Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Global Warming e-mails cast doubt on the science behind the phenomena

I have my doubts these e-mails were hacked, I lean towards them being leaked as was initially being reported. Now the spin has begun.
A round up of articles from the leaked documents and e-mails.
Links provided, so you can read the entire article, just click and go!

Rorting data is hell, Nino
"What they reveal is perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time - a conspiracy by warmist scientists to fudge statistics, sack sceptical scientists, block the release of data to prevent checking, illegally destroy data, deceive reporters, censor sceptical papers, and hide errors in their work"

Hiding evidence of global cooling -Junk science exposed among climate-change believers "The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims Leading British climate change scientists are facing calls for a public inquiry after hacked email exchanges appeared to indicate that scientific data may have been manipulated to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

An image of the e-mails from this article
click on it to get the complete image

Maggie has also put up a bunch of links here, if you would like to read more on this most recent news


  1. You can also download the whole zip file to see these emails yourself. Alex Jones has posted it on his site, the zip file is FOI2009.zip. But the globalists may get a hold of this file and corrupt it. I think it would be safe and prudent to download a copy.

    I think its for real, Jones thinks its for real and he has had the file for several days before breaking the story.

    No doubt Climate Change is a fraud.

    Thanks for posting this Penny !

  2. (The zip file can be found in many places, but you may be getting a "doctored" version)

  3. Oh, it's for real. The reaction from the people in question is a dead giveaway I reckon. Besides that the media has done it's level best to down-play / misrepresent it. Otherwise between the people who want us on board Anthropomorphic Global Warming, and those who are calling it out as bullshit, it's an obvious no-brainer.

    I have to go hats-off to Mike Rivero on this one. I used to be a believer (way back when no one I knew had even heard of it), and I rolled my eyes whenever Rivero bagged it out, but eventually he wore me down. Wore me down and won me over.

  4. Hey Penny,

    I think the biggest issue here, outside of a lack of reporting in the msm, is that the focus has been on the emails themselves. While certainly damning and shameful, IMO it's the codes themselves for the software where the true prize lies.

    I remember when doing undergrad chem, the antagonistic behaviour of the analytical chemists and the theoretical chemists. When the theoretical guys' data did not match the empirical evidence resulting from the analytical side they really got their panties in bunch, consistently accusing the analytical branch of sloppy labwork.

    Kind of the same thing going on here.

    Falling on the more empirically oriented side, I'd always roll my eyes when the 'programmers' would say "You guys did your experiment wrong because my code tells me that the sky is green". Well clearly not exactly those words - but you get the idea.

  5. All the modeling code and theory can be undermined by the fact that CO2 just isn't a greenhouse gas. The whole is like putting a tax on flying rocks when we know rocks don't fly.

  6. (CO2 is a very insignificant greenhouse gas)

  7. Thanks maggie and doug:

    I have heard some stuff about the code being hacked to get the results that were desired, I will have to look into it some more.

    If I find anything good I will post it.

  8. The coding was wrong to begin with.

    This is the Biggest Problem IMO. It wasn't hacked - they chose their parameters, they did the coding and they perverted the outcomes in their 'hypothetical' analysis.

    Years ago we had fun with some fortran and killing off the planet - believe me - doctoring source codes and programming parameters one can get what ever results one wishes.

    Unless these things are all open source don't trust it.