--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > > > "But do these revelations justify the sceptics' > claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" > of global warming theory?(8,9) > > Not at all. > > They damage the credibility of three or four > scientists. They raise questions about the integrity > of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of > evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider > conspiracy would have to be revealed." > > ~~ George Monbiot > http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/ > <http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/>
Well, yes - except that the "three or four" are very much key players in what is actually a surprisingly small field. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global > > Warming'? > > By James Delingpole > > <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/> Politics > > <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/category/politics/> Last updated: > > November 20th, 2009 > > > > 496 Comments <#comments> Comment on this article <#postComment> > > > > If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start > > dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global > Warming > > myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite > > deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the > > University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit > > > <http:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796\ > \ > > > /Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html//> > > (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto > > the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That > > > <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-ha\ > \ > > s-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937> ) > > > > When you read some of those files including 1079 emails and 72 > > documents you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might > > have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt > > > <http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme\ > \ > > nts/hadley_hacked/> puts it, this scandal could well be "the > > greatest in modern science". These alleged emails supposedly > > exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory > > suggest: > > > > Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal > > destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to > > disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their > > public claims and much more. > > > > One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of > > John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the > > Still Waiting For Greenhouse <http://www.john-daly.com/> site), > > commenting: > > > > "In an odd way this is cheering news." > > > > But perhaps the most damaging revelations the scientific > > equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal are > > those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have > > manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause. > > > > Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged > > emails because though Hadley CRU's director Phil Jones has > > confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room > > > <http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-say\ > \ > > s-leaked-data-is-real.html> he has yet to fess up to any > specific > > contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as: > > > > Manipulation of evidence: > > > > I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real > > temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd > > from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. > > > > Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up: > > > > The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the > > moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published > > in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even > more > > warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is > > inadequate. > > > > Suppression of evidence: > > > > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? > > > > Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment minor family > > crisis. > > > > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his > > new email address. > > > > We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. > > > > Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists: > > > > Next > > time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to > > beat > > the crap out of him. Very tempted. > > > > Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm > Period > > (MWP): > > > > Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen > NH > > records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly > > 2K backI think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather > than > > the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard > to > > the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative > > "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean > > reconstruction available that far back . > > > > And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications > > discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer > > review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in > > which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, > whose > > views do not have a scrap of authority. > > > > "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not > > publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they > > found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do > about > > this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as > > a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our > > colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, > or > > cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we > > tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on > > the editorial board What do others think?" > > > > "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing > > more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome > > editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. > > The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let > a > > few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words > > with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to > > discuss in Nice !" > > > > Hadley CRU has form in this regard > > > <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-glo\ > \ > > bal-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/> . In September > > > I wrote the story up here as "How the global warming industry is > > based on a massive lie" Hadley CRU's researchers were > > exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support their > > untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of > the > > 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was > also > > the organisation which in contravention of all acceptable > > behaviour in the international scientific community spent years > > withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. > This > > matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is > a > > government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. > Its > > HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global > temperature > > data used by the IPCC. > > > > I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin > of > > Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In > the > > run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and > > grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this > > > <http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course\ > \ > > -for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html> in the > > Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns > conducted > > by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising > campaign > > by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and > > exploding > > > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/20/polar-bears-plane-stupid-ad\ > \ > > > because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens whenever > > you take another trip on an aeroplane. > > > > The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant > > to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher > > taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al > > Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called > > "sceptical" view is now also the majority view. > > > > Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood > > (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are > too > > many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in > terms > > of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight. > > > > But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it's a blow to the AGW > > lobby's credibility which is never likely to recover. > > >
