E-mail messages between high-ranking scientists appear to indicate a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists to falsify temperature data in order to exaggerate global averages.

Those involved allegedly include: James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Michael Mann, famous for Mann's "Hockey Stick"; Gavin Schmidt, NASA climate modeler, and; Stephen Schneider, Stanford professor and Al Gore confidant.

A statement released Friday by the alarmist website RealClimate has confirmed that e-mail servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich, England, were hacked recently with contents illegally made available over the Internet.

Although the authenticity of all these e-mail messages has yet to be proven, what's currently available points to a coordinated attempt to manipulate climate data by those directly involved in advancing the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

New Zealand's Investigate magazine reported Friday that it has verified these e-mail messages are indeed real:

The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

The BBC.com filed this report moments ago:

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

"We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated.

The journal Nature got a comment from one of the scientists whose name appears on some of these e-mail messages:

Some climate-sceptic bloggers are already poring over the posted material, which includes e-mails allegedly sent by the CRU's director Phil Jones to fellow climate researchers, including Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Mann is the author of a widely cited assessment of past climate records, known as the hockey-stick graph, which shows a pronounced global-warming trend during the latter part of the twentieth century.

"I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails," says Mann. "However, their theft constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping that the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows." Jones declined to comment on the matter.

Andrew Bolt of Australia's Herald Sun has more:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting 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. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

Bolt included a number of these e-mail messages (emphasis his):

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: //';l ='a';l ='/';l ='<';l =' 110';l =' 114';l =' 111';l =' 98';l =' 115';l =' 111';l[10]=' 46';l[11]=' 88';l[12]=' 88';l[13]=' 88';l[14]=' 64';l[15]=' 97';l[16]=' 102';l[17]=' 102';l[18]=' 105';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 98';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 107';l[23]='>';l[24]='"';l[25]=' 110';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 98';l[29]=' 115';l[30]=' 111';l[31]=' 46';l[32]=' 88';l[33]=' 88';l[34]=' 88';l[35]=' 64';l[36]=' 97';l[37]=' 102';l[38]=' 102';l[39]=' 105';l[40]=' 114';l[41]=' 98';l[42]=' 46';l[43]=' 107';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l .substring(0, 1) == ' ') document.write("&#"+unescape(l .substring(1))+";"); else document.write(unescape(l )); } //]]> k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

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 land 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 XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich

Here's a more recent one. See how many prominent climate alarmists are allegedly in receipt:

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).


Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

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.***

Here's one wherein Jones allegedly told Mann to delete e-mail messages:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil



Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit
Here's a REALLY juicy one from Mann wherein he allegedly instructed the group to use the website RealClimate, and addressed how comments would be screened to control the message:

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

This e-mail lacking a header allegedly from Jones discussed exactly how to manipulate temperature data being sent to climate realist Steven McIntyre as part of one of his Freedom of Information Act requests:

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Finally, here's an e-mail message wherein Jones allegedly celebrated the death of a climate realist:

From: Phil Jones
To: //';l ='a';l ='/';l ='<';l =' 120';l =' 120';l =' 120';l =' 46';l =' 120';l =' 120';l[10]=' 120';l[11]=' 120';l[12]=' 120';l[13]=' 118';l[14]=' 64';l[15]=' 110';l[16]=' 110';l[17]=' 97';l[18]=' 109';l[19]='>';l[20]='"';l[21]=' 120';l[22]=' 120';l[23]=' 120';l[24]=' 46';l[25]=' 120';l[26]=' 120';l[27]=' 120';l[28]=' 120';l[29]=' 120';l[30]=' 118';l[31]=' 64';l[32]=' 110';l[33]=' 110';l[34]=' 97';l[35]=' 109';l[36]=':';l[37]='o';l[38]='t';l[39]='l';l[40]='i';l[41]='a';l[42]='m';l[43]='"';l[44]='=';l[45]='f';l[46]='e';l[47]='r';l[48]='h';l[49]='a ';l[50]='<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l .substring(0, 1) == ' ') document.write("&#"+unescape(l .substring(1))+";"); else document.write(unescape(l )); } //]]> mann@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal

Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.

Cheers
Phil

“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@XXXX)
“
Reported with great sadness

The Examiner.com found another interesting e-mail message allegedly from a Dr. Tom Wigley to Jones (author's emphasis):

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

Wow. Scary stuff.

Once again, it is unknown which e-mail messages are real, and which if any are fraudulent. As you might imagine, numerous entities are sifting through the files to connect some dots.

For its part, NewsBusters has sent e-mail messages requesting comment from all of the scientists mentioned in this article. None have responded yet.

However, maybe more importantly, with cap and trade legislation currently before Congress, and an international climate meeting happening in Copenhagen next month, the question is what will America's leading media outlets do with this news.

Should we expect investigative television programs like "60 Minutes" and "20/20" to be all over this story interrogating the scientists allegedly involved in these e-mail exchanges?

Will America's press be as eager to find out the truth of this matter as they were in fact-checking former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's new book?

Consider that at the time of this article's publishing, only FoxNews.com, NPR.com, and WSJ.com have logged printed stories on this subject from this side of the Atlantic.

Will others follow, and if so, how will they report what on the surface appears to be a huge, developing story?

Stay tuned.

*****Update: Readers are STRONGLY encouraged to watch the scrambling going on at RealClimate.



Remember hacking emails was fine when palin's email was hacked. Remember it can and did run both ways. Unbelievable and entirely believable. For those who have been skeptical of Global Warming and have suspected outright dishonesty on the part of GW scientists, this does not come as such a big shock. This is HUGE and will hopefully go a long way towards reigning in the credibility of the scientific community which has become the "high priest" of the modern age. They just set the environmental movement back a whole generation. It will take that long for most folks to forget before the shysters can attempt their next big global money grabbing scheme.

I'm keepin' my fingers crossed. But you know the MSM will try to keep a lid on this no matter how factual the information may be. They will of course demonize the hackers as "right-wing terrorists" and Obama, Holder and an assortment of Maoist presidential advisors may even use this event to begin greasing the wheels for Internet access restrictions. Sounds kinda paranoid I know, but with this radical left-wing freakshow in the White House, it's hard to put anything past them.

I do not believe that scientists would fabricate a story to prove their point. I do not believe that they are enriching themseves by checking temperatures at various places in the world and comparing them to earlier times.What a shame it is that research in climate change could engender such petty partisan thought,such hatred of those holding a contrary viewpoint.

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 20, 2009
New York Times.

O yes they are real.


The cover of Nobel Laureate Al Gore's new book "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis" was intentionally doctored to exaggerate the appearance of hurricanes in the northern hemisphere as well as reduce the amount of ice present in the Arctic.

Al Gore: Earth's Interior 'Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees'

Newsweek Admits 74 Percent of Gore Letters Are Critical, But Fails to Publish Any

BREAKING: World Leaders Agree to Delay Global Warming Deal

EPA Forces Employees to Pull Down YouTube Video Critical of Cap-and-Trade

EPA Threatens Own Lawyers Over Video Critical Of Cap and Trade

CBS Claims Dogs Are Killing The Planet

Diana Sawyer even pointed out the amount of methane gas created from the bodily functions of cows, observing that it's "20 times more damaging it is than CO2."

NYT: Al Gore Making A Fortune Spreading Global Warming Hysteria

Guardian Columnist Wants to 'Cull' the Developed World to Stop Global Warming

Biofuel Production Increases Greenhouse Gases In Atmosphere

Global Warming Alarmist Appeared in 1978's 'The Coming Ice Age'

Arctic Ice Thickens: NYT

Europe Asks America For Climate Change Funds

U.S. Media Ignoring About Face by Leading Global Warming Proponent





Just some of my favorite headlines from just this year. I have lived through some of these world killing desasters in my life. And as you can see I'm still kicking. I've lived through overpopulation, water wars, acid rain, ice ages, ozone layers, and now this. Sorry if I do not swallow.

I admit I was worried when this started. But I knew it was just BS when they announced all discussion is over, and anyone who disagree were either from oil companies, or just nuts. Well I've lived through the same crap before. They have done this half a dozen times. These guys make a basket of money, and there theories fall to the wayside. All the legislation to prevent the ice age in the 70's, or acid rain, and later ozone in the 80's and early 90's. Or if you can remember all the bull from the 60's about overpopulation, water and food shortages if we hit 2.5 billion people.

Only people who beleve all this global warming junk are either too young to remember these other things or have a agenda. It's a money maker. Which is funny, because right up until the scandal with the hacked emails broke, the looney and enviro-wacko-nazis from every corner of the globe were saying 'the debate is over' and 'science proves it', and 'you can't argue with the science'.

Now that the 'scientists' have been laid bare as scam artists trying to bilk billions of taxpayer dollars in 'grants' and also get billions from the vultures set to descend on Copenhagen to spread their lies, the media is desperately scrambling to cover their lying backsides.

It could go down as one of the BIGGEST organized hoaxes of all time, and the media was right in there pimping it for all they were worth. But they did it all before, a broken record, and still people beleve them when they say again, we all are going to die in a manmade desaster.

I too can remember all the other crackpot world destroyer desasters that were inevitable. And we are still here and we did not do anything they wanted. Same with this. Only kids should fall for this. Because they have not been fooled yet. I swallowed it back in the 70's. I remember the stuff in the 60's. Overpopulation, WWIII water wars. But then I wasn't old enough to do anything about. But I did my part through the great coming ice age. Polar bears were suppose to be living in my backyard. Are people just gullable, or stupid.

Anyway I was reading a story in the NYT that caught my eye. “Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder For Climate Change Dispute.” In it it said

"The documents have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here."

BULL. This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation's paper of record. But in this case -- the documents were "never intended for the public eye. What about the details of our soldiers armor they wore. Showing the best place for maximum damage. They though that was news worthy. How about they Palin emails, they had about a dozen stories about those. Groups like this should be taking out and whipped.

The NewYork Times, as do most reputable newspapers,prints both sides of the global warming controversy,whatever the personal thoughts and beliefs of the writers.Likewise,Al Gore interviewed scientists who are both pro and con while writing his book.Thus,the Times and Gore observe the norms of scientific inquiry.

Ahhh, none of the intelectuals who have spouted science, math and unbias numbers were what put global warning as a fact. And only nuts, and bias rep were the ones who said it was fake. Seems like the nuts and bias are the one cooking the numbers. Since NYT will not show some of the emails I will. And they are not balanced. Since 1997 NYT has had 692 pro global warming articles, but only 37 con. **** if that is balanced, no wonder you hate fox. There is a reason why, they are also involved in the stolen emails. They were apart of the fraud.


Kevin Trenberth

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

Phil Jones

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

Mike MacCracken

Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).

Tim Johns
Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.

Phil Jones

Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress.

Christoph Kull

Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.


The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.


Mr beck(some of you can fume)went over this last night. Here is his commentary.

GLENN BECK, HOST: A potentially major scandal is unfolding after someone released thousands of e-mails and documents sent between prominent scientists of global warming debate. The New York Times has verified that these e-mails are legitimate which wasn't too hard because some of them were written by and to one of their reporters. More on that here in just a second. But first let's start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What do these guys say behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he's a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it.

How about Phil Jones, head of of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, "I have just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline." Yes, he is talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures. Incredible. But it doesn't stop there.

How about when scientific journals published material that Jones didn't like? Quote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report...Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is" end quote. Think about that next time you hear about, oh, "the consensus," and "the science is settled," and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed journals

Now what happens to a peer reviewed paper when they disagree with what gets published? Quote "...our only choice is to ignore this paper. They have already achieved what they wanted." But at least they are not intentionally deleting documents or hiding information, right? Oh, no, they're doing that, too. Here is Phil Jones writing Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with that Hockey Stick graph, that one. He said, "Mike, 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 get Caspar to do likewise." Count them. There's Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene, and Caspar, whoever they are, potentially deleting e-mails supposedly about supposed science.

So why all the secrecy? Well, we find out from another e-mail from Michael Mann about skeptic Steven McIntyre. "I'm sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals [you know, the one's they're cycling! ] but all they have to do is put it up on their blog and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear. Pretty soon Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck and their ilk are parroting the claims."

So you see, if McIntyre sees the data, he'll find the tricks that are in it to hide the decline, and then crazy people like me might just let you know about it. Oh, the horror what will happen to cap and trade? That e-mail was sent from one of the scientists to a New York Times reporter. That same reporter, Andrew Revkin, thankfully did report on the story for the New York Times, but he will not post the documents because, quote "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here." Oh, well, I know, the New York Times would never post or print anything that wasn't intended for the public eye, like, maybe, the way we monitor terrorists or specific strategies to protect our troops in the field. No, no, the New York Times, they're above that.

Deleting e-mails, hiding declines, incorrect data, inadequate systems, redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses! This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes and literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said, "Wait a minute, this global warming thing sounds like a scam." Well, I think you're seeing it now. We told you this was going on, without proof, because we listened to our gut. You'd never believe me, but once again, here we are with yet another brand new reality.

Indeed.



See some time we al are wrong. And have been fooled. You won't die.

Where's that nut Gore in all this mess?

The point is that the issue is not settled: Interesting that some individual has counted the articles favorable (or was it unfavorable?) to the idea of global warming.That sounds like this person is out to prove a pique,and not a scientific possibility.

Since none of the big 3, cnn, or msnbc have touched this story. The emails have the following people who were in the loop of number recalculators. Gore, John Holdren, John Heinz, plus the ones mentioned in the above comments. Every day more people and there comments are released. Over a million emails takes time to go through. But the big one who will fall, and get alot of people in trouble is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There are a ton of people who helped cook the numbers. Now is it a crime to tell lies to a congress panel. That is the question. Because these same reports were submitted to them. But will they, being stolen.


Now for our little balanced friend. This is what they wrote about palins email hacks.

Computer hackers broke into the private Yahoo e-mail account of Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, and posted some of her messages and a long list of contacts on the Internet.

The Web site Wikileaks posted screen shots of Ms. Palin’s inbox displaying her username, gov.palin@yahoo.com, and messages that were reportedly obtained by a group of hackers on Tuesday night.

The e-mails include an exchange between Ms. Palin and Alaska’s lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, as well as an associate, Amy McCorkell, who Ms. Palin appointed to a state drug and alcohol advisory board last year. Wired Magazine reported on its Internet privacy blog, Threat Level, that it obtained confirmation from Ms. McCorkell that she did, in fact, send the message to Governor Palin.

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign acknowledged the breach in a statement from campaign manager, Rick Davis: “This is a shocking invasion of the governor’s privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment.”

Governor Palin has faced criticism for reportedly using her private address to conduct government business.

When hackers posted screenshots of the then-Vice Presidential nominee on Wikileaks, the Times rushed to publish the information. It even included a link directly to a page displaying the screenshots, disclosing private communications and making available her personal email address and contact list. This is "private information" in every sense of the term.

Guy Benson at National Review extrapolates that at the Times, "it's unacceptable to direct readers to hacked private emails that fundamentally disrupt a lefty meme-of-the-decade, but it's totally cool to direct readers to hacked private emails of the lefty bete noire-of-the-year."

Revkin's statement displays a profound double standard in the Times's reporting on leaked information. It managed, in the last sentence of the Caucus Blog post, to turn Palin's email leak into an attack.

Yet in the case of the ClimateGate emails, which were obtained in a near-identical manner and contain similarly sensitive and personal communications, the Times suddenly finds ethical misgivings in publishing the information. The paper's reservations appear to be a veiled attempt to shield the left's global warming narrative from criticism.


I think saying "I plead the fifth" would be more of a approperate comment when concerned with the GW emails.


Of course people count how many articles about GW the times does, so when people like you say they are balanced, they can bring out the totals and show people how balanced they and you are

The argument about global warming will continue;it's proof ,disproof,it,s continuance will abound for years to come. This observation cannot fairly be called unbalanced by any well meaning reader.

I been following this(not on the regular news. Aparently this isn't news worthy). So the main scientists in the fight for global warming, have been changing the numbers, doing miscalculations, or blackballing unkindly reports/researchers/outlets.

Now tell me how this doesn't prove GW isn't real? If it was real, why would you need to manipulate the numbers? If it was real wouldn't the numbers work out to your models? Every GW model within the last 7 years are faulty. You have no basis now.

So I guess the discussion isn't over now. Now that the ones spreading lies have been caught up in them. Didn't I outline this already with the ice age scam and the population of 2.5 billion people desasters of the 70's on other threads on here.

I though they would be more discussion about this. Of course not from the loom and gloom crowd that have called people like me, stupid, blind, ignorant, and foolish. Doesn't seem like that now does it. See name calling is not nice, especially now that we all know it was you who were these things.

Now arn't you glad we did not get into kyoto. All that wasted money.

You need to learn politeness. That may be easier than spouting off .

You are very droll. Let me laze in this most luscious elicit. All those names We have been called, all those analogous aspersion. Now it seems that the elite, were in fact the commonalty. Nothing but common maligner.

Should I wait for an reparation. Remember when anyone states the discussion is over when discussing science, they are more than likely wrong. Only charlatans would state that, science is ever changing. Just like I conveyed numerous times on here.

I see a remarkable lack of clarity, misquoting ,partisan thought in a post supposedly about science.I see a droll misuse of words too, which makes one wonder if a certain "sage" should find another pasttime: knitting or wood carving,perhaps.

Then I advise you purchase a good dictionary my friend. My vocabulary is quite accurate.

Let me speak in a common low 3rd grade level way so everyone can understand the situation here.

NASA, The National Academy of Science, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc. have all been relying on the datasets that we know now were being cherrypicked and manipulated to bring out a pre-determined result.
The CRU East Anglia is one of the data gathering institutions and repositories of the 4 key datasets used by the IPCC, and from the leaked emails the American dataset is also compromised.

Which ultimately means that a lot of innocent and honest scientists at the aforementioned institutions. relying on these datasets have also been fooled and shanghaied into perpetuating this fraud because they trusted the information that was being put out by Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, etc. And considering that all these people are key members and often lead authors of the IPCC's "consensus" reports, citing the IPCC as backing them up is not very convincing.

Considering that the emails have revealed that these so-called scientists have been colluding to prevent skeptics' research from being published, threatening non-cooperative editors' and skeptics' jobs and careers for challenging their theory, unscientifically refusing to provide their own data and methodological details (because they were fudging it up) for examination so they can be tested, and actually end-running the peer review process by incestuously reviewing each others' work - that is no longer a valid yardstick.

So now do you understand the situation at hand. Do you understand the parties involved. Do you understand that every study in the last 10 years are flawed.

Now on a more revealing note. Today makes day 6 in the continueing media blackout of this story. All cable news channels, except for Fox(of course)have ignored this story. Can anyone tell me why that would be?

I am certain that the average third grader would read the post with understanding An aside: Your phrases should be placed along side the famous(infamous) "nattering nabobs of negativism"? To end:Do you believe that there are other signs of global climate change which those wicked scientists cannot change or tamper with?

I wish I was the wordsmith William Safire was. Unfortunately I am not. But thanks for the compliment.

Yes it's that giant ball of gas called the sun. See this is what these scientists don't tell you. All the planets in our solar system have experienced GW or should I say system warming within the last 20 years. Try looking up "solar system" and "warming up"

Solar activity is coming down from a 70 year high. But you will never hear about it, unless you look for it. Yes I know we pollute, and I like a clean glass of water. But don't lie to me to get it. I'm all for cleaner living. I converted to gas for heat and cooking years ago. I recycle(which is hard around here)and only accumulate 2 bags of trash a week for our family. Even my walking shoes are 65% recycled(whatever that really means, but it makes me feel better). So yes lets clean the environment up, but don't lie and destroy our economy to do it. We can clean the environment better with a higher standard of living, than a crippled one. More money, equates innovation.

We have cleaner cars, factories, and energy production than 20, 10 or 5 years ago. It's innovations, not because our world will die in 10 years. Average people want a clean place to live, and they will make it that way by themselves. Not because the government makes them, it actually will do the opposite.

I find these same naysayers on here to be so funny. They remind me of those in 1492 who still contended that the world was flat or those who think that the “world” was made in 6 days or those who want to argue that the earth is the center of our solar system.

This same adherence to false prophesies kept Europeans in the dark ages for hundreds of years and allowed the Arabs to excel in knowledge and technology.

What do you guys think you can prove with all your silly rhetoric?

Hey guys just look at the satellite photos over the years of the poles and of glaciers around the world. Can you not see the loss of ice?

Yes, you guys are sooooooooo very funny thinking that by spewing out your silliness you can somehow convince real thinking people that the earth is not entering a warming spell at an incredible rate.

The reality is that it is happening and even if everyone on this planet were to think that it is not happening nothing will change.

Yes why don’t you also profess the earth centric concept and that the earth is flat?

Can none of you connect the dots instead of playing your dumb political games?

I say rub it in till the bleed. For all the years of namecalling.

Yes you should look. The ice has been shrinking and growing since the beginning of our world. Did you know the ice was at it's alltime lowest in first part of 1900. Do you know Roald Amundsen. Did you know the ice levels are higher now than they were in 1979, the largest in satalite recorded history. Try reading.



Some smart guy took the national geographic article and put it on youtube. Very nice for the lazy.

So lets review. Your scientists are found out to be liars, so now we look at ice. Since ice is at a all time high, I guess you will either ignore it, or just start name calling. Yep noone can explain the above mentioned global warming of the other planets. I know hunans are dirty, but to warm the other planets too. That about as intelligent as all the other crap you try to make us swallow.



It's not even fun anymore to make you guys look stupid.

It will take a much more intelligent posting to make Joel look stupid:His words are well chosen, not excessive; he is not a natterer. (I do not know if he is a nabob.) Neither does he allow politics to blur scientific evidence.
I am not Joel writing under another name.Check with the E-Tater administrators.

Thanks, Science

Ammundson went to the Arctic before he went to the South Pole. The quest for most in the north was the "northwest Passage" through the Arctic. Now for the first time in all those years such a journey even by cargo vessels is on the verge of possibility.

Not only do these political hacks not know their science, but they promulgate the lies they find on the internet and make up.

Mt. Kilaminjaro in Africa is almost barren of glaciers. Throughout the norhtern and southern lattitudes glaciers have retreated in some cases many miles.

I still love it when these nay sayers make fools of themselves.

Like I said above all these guys probably are telling their friends that the world is flat and that god made everything in 6 days.

It really does not matter what they say. I just get a kick out of their ignorance. The earth will still be round, the sun will still be the center of our solar system and the glaciers are still melting. Sea temperatures are still rising, Algae blooms are killing fish. Sea level islands thoughout the oceans are having their shores washed away by rising waters and temperature sensitive ecosystems are dying. Permafrost at higher lattitudes is melting, indicator vegitation is moving north. Do they really think they can reverse all of this with propaganda and lies?

So lets see I imagine their next topic will be the end of the world on Dec. 21, 2012, or a harangue about alien people from outter space. Could it be that some of them have already been aboard such spacecraft?

Hmmmm, I do think they believed that doomsday was going to come on Jan 1, 2000, too. I guess they just misscalculated that one. And there is no doubt that they are buying up all the ammunition believing that they will bring down what they think is a corrupt US govt. Maybe they are having meetings up at Pierce's NAZI camp to make plans. I will love to see them go up against one well armed Apache helicopter.

So I hope they will still post their nonsense. I love seeing to what lenghts they will make up their fairy tales. Keep posting guys. You are soooooooooo much fun.

You can speak well, and still be stupid. Just look at our sexual deprived joel.

These tropical glacier have been shrinking and growing forever. But now there is a leading cause we can see. All these glaciers have Deforestation. All of them that are shrinking have had Deforestation occure around them. In fact a British court has ruled that the claim in Al Gore’s movie about global warming being responsible for the shrinking of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is one of many errors in the movie. Said with all his glacier claims they all had the same thing in common. Deforestation. Yes we are the cause, but it's the people who live there fault. Not mine. So go there and protest them. And hope you don't get a spear in your ass.

If I find someone who lived back before 1400's I'll tell him he's stupid for believing the world is flat. Of course noone alive does. I guess you can complain about people use to believe dead meat produced maggots/flies too. Seriously can we keep in within the last 300 years at least.


Who knows if the sea temperatures are rising, these liars this thread is about are the ones who took, and kept the records. So I guess after they are caught in a lie forgive them and still use the charts, and totals they lied about. You are braindead. It would seem that the world temps(like they been preaching for years)are going down they are too, since world tems control ocean temps. Or was they lieing about that.

See your just spouting crap they been preaching. We know the ice caps are growing, the temps have been going down for 10 years, and these asses have been lieing to us. Open your mind you were fooled, all forcast models are null because of corrupt data. It will take years for another model to be prepared.

Suck it up and admit you were duped. Then get mad at them for lieing to you. Don't get mad a us who didn't swallow there flawed data. But I figure you will gripe, fight and accept a lie instead of facing the truth. You must have such low self esteem.

I honestly don't see what anyone is fighting about. All the data any worthy agency has since the 1960's(new evidence)is corrupted. A basic part of the "Scientific Process" is that your data is verifiable and your results reproducible. If you develop a model based on past results, what your observations are going forward should fall into or be explainable in your theory. If the results don't match the predictions, its go back and start over. That’s where were at with Global Warming. There is no reason or purpose to hide data or conceal the methods you use to reach your conclusions unless it doesn’t support your theory.

History is littered with failed scientific concepts that didn't hold up when scrutinized properly. The real problem starts when those theories are adopted by politicians or others because they can use them justify their otherwise dubious agendas. A prime example was Eugenics which was espoused as science by many in the Progressive movement and we still live with its tragic legacy today. Ask anyone who supports “Abortion rights” who started Planned Parenthood and why it was started? If they do know, they will deny Ms. Sangers role as a leading proponent of Eugenics and her goal of eliminating those she considered inferior. Its these Climate "Scientists" that set real Science back decades. Science education in schools is so limited that the general public ends up believing the Al Gore's of the world because "I saw it on Oprah, so it must be true" instead of doing any Critical Thinking on their own.

Here is a article I read today. It's about what has been found so far in not the emails but the data from from them.

If these revelations furthered the global warming myth by implicating skeptical scientists in a conspiracy to adjust temperature data while shutting out opinions contrary to their own, press outlets would likely have their science divisions poring over every e-mail and document available to find the proverbial smoking gun.

Because in this instance any such research could uncover information contrary to the agenda of most news outlets, scientific editors and reporters have abdicated their investigative responsibilities in an obvious attempt to protect policies they support and advocate.

With that in mind, the American Thinker's Marc Sheppard, clearly doing the media's job, examined the computer program source code available in what was hacked from this British Climate Research Unit (CRU), and discovered that this scandal is everything the global warming-obsessed media fear:

One can only imagine the angst suffered daily by the co-conspirators, who knew full well that the “Documents” sub-folder of the CRU FOI2009 file contained more than enough probative program source code to unmask CRU’s phantom methodology.


In fact, there are hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files buried in dozens of subordinate sub-folders. And many do properly analyze and chart maximum latewood density (MXD), the growth parameter commonly utilized by CRU scientists as a temperature proxy, from raw or legitimately normalized data. Ah, but many do so much more.


Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these “alterations” run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g. omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g. estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).
In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 “divergence problem”, as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer’s comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module “Uses ‘corrected’ MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

What followed was a highly-technical analysis of the source code that likely would be way over most readers' heads. However, the conclusion was staggering:

Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.

But here's what's undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960 then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest men of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it's a crime against mankind.

Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of email threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history.

Indeed, but this raises another question: where are America's science editors and reporters concerning this matter?

If a software designer, consultant, and business owner in his spare time can uncover this, why can't America's leading science periodicals or key "journalists" in this debate?

Is investigative journalism truly dead in this country, or is it only employed to uncover truths that either buttress the media's view of the world or undermine those that don't?

Consider that in the past almost two years, we have witnessed the press:

•Ignore important facts about a presidential candidate in order to get him elected
•Ignore or gloss over important facts about a President's appointees to get them approved by Congress
•Ignore important facts about a President's "czars"
•Ignore important facts about a major "community organizing" group
In the case of the latter two issues, conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and Fox News were alone in coverage until the mainstream media eventually came aboard kicking and screaming.

Now, revelations about some of the country's leading climate scientists and activists -- who have ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as the ear of the White House and leading members of Congress -- are going largely ignored or soft-soaped.

Such is transpiring weeks before a major international climate meeting in Copenhagen and as legislation hat could have almost unimaginable negative consequences on the economy for the foreseeable future is being seriously considered by Congress.

Where does it all end, and when are Americans going to demand their news media stop acting as a propaganda arm for the far-leftwing of this nation?

Exit question: Will Sheppard's discovery force the global warming-obsessed press to finally start covering this growing scandal?




Here is the spin being offered, first Ed Begley Jr (On Cavuto, yesterday) says the debate is over only read the peer reviewed reports, the emails mean nothing (except that the only reports that were allowed to be peer reviewed were pro-AGW, so says the emails). Secondly, Carol Browner, the EPA head says the emails mean nothing, "I side with the 1000s of scientists", (except the scientists in question have committed fraud and enriched themselves on government grants to the tune of billions of dollars).

The implications are these, the government controlled by liberals will disregard any facts that are contrary to their agenda and like the lawyers they are, maintain the line of argument by claiming the matter was already decided, the process requires an orderly methodology, things must be settled otherwise anarchy and confusion will follow. This is exactly how the SCOTUS got sucked into telling the EPA they have to regulate CO2.

The good news is Sen. Inhofe said they will start having hearing about this and all the material available today. How many scientists are being hushed because their jobs are on the line if they speak out? We already know that grants and studies are handed out only to the true believers. Does the threat of unemployment go deeper? Only time will tell.

I love it,

Thanks "Hmmmm" and "Quote". Gosh are you guys on top of everything. Trouble is that your posts themselves are based on fabrications and distortions.

Do you really think that every independent climatologist around the world has signed on to your conspiracy theory? Of course the corportate ones for those energy companies will agree with you. But what the heck.

Don't you remember that the leading govt. scientist on climate, Hansen, not exactly a liberal resigned because all the Bush lawyers edited his scientific papers to help all of those energy companies they wanted to support.

And Hmmmmm, do you know anything about glaciers. A glacier scrubs the area clean of any vegetation. And when it retreats of course there is nothing green left.

But it is OK I still love your posts. And your comment about my sexual activity really gives me a laugh. Glad you included that as part of your fabrications about GW. It just shows how contrived are all your thoughts.

And no one ever said GW is a straight line to oblivion.

Get a life guys, watch a Nascar race or an ultimate fight. Have a beer and pizza and relax while you watch Hannity, Oreilly and Beck. You will not live long enough to be impacted by GW anyway. So you can die with a smile on your faces.

Maybe a mega volcano like Yellowstone will go off and create an ice age. Guess what even the Vatican finally came around to acknowledging that Galileo was correct.

And I do enjoy the personal comments. Wonderful. Got any more?

Ok let me get this strait. 2 weeks ago because the world temperature was going up and staying there they were making the poles were melting, the oceans rise, and making them hotter, and killing the fish, and everything else.
This week after we find out the temperatures have been going down, and that the poles are bigger than ever and the people who said the opposite were lieing about every record they possessed since the 1960's.
BUT there is still global warming. Well call me stupid. I don't understand. Could one of you kind gentlemen tell me how when the cause is the opposite?

Let me tell you what I think. I'm not a educated man. Sure I graduated from high school, but that was long ago. I was born in 1924 my grand son calls me cyber gramps. I was raised a few minutes from marlinton as the crow flyes. I remember guardening in the summer it got so hot, that we worked in the morning and evening, and pittled around through the middle of the day. 105-110 was common summer temps. And the winters were mild then. Then it got cold, and the summer heat was the 80-90's. Then again it heated up. luck me I didn't work outside at this time. then cooled down again. then back up and now it looks and feels like we are going down again.
I have seen these weather flows my whole life. What makes it different now. It's not as hot now, so we must have polluted more when I was a boy. But people say we didn't. I think it's the central air, we think it's hotter, but it's not. We live in AC, we drive in AC, we work in AC. Of course if you stay in it for 20 hours a day it's feels hotter outside. Your body adjust to it, at least we were taught it does.


So please tell me how global warming is going on when the temperature is lower, and ice caps are bigger? Did they change the definition of it? I don't think I'm up to learning a new way to understand science.

Such attacks, you never change. Everything is so personal with you. It's disturbing really.

You just do not have perception of the situation. The main people, all these GW advents were found out lying. Smudging numbers, cooking figures. Not just recent, but records going back to the 60's. Yes your poster boy Hansen is also included in this list of men. He willfully misrepresented the numbers. Do you understand. He lied. The leading govt. scientist on climate, lied. What he has stated are false. Can this not penetrate your conscious mind. What he swore was science was a made up scheme. This isn't a "my word against your word" issue. The actual letters; them schemeing on how to fool us were uncovered. The only thing more damaging that that is if he did a news conference tomorrow, and flat out said "we lied to you".

Your making this personal, which it is not. This is about our goverment and others countries appointed people scheming to fool us. I'm sure you have searched and read atleast some of the reports. You know what I'm saying is true. I understand you are having Kubler Ross model.

1 - Denial Denial is a conscious or unconscious refusal to accept facts, information, reality, etc., relating to the situation concerned. It's a defence mechanism and perfectly natural. Some people can become locked in this stage when dealing with a traumatic change that can be ignored. Death of course is not particularly easy to avoid or evade indefinitely.
2 - Anger
Anger can manifest in different ways. People dealing with emotional upset can be angry with themselves, and/or with others, especially those close to them. Knowing this helps keep detached and non-judgemental when experiencing the anger of someone who is very upset.
3 - Bargaining
Traditionally the bargaining stage for people facing death can involve attempting to bargain with whatever God the person believes in. People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek to negotiate a compromise. For example "Can we still be friends?.." when facing a break-up. Bargaining rarely provides a sustainable solution, especially if it's a matter of life or death.
4 - Depression
Also referred to as preparatory grieving. In a way it's the dress rehearsal or the practice run for the 'aftermath' although this stage means different things depending on whom it involves. It's a sort of acceptance with emotional attachment. It's natural to feel sadness and regret, fear, uncertainty, etc. It shows that the person has at least begun to accept the reality.
5 - Acceptance Again this stage definitely varies according to the person's situation, although broadly it is an indication that there is some emotional detachment and objectivity. People dying can enter this stage a long time before the people they leave behind, who must necessarily pass through their own individual stages of dealing with the grief.


I'm sure you and others who have been deceived will reach stage 5. And we will all be better for it.

to Water is better,

Local weather conditions and even global weather conditions might vary from year to year while all along the long range conditions keep getting warmer.

Think of the stock market going higher. It does not do so every day, but over a longer period the market is higher.

Well, the polar ice caps are NOT getting larger. Yes there is more ice in the winter, but just like the stock market when it goes down it does not do so all at once. The polar ice caps are the same way. They put on some ice in the winter and melt some in the summer, but overall the melting is more each year. That is why navagating the Northwest passage will become a reality.

You see "water is better" these other guys have a political agenda for trying to refute this, but I really do not care about politics.

I just think it is interesting that global warming is actually happening so fast. I might just be able to see more of what happens before I die. It is fine with me if we accelerate the process by poluting the atmosphere more. some areas of the world will benefit others will suffer. It just might happen that our mid western states will become a desert and that the Sahara Desert might become an oasis. Or our bread basket might just become a tropical forest.

Nothing ever stays the same for a real long time anyway.

Your local weather variations have more to do with the position of high and low pressure weather systems during the hottest and coldest months than anything else. What is important is what is happening to the world wide systems.

the amazing thing is that if global warming turns off the gulf stream by diluting the north Atlantic with fresh water the northeast US and Europe will be plunged into a mini ice age. And all the while the rest of the earth will still be warming. I can see Hummm and quote grinning now.

Mr. "My own quote": From a weather expert and climate guru to a literary sensation, scientific news analyzer par excellence ,and now an authority on "Death and Dying"?What a lifetime of educational accomplishments.You cannot prove that these scientists were lying, can you?You are protected from a law suit ,though, because they are famous.( I would not push that too far ,however. By the way,did you see something in your scientific pursuit about the glaciers or ice masses having tunnels through them and water flowing out? Do you think that their height could remain the same, but they are melting, never the less? also, how would you go about measuring the temperature of every place on our earth?Do you think that you may have to change some numbers due to local factors?And would you be lying if you did so? Do you have Jolly Roger, Pet rock, Petros edit your posts? Or are you he?

I'm going on holiday tomorrow so you will miss me for the next few days. But I will be back. This is all I need to know.



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 land 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 XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich


This is just one out of a million. Some of you are attacking the messanger, when you should be mad at the people lieing to you. Say GW is real, because of these people, noone will listen. Every thing you say about it, people will remember this and say more lies. It's over. Hearings will be made, and this will be everywhere. You can not hide it. The more the news ignores it, the worst they will look. Best thing to do is face it. Hiding will just make it worse and last longer. It will take years to get climate models back to where they should be. Years of data will have to be reviewed. All because these guys had an agenda, and were found out.

I doubted because I lived through this before. I had questions, they said the questions were over. That made me stop and look It's a fact they said. And they supplied the data. Now the ones who said it's a fact are showed as fiction. So why attack me for asking a question. Attack the liars, not the askers. Be mad at the ones spreading falsehoods, not the ones asking about the falsehoods. Finding out your wrong is always hard, moreso when its from the experts who are suppose to know more.

So Happy Thanksgiven to everyone.

Well thank you so much "Quote."

Can't you read your own post. Below is what your reference Prof. Phill Jones wrote:


"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 XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich "

Now Quote you try to convince us you are a smart fellow so you well know that an increase in world temperature of 0.35C translates into a little less than one degree Farenheit. And that my good buddy "Quote." is exactly what all the world's climatiologist said.

I think it is time for you to move on to your next area of propaganda.

Maybe you could argue that coal is a clean fuel. Hey your buddies on Fix News would support you and give you all the nonsense you want.

What part of "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."

Ignore Mr. Rosenthal He is in the deep clutches of stage 2. He is attacking, which is natural and actually quite good for him. Let him rant and rage himself out, then hopefully we can get to 3 - Bargaining. I'll be here for you. We can get through this together.