November 22, 2009
ClimateGate: The Global Warming Scam Begins To Unravel

If you have not heard yet, those who have a belief system revolving around Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have been dealt a severe blow.

It's a belief system because there is no credible evidence that humans are the primary cause of climate fluctuations. And those in the AGW camp, consistently attempt to suppress and vilify those who present evidence to the contrary. They call this science and say it is a consensus, but real science never operates in belief systems or in secrecy, and does not use the word "consensus."

A primary source of the AGW belief system is the East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the UK. The Director of this unit is a man by the name of Phil Jones. To address him as a doctor is to elevate malpractice to that of rational science, so I will refer to him simply as Phil Jones.

Phil has many cronies under his direct supervision, and at other AGW strongholds located throughout the rest of the world. There's Michael Mann, author of the famous "Hockey Stick" graph which was discredited. There's Jim Hansen, the original fear salesman that held the infamous Congressional report on a hot day in the US Congress in 1988. There's Keith Briffa, author of the Yamal "Hockey Stick" graph which was also recently discredited. Other major players are Kevin Trenberth, Tom Wigley, Ben Santer, and a cadre of others.

This small group has been the primary driver behind the AGW belief system. They have worked hard to make sure all and only what they want makes it in to IPCC reports and scientific journals, and mass media reports. They have done their best to suppress and intimidate other scientists and opposing views. And now they have been dealt a severe blow. And this blow is a big win for the far more open and skeptical science that seeks to truly understand the workings of climate, without politics and big money. If you need proof of openness, simply compare the blogs of the two camps. In the AGW camp, blog comments are tightly controlled, and anything that does not fit their message is edited out. By contrast on blogs like WUWT, pretty much anything but ad hominem and profanity is allowed.

The blow was a huge cache of emails and data files that was harvested from the East Anglia CRU servers and revealed to the Internet. Some say this was a hacker and a theft, but there is no evidence yet for that, and may have simply come from someone on the inside who was through watching this scam that has been dumped on all of humanity. Either way, you can now go view some of the outrageous emails between Phil Jones and the rest of his tight inner circle, often affectionately called the "Hockey Team."

It's time for Phil Jones and Michael Mann to step down, and for legitimate peer reviewed science to return to climate research. We don't need people like Phil Jones pressuring legitimate scientists to keep his oligarchy alive, and to promote a belief system masquerading as science.

Here is a link to the searchable cache of emails

And here is a link to a layman's summary of some of the more revealing emails put together by Bishop Hill.

You can follow this and much more about climate and curious science each day at Watts Up With That, the excellent blog of Anthony Watts.

Do your part and forward links to these sources, this blog post, or other info to friends, family, media, senators, congressmen, assembly members, etc. And write in to major media comment pages, and call representatives to demand an investigation and reporting in to why so few seek to control something like science that should be open and transparent.

It's time to put down this scam once and for all, before it does any more economic damage than it has already done. Humans don't have an appreciable impact on climate, and even if we did, there is no evidence that we can change the course of the other much larger natural influences to climate which are the sun, water vapor and oceans.

It's all simply a huge waste of tax dollars that could go to far more pressing problems for humanity like disease, the current financial crisis, debt and deficit service, bankrupt local and state governments, oppressed peoples, etc.

I corrected Hadley to East Anglia CRU. They are closely related, but technically the emails came from East Anglia. h/t mike

Warning to commenters. If you can't say anything without profanity or ad hominem don't bother to comment, as I will just delete your comments.

Another note to commenters. Try reading the links before commenting. The links contain information which gives the context. It's clear that Phil Jones and team engaged in a systematic suppression of papers with which they disagreed. And they made sure to stack the peer reviewers with those who they knew would reject anything with which they disagreed. And they threatened journals when they considered publishing papers with which they disagreed.

Suppressing those with which you disagree is certainly not science. Why are those in favor of AGW so afraid of opposing science?

Posted by JeffB. at November 22, 2009 01:52 PM | Email This
1. a. there is no concerted effort to deceive (not unlike the deniers), no conspiracy evolving from these emails.

b. hadley and CRU are two different entities.

why are the deniers anti-science morons?

oh, i see. peer-reviewed papers on global warming aren't legitimate, but faux peer-reviewed papers from trade journals like 'energy and environment' are. hypocrites.

Posted by: mike on November 22, 2009 05:01 PM
2. the ethics bit, while hypocritical and a nuisance, won't matter as much. what will is the complete lack of evidence of any climate change conspiracy, and how much time and funding has been spent fighting off asinine claims and requests on behalf of coal/oil backed orgs.

this will backfire bigtime for the anti-science deniers and hacks like malkin and beck.

but then again, facts and ethics don't concern people hell bent on keeping us locked in an 18th century model.

Posted by: mike on November 22, 2009 05:49 PM
3. Hmmm... Which scientist correctly predicted the current cooling trend? Can either of you name that singular researcher?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 22, 2009 06:38 PM
4. Earth's been cooling for 10 years. A very inconvenient truth, indeed. That's not what Algore said would happen.

It's funny to watch the libs with their pants down, once again------saying how horrible it was that someone hacked the emails, but completely ignoring the even worse thing that happened: revelations that the AGW true believers have been, shall we say, less than honest. (not that that was news to the rest of us....)

Funny how when Sarah Palin's email account was hacked by a democrat, these trolls just laughed it off and ignored it. Suddenly when their bubble gets burst, they develop "concern" about hacking.
It's simple: punish the hacker AND the lying, deceiving "scientists".

Posted by: Michele on November 22, 2009 07:30 PM
5. Btw, trolls---can you explain why Al Gore needs a fleet of SUVs? Or is it that it's okay for Leftwingers to hog gas, just not anybody else? Or, as long as he says "the right things" it's okay for him not to take his own advice? Why could he not live in a high-rise small condo in the City with Tipper? Why instead does he need a McMansion?

Posted by: Michele on November 22, 2009 08:12 PM
6. I deleted demo kid's post because as usual, he just can't keep himself from ad hominem.

HadCRU and East Anglia CRU are closely related and corroborate closely with respect to the HadCRUT temp anomalies which are released frequently.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 22, 2009 08:13 PM
7. what will is the complete lack of evidence of any climate change conspiracy

Obviously you have not read the emails.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 22, 2009 08:16 PM
8. Check out the code and the comments on the code, too... All those "wise climatologists" whom we are to accept as unbiased and trustworthy? Hey, maybe their hearts were in the right place and they're just drooling idiots?

I mean they are mystified why math functions that square real numbers are returning NEGATIVE values. That cannot happen (at least with any mathematics system known to man). Yet their code uses such results. And then data is culled to make the results fit anyway.

This is either fraud at its highest level, or incompetence that would get a freshman CS student tossed on his rear. Either way, ANYONE associated with Mann, Jones, Briffa, Ammann, Hansen, or their tight little group should be stripped of any academic credentials and permanently barred from science.

And anyone at the IPCC or WTO or WHO or other Governmental agencies that accepted their stories lock, stock, and barrel should be immediately fired, locked up, or both.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 22, 2009 10:25 PM
9. @6: I deleted demo kid's post because as usual, he just can't keep himself from ad hominem.

Hardly. I told you that this was illegal, and you decided to delete that. Laughable. Remove what you disagree with, eh?

Posted by: demo kid on November 23, 2009 08:20 AM
10. dk,

The legality is not the topic. The topic is the content. There was a case of a criminal who stole a VCR with tapes and found child porn on the tapes. The owner of the tapes was successfully prosecuted for child porn.

As Michele notes, the solution if there was any illegality (which by the way we don't know, it may have been a mole or whistleblower) is to punish both the hacker, and those at the CRU and elsewhere who are engaging in fraud and systematic suppression of scientific ideas.

There is a difference between suppression of content and suppression of profanity and irrelevant personal attacks. You are often guilty of both in the SP comments. I don't have control over comments at other SP bloggers' posts, but here I do, so I will force you to a higher standard of discourse. I deleted your comment because you were unable to say what you meant without name calling, which is an ad hominem logical fallacy. This time, you did not do so, so I will let your comment stand.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 23, 2009 08:35 AM
11. Note too that so far, there have been only dismissals from the contrarians. No response to the content, because it would take a lot more courage to actually look at the emails and admit that CRU has a major problem.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 23, 2009 09:25 AM
12. @10-11: First of all, the legality is very relevant. It's sleazy and unethical to use illegally obtained emails and documents as "proof" of anything. Yet again, though, it shows that ethics only applied to conservatives and climate change deniers when they want them to. And yes, I'll call your personal ethics in question for continuing this trend.

And "profanity"? Please. I've been the target of more profanity from self-espoused conservatives on this board than I have EVER typed on here. Stop whining.

With respect to the crap about "fraud and systematic suppression of scientific ideas"... hogwash. This represents the actual scientific process. Were there any emails from George Soros to his minions? Didn't see any in any of the summaries. Was data AcTUALLY suppressed? Nope. The only thing that these folks are guilty of is a consistent poor choice in words in communications that were never meant to be public. I saw nothing different in those emails than in the emails I'd expect in ANY other field.

But then again, large numbers of global warming deniers are the most dishonest of "scientists". Many have no background in what they're trying to deny, for one. With others, they can't even keep their stories straight: some believe the planet is cooling, others believe that there are no changes, others think that the earth is warming without human intervention, and still others believe that humans are a factor but we cannot control the system now. And regardless of big hints that global warming does exist, many are simply willing to ignore evidence COMPLETELY to push their own agenda.

So for all of your bleating that this is a "travesty", I say that the bigger travesty is that people can naively follow the global warming denier crowd, and completely surrender their critical thinking skills to further a political agenda.

Posted by: demo kid on November 23, 2009 10:05 AM
13. And this blow is a big win for the far more open and skeptical science that seeks to truly understand the workings of climate, without politics and big money.

If you believe that "politics and big money" DOESN'T motivate global warming deniers, the depths of your naivetť are just... astounding.

Posted by: demo kid on November 23, 2009 10:09 AM
14. dk,

There is no proof of illegality, and there is a new theory that the file was actually released by accident. The reason for this is that there are many gaps in the emails, and the title of the original file was If you were following up on the actual discussion, you would know this and not simply assume that there was illegality. The significance here is that there was a FOI request filed with CRU, and so it is entirely possible that someone internal to CRU was gathering emails and preparing the FOI request. The request was subsequently denied, but if the file was left on an FTP server by accident, it would have been easy to harvest. Furthering this theory, a CRU FTP server is now offline. You seem technical enough to be aware of the fact that often, organizations will have very insecure FTP servers available both internally and externally to make things "easier."

So, until you have proof that there was illegality, you can simply stop bothering with that as a defense to everything else that is known.

And again, strawmen arguments don't change the contents of the discussion regarding CRU's behavior. The fact that others at SP use profanity does not excuse yours. I will happily delete Shanghai Dan's comments here if he uses profanity. You will be held to that standard. Don't like it? Comment elsewhere, no one is forcing you to come here. But don't use that as a defense for your behavior.

And again, read the content at the links. There is plenty evidence of fraud and suppression. Here are some examples:

Michael Mann musing on contacting the BBC to question why it published a "skeptical" article, and to discourage similar future articles.

Kevin Trenberth wondering why CRU can't account for the lack of recent warming.

Tom Wigley says that the editorial board at Climate Research needs to resign because it allowed skeptical papers to be published.

Tim Osborn explains how data is truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend from appearing in results.

Obviously, you are not reading the emails. Because there is plenty of evidence of discussions of suppression of data and opposing viewpoints. And discussions for how to make data support AGW conclusions. Can you explain how this is science? Usually, science is where one analyzes data and discovers trends. The opposite is massaging data to create trends. Are you aware of the Yamal series, the number and selection of data points, and why that is significant, or are you simply spouting dismissive talking points?

And please provide links to "large numbers of deniers with no background." Many scientists you can read at WUWT, and ICECAP are highly credentialed in specific areas of climate science. These papers are quite dry and rational and show specific differences to what you call consensus. Have you read those papers, or are you simply making dismissive talking points?

You can say that people are blindly following deniers, but the evidence and polls show that people are actually making an effort to cross check what they read in sources like the NYT, with what they read at the WSJ and elsewhere. There is certainly plenty of real discussion about the merits of the AGW arguments and Global Climate Models. You can be a part of that discussion to, if you go to sites where discussion is open and encouraged. I recommend WUWT, where you will learn a lot. Or, you can simply keep a closed mind, and contain yourself to stories which keep you believing that there is a consensus and that the science is settled.

It's convenient to attack me, and to issue dismissive responses. But at some point, the real data and arguments against the ideas you support gets out, and others examine them and come to different conclusions than you. I provide links, you provide your own dismissals. Name calling, and dismissal does not make reality go away, and it won't stop people from thinking for themselves.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 23, 2009 10:42 AM
15. Apparently you also are not aware of how many billions go in to funding AGW research. If you want to "follow the money" there is orders of magnitude more money invested in AGW research, green power, green marketing campaigns, cap and trade, etc. than opposing views. Just look at how many holdings Al Gore has where he directly benefit from Cap and Trade legislation, or legislation that stands against current power sources. One of the biggest problems with the politicization of climate research is that it has become too easy to get funding for anything that can even vaguely be assumed to support AGW, and too hard to get funding for climate research that is more objective and allows for opposing ideas.

I know this flies in the face of your automatic assumption that big oil funds everything, but look in to the numbers on government funding and you will see that at $79 Billion and counting, AGW takes the top prize. References to the various government reports are at the bottom of the linked page.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 23, 2009 11:14 AM
16. More name calling. Delete. You just can't help yourself can you dk. Learn how to correspond with civility.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 23, 2009 01:08 PM
17. Please. If you're just going to delete my comments instead of responding to them, you're just proving my point that you hardly have an "open mind".

Posted by: demo kid on November 23, 2009 01:44 PM
18. Some of your comments stand. Hopefully you can figure out what is civil and what is not. Note that you can disagree with someone without calling them a name.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 23, 2009 01:53 PM
19. So I'm offending your delicate sensibilities because you're acting unethically and hypocritically?

Grow up and stop playing the victim.

Posted by: demo kid on November 23, 2009 02:01 PM
20. You know dk, I have friends that would agree with much of what you say. But when I talk to them, they don't call me names. I don't know why you think that the anonymous cover of your nickname on a blog entitles you to name calling. Do you call your conservative friends and/or family members names when you are face to face? Why the angry dismissive tone? Are you really so sure of your points that everyone must put up with your flippant insults?

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 23, 2009 02:06 PM
21. I am not acting unethically in relaying information to you. If you don't like the message, don't read or comment. If you do read or comment, contain yourself to comments and not insults.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 23, 2009 02:10 PM
22. @20-21: You think that this is "calling you names"? I'm just thinking that you can't take the heat.

No, The comments with your personal attacks were deleted. Your other comments are fine.

but aside from that, you are acting unethically by using information obtained illegally. Likewise, the purported "scandal" is nothing of the kind. This is just the climate change denier noise machine trying to whip people into a frenzy over nothing.

Your evidence of "fraud and suppression" is also quite laughable, and the fact that you pillory the climate change movement while blithely ignoring the money involved with climate change deniers shows that you cannot think rationally about this subject.

Posted by: demo kid on November 23, 2009 03:40 PM
23. jeff,

you are (yet again) lying.

mann never mused about 'contacting the BBC to question why it published a "skeptical" article, and to discourage similar future articles.'

here is what he actually wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?


maybe next time you should read the email instead of prompting whatever anti-science blog writes for you.

Posted by: mike on November 23, 2009 04:44 PM
24. It's Amazing how the Liberals refer to the Junk Scientists who live off the Taxpayer and owe their souls to Big Government are going to be more honest and forthright than, the Private Sector Scientist when, it comes to supporting Big Government's game-play of AGW. Yes, the Private Sector Scientists, by the tens of thousands, say that AGW is BUNK! The Truth is...the Phony and dangerous Hustle of AGW is a Scam for Government to have an excuse to Tax, Control and Enslave the peoples of the World. Guess who the Blind supporters of the Scam of AGW and any other Hustle including Obama's Universal Health Care being perpetrated upon the people are? That's Right...Liberals! Who would of thought?

Posted by: Daniel on November 23, 2009 05:32 PM
25. How many of you leftist trolls expressed disgust when Sarah Palin's e-mail account was hacked?

Didn't think so...

As far as the CRU team goes, I've had a chance to look at some of the code and the comments about it, and it's frightening. That supposedly educated people could turn out something so poor, so inept in execution is scary. These people actually earned degrees? Not just PhDs, but BS degrees?

Their efforts were worse than pitiful, they are a complete and utter joke. Now we know why they would never share their data or their code - it is completely worthless, unreliable, and unusable.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 23, 2009 06:40 PM
26. @26, mikey...Here's a link check it out. Based on the fact, that World Wide, there are more than enough Scientist to account for the majority to be in the tens of thousands, proves my position. Currently 2009, the numbers are continuing to increase over the Government Junk Scientists who will support whatever Scam the Government pushes. The reason they are called Junk Scientists is because, they are your typical lazy, incompetent, dishonest Liberal Government employee. It has been Said: If a person can't get and hold a honest job in the Private Sector, he can always get and hold a Government job. What kind of a Government job do you hold...mikey, that you think a Government Junk Scientist should be so revered? What a Laugh!

Posted by: Daniel on November 23, 2009 10:07 PM
27. 1. how do you know what scientists believe based on a cherry-picked selection of articles? this poorly written blog (not an article) is over 2 years old. per your link, the survey was supposedly going to be published in Energy and Environment (a trade journal, not a peer-reviewed magazine) - but even SBC (e&e editor) said the survey was too patchy and wasn't going to be published. when it was, only 6% of articles rejected AGW.

hilarious, danielle. please back up your asinine claims with some facts.

Posted by: mike on November 23, 2009 10:36 PM
28. mikey...mikey...Get Real! AGW is getting more laughable everyday. In fact, your worthless comment at 26 was deleted. AGW has been a FRAUD from the day one. They claimed the Sea was going to rise a number of years ago and terrible Hurricanes were going to ravage the land yet, as we know, none of this has come to pass. Even, your Government Junk Scientist can't refute what was recorded as being said and the Reality of today. Even, a Liberal would want more convincing that, "We are all going to Die" than,what has been shown so far. Well, maybe some Liberals. Apparently, you are still convince of AGW and "We are all going to Die". What a Joke!

Posted by: Daniel on November 23, 2009 11:28 PM
29. @25: How many of you leftist trolls expressed disgust when Sarah Palin's e-mail account was hacked?

Anyone that hacked that account deserved to go to jail. However, that account was a clear end-run around transparency and freedom of information laws. I have little sympathy for a politician that runs official state business through her Yahoo email account, really.

@28: AGW has been a FRAUD from the day one. They claimed the Sea was going to rise a number of years ago and terrible Hurricanes were going to ravage the land yet, as we know, none of this has come to pass.

There's a difference between the overly alarmist elements of the scientific community, and scientists that are expressing real and honest concerns about global climate change. Will climate change cause super-hurricanes that will devastate the Gulf Coast on a more regular basis? Probably not. Will it, however, alter the climate patterns in some areas and affect water supplies, wildlife populations, and human infrastructure? Absolutely. Look at the thawing of the permafrost in Alaska for a great example of that.

I'm just amazed at the consistent idiocy of the global warming deniers. They can't even make up their minds! Climate change doesn't exist... but then it exists and it's natural... then it's caused in part by humans... then it's totally caused by humans but too impractical to control. Climate change deniers are just whining to support a political goal, not a scientific one.

Posted by: demo kid on November 24, 2009 08:07 AM
30. Quit being Ridiculous demo...Global Warming deniers are in no way confused about the fact that Climate is always in a state of Change and varies throughout the World. You're Lying when you say the global warming deniers think it is totally caused by humans but, too impractical to control. You got to remember, global warming deniers are not the Dummies that Liberals are that think Man is responsible for global warming. It is the Silly Liberals that blindly Scream Global Warming and it's all Man's Fault! What a Joke.

Posted by: Daniel on November 24, 2009 08:42 AM
31. I love it. At last. I feel great relief.
It's been one thing to have a good laugh at all the global warming jokes. They've been good. It's been fine to laugh at wishing global warming would finally come to Seattle. But when they started talking taxes to fix it... the jokes wore thin. Then when they went to international treaties to tell American's how warm they could keep their homes... the jokes stop.
It's time to stop this extreme environmentalism.
It's all about control.
America is free.
Thank you, hackers.

Posted by: teapartygrandma on November 24, 2009 09:42 AM
32. so newt, mccain, fred thompson, huckabee, giuliani, romney and schwarzenegger are all liberals?

wow. you've really got the lock down on Truth-iness, don't you danielle.

Posted by: mike on November 24, 2009 09:45 AM
33. SPFA wrote:

Anyone that hacked that account deserved to go to jail. However, that account was a clear end-run around transparency and freedom of information laws. I have little sympathy for a politician that runs official state business through her Yahoo email account, really.

And so what about conspiring to avoid FOI requests? You have little sympathy there, too? Conspiracy to commit fraud is a crime, SPFA, so I'm waiting for your strong condemnation of Government workers doing what you apparently are upset about.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 24, 2009 10:20 AM
34. Not all those Politicians you named are AGW supporters. In fact, you would have a hard time in nailing most of them down as to their True positions. After all, they're Politicians.

Remember, I'm a Conservative and NOT a Blind supporter of the Republican Party. However, you are a Blind supporter of the Democrat Party. Now Guess...Who is the Free Thinker and Who is the Blind follower? Who is the one who supports Truth and Liberty and Who is the one who supports the Lies and the Socialism of the Collective. Being that you're a Liberal, even these questions will be too much for you.

Posted by: Daniel on November 24, 2009 10:36 AM
35. shanghai'd anne:

there is no conspiracy to commit fraud based on the emails which are taken out of context - you should really stop lying.

the content may be ill-advised, but is not proof of a crime.

Posted by: mike on November 24, 2009 10:37 AM
36. at one point, every one of these pols have stated that global warming exists and needs to be dealt with, though they differ to what measure.

youíre a conservative and a blind follower of asinine, selfish ideology.

iíve never been a blind supporter of the dems. i happen to think more often than not, they trend on the correct side of issues Ė but we donít have a true socialist democrat or green party in america.

based on your delusional rantings, you can call yourself a free thinker, but you wonít find many people here who would agree with that position.

i support truth. i definitely support liberty. one of the many reasons i joined the military after college.

the lies of socialism? please tell me how i support these supposed lies?

ah, i see. being a liberal makes me to dumb to understand your unintelligible rantings.

Posted by: mike on November 24, 2009 10:43 AM
37. You're not a Blind supporter of the Dems? Really? What major Liberal position do you Not support? Plus, who else supports you besides another mindless Liberal? It is without Question, that you have been far, far more disagreed by the commentators than I have. But then, you have trouble with realizing where it is at. After all...You're a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on November 24, 2009 11:17 AM
38. @33: And so what about conspiring to avoid FOI requests?

Hey, if there is legally obtained evidence of this, then that's fine. However, don't pretend like this is comparable. Palin intentionally used an unofficial email account to keep official correspondence off the record. Conservatives are pretty quick to brush off that fact.

Posted by: demo kid on November 24, 2009 11:52 AM
39. a. not all dems are liberals.
b. iím left of most dem platforms Ė so itís hard for me to disagree with them on the selfish end (yours)
c. i donít really care who Ďsupportsí me, iím not running for office, and iím not here looking for cheerleaders. itís a given most people on this forum donít agree with me Ė they prefer like minded parrotheads (such as yourself), and get in a tizzy when alternative viewpoints or facts are presented, even though their worldview is horrendously misaligned with reality.

as far as specific platforms where i disagree w/ dems:
single payer
higher energy efficiency regulations and incentivizing ZED
defense-only military Ė no wasteful programs, absolutely zero Ďno bidí contracts or outsourcing kp duty
ending war on drugs and an effective drug policy

Posted by: mike on November 24, 2009 12:09 PM
40. Your first statement is Wrong pertaining to "a. not all dems are liberals". All dems ARE Liberals! Some dems may call themselves Moderates but, in reality, they simply are not the far left Liberal but, nevertheless they are ALL Liberals.

Your second statement is too confusing to be of any value in trying to interpret any meaning or intent.

Your third statement represents a dodge from Reality from the basis that the vast majority of the cogent commentators think that you're an IDIOT!

Your specific platforms where you disagree with the dems: You disagree with the single payer yet, you do agree with Obama Care. Well, Big Deal! The reality is, if Obama Care passes, in time, you'll end up with single payer. Yes, if you agree to Government taking over our Nations health care, you are definitely a brain-dead Liberal. There is an Old Saying: If there is a way of doing it Wrong...Government will find a way. As far as the other three items, I can't make out if you're are for or against. But then, no surprise...You're a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on November 24, 2009 04:34 PM
41. SPFA,

Seems you don't want to talk about the fraud (scientific and legal) committed by the CRU. Seems you're quick to change the subject; why is that?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 24, 2009 05:41 PM
42. *than the way things have been

Posted by: mike on November 24, 2009 06:25 PM
43. @41: Because it doesn't exist. It's hype. If there is other peoof that they didn't comply with a legal freedom of information request in Britain, then sure, nail them for that. But considering this proof of scientific fraud is laughable at best, insulting at worst.

Posted by: demo kid on November 24, 2009 10:01 PM
44. Surely those on the left commenting here can't be trying to defend the following.

Above I paraphrased a few of the emails from CRU. That was too much for many commenters to handle, so I will just quote the emails directly so you can focus on the content instead of me.

Kevin Trenberth - The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't.

Phil Jones - 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.

Phil Jones - 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

Ken Briffa - comments from his Fortran code used to create a Hockey Stick graph. Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! and APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION. Another,, says: Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!

Phil Jones to Michael Mann - 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.

All these, their words and from the CRU emails and files. And these are but a few samples.

Further, today, a prominent AGW supporter, Liberal and UK journalist, George Monbiot, has issued an apology, says that the CRU emails are worse than he had thought and is calling for Phil Jones to resign. I'm wondering dk, do all of your comments here apply to Monbiot as well? He's unethical for reading the CRU emails and a hypocrite right?

Also today, CBS News put together a story on the CRU emails. This the same CBS News where big Obama supporter and fan, Katie Couric works. But this is all just right wing crazies blabbering on a few blogs right?

Again, dk, I assume you are contacting CBS News to let them know how unethical it is for them to report on something that is clearly in the public domain.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 24, 2009 10:10 PM
45. @44: Again, you're taking emails out of context that were not meant for public consumption, that are, at worst, guilty of using imprecise language between colleagues.

Why don't we pore over all of your emails over the past several years? I'm sure that we could take plenty of things out of context, and we might even be able to get you indicted for a few things...

Posted by: demo kid on November 24, 2009 10:17 PM
46. A lot of comments from both the right and the left are getting deleted because you guys just can't refrain from the personal attacks. For example, demo kid just had a great comment about private vs. public, but he couldn't make it without first insulting another commenter.

I'll say it again. Political comments of any kind are welcome. If you have something to say, have at it. If you want to get a little snarky, fine. But if you can't do it without direct insults, names, etc., then don't bother, because it's just going to get deleted.

Have some respect for other human beings, even those who you don't see eye to eye with. It's not that hard.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 24, 2009 10:21 PM
47. So Daniel continuously calls people "idiots", and you let that slide? Knowing that you'll just delete this, I'll feel free to call bullshit on that.

Posted by: demo kid on November 24, 2009 10:26 PM
48. @45

That's ridiculous. Out of context? In many of these emails you can see the entire thread of the email. It's quite clear to those who are not in denial that the intent of Phil Jones was to assure that certain AGW Skeptical papers did not make it in to any of the scientific journals where he had influence. This has been widely acknowledged by the left and many AGW supporters. This is the primary basis many on both sides are calling for Jones' resignation.

Science is not conducted by shutting out the opposing papers.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 24, 2009 10:27 PM
49. @47,

Again, ridiculous. All of those are gone as well. If I missed one, let me know. And no, I'm not going to delete this one. Are you still having trouble with the concept? Only the insults and over the top profanity, ad hominem, etc. get deleted.

You see how I say, ridiculous when I disagree with you, rather than calling you an idiot, or implying that you are something that might end up on someone's shoe?

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 24, 2009 10:33 PM
50. Gotta get to bed. I'll delete whatever insults you come up with when I check in tomorrow morning. Good night.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 24, 2009 10:36 PM
51. It's sleazy and unethical to use illegally obtained emails and documents as "proof" of anything. ~ Demo Kid

If the evidence is real and not fraudulently produced- Like Dan Rather's 60 minutes fraud piece on Bush- then it is hardly unethical to reveal it and its contents. The "scientists" were using gimmicks to gin up 'evidence' to support their pre-determined hypothesis of man-made global warming. That is sleazy and unethical as well, but acceptable to the church of global warming congregation like yourself, mike, and John Jensen, who've been programmed by the high priest Al Gore that the science is settled. It's about time this cult got infiltrated and exposed. While I don't approve of the manner it was done, it is no less objectionable than defrauding the American people through lies, misrepresentations and outright deception as the cultists have done.

In other news, Obama is going to, in one trip, eclipse my entire lifetimes carbon footprint in order to accept another fraud- the nobel peace prize- simply for being a black man in the white house. Talk about unethical and sleazy, that takes the cake.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 25, 2009 05:57 AM
52. For anyone interested if you wish to send a letter agianst cap and trade there are websites where you can sign a petition and sen it email if you google it. Also the Olympia tea party is planning an event in olympia jan 15th. at noon. More details coming.

Posted by: Laurie on November 27, 2009 01:14 PM
53. Oops! I goofed to check for both the Cap and Trade site I went to and Olympia Tea Party event check out

Posted by: Laurie on November 27, 2009 01:38 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?