles, rather responding to overheated claims made above that there is mainstream media silence on this issue. Which, of course, is blatantly untrue. This story is all over the place. Story tone will of course reflect editorial slant of source (notice I also included Fox, National Post in there and so forth).
The ABC article however seems balanced...
The NYT piece is written by completely non-biased reporter Andrew Revkin, who is NOT specifically mentioned by name in the released emails, and who does NOT have a cozy relationship with climate fraudsters like Micheal Mann. (Please note that "NOT" is an ironic intensifier, and is a "trick" I use to "hide the" contempt I feel.)
Agree 100% and have done so since the climate change supporters first spouted their filth. Hang 'em high.
And hang them often...
The bastards deleted... yes deleted raw climate data that they alone were in posession of.... data that was collected with public funds. They did this so no-one could reconstruct the graphs that they produced for the IPCC propaganda machine... why???
Because their graphs and conclusions are fraudulent... even they admit so amongst themselves... I know your mother told you it's not nice to read someone elses mail but please read the Emails people...
And this is what passes for science today???
Yes Al Gore... the debate is over isn't it?
Mayhem thanks for another article on this.
The liberated files were actually 168MB - (65MB compressed).
Mayhem... thanks for the great work and keep the pressure up on these criminals. Yes they are criminals if you merely apply the laws that are aleady on the books...
People tend to forget this since they believe they are merely attempting to save the planet... more like saving the $30 billion in global warming research grants since the early 90's... just sayin'...
Sure, but it's a small price to pay to get World Gov't by the best and brightest. And an end to all the bickering of the world's nations as force is used to bring them into line with the eco-principles.
Eggs/omelettes. Just sayin'....
If these cynical criminals in world policy bodies actually cared about the environment, they would ban Monsanto terminator seeds.
Mayhem, you just hit the sweet spot there. There is no telling what food grown with these seeds is going to do to people long term. But there are some hints.
http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/05/18/watch-the-world-according-to-monsanto-online-for-free/
"The World According to Monsanto"
I read somewhere the data was posted on a Russian hacker site but the data was probably released by an insider, maybe someone who had to work on the awful source code . The data was well-organized, perhaps to respond to a Freedom of Information request.
Anyone else with info?
Slippery saviors (Climate Scientists) may be scanned squirming here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more...
"Matt Ta ib bi...white courtesy telephone Please !
Matt Ta ib bi..."
What do
a g ore
o bama
h p aulson
g o ld man sux
have in common?
why the c hic ago cl im ate e x change of course ;-)
Please don't let this story die. I don't give a shit if the dollar goes to zero as long as I have my freedom.