Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?

posted at 8:48 am on November 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line.  The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt’s Up With That):

The internet is on fire this morning with confirmation computers at one of the world’s leading climate research centres were hacked, and the information released on the internet.

A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents, has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones.

In an exclusive interview with Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition, Jones confirms his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to have come from his organisation.

“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.”

One of the most damning e-mails published comes from Dr. Jones himself.  In an e-mail from almost exactly ten years ago, Jones appears to discuss a method of overlaying data of temperature declines with repetitive, false data of higher temperatures:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
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 [sic] from1961 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

Jones told Investigate that he couldn’t remember the context of “hide the decline,” and that the process was a way to fill data gaps rather than mislead.  But when scientists talk about “tricks” in the context of hiding data, it certainly seems suspicious.

Andrew Bolt points to a couple of other suspicious entries in the database as well for the Herald-Sun.  For instance, here we have scientists discussing how to delete inconvenient data in order to emphasize other data that supports their conclusions:

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
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 theland 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.

Hmmm. Sounds like “hid[ing] the data” once again.  And here we have them privately admitting that they can’t find the global warming that they’ve been predicting:

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. [1][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.***

Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data.  That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

Dr. Jones has confirmed that these e-mails are genuine.  Whether the work represented by these scientists is as genuine seems to be under serious question.  Tim Blair says, “The fun is officially underway.”

Update: These e-mails may explain this:

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Or maybe it didn’t exist at all, except when scientists at Hadley were “hid[ing] the decline[s].”

Update II: This follows on a more mundane controversy over competence at Hadley that erupted in September:

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

Let’s not jump to conclusions.

LibTired on November 20, 2009 at 8:51 AM

But Al Gore won an Oscar for his film. It must be true.

mizflame98 on November 20, 2009 at 8:51 AM

paging Al Gore, code red

cmsinaz on November 20, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Al Gore isn’t in office anymore.

It’s been about ten years. Makes sense.

blatantblue on November 20, 2009 at 8:53 AM

climate of corruption.

the_nile on November 20, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Didn’t this “explode” months ago? See “Yamal scandal“.

LastRick on November 20, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Wait for it….the “We’re smarter than you” defense in 5… 4… 3…

ElectricPhase on November 20, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Sounds like they were hiding and creating data. This is absolutely nothing new with Climate ‘Science’. I seem to recall a bunch of Climate ‘Scientists’ on a discussion board discussing the need to make the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age disappear.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 8:55 AM

What a bad weeks for libs. I’m sure this sort of information is in no small part why Al Gore is suddenly finding hundreds of protesters wherever he goes. We need to keep this up. The global warming/climate change crowd has no legit scientific data to back up their claims. Call them out on their BS.

Doughboy on November 20, 2009 at 8:55 AM

I want people jailed.

artist on November 20, 2009 at 8:56 AM

Al Gore is the Bernie Madoff of environmentalism. He belongs in jail.

petefrt on November 20, 2009 at 8:56 AM

We can be thankful that so-called “Cap & Trade” won’t be brought up in the Senate. We need to watch like hawks the EPA. The world needs to back down from it’s silly carbon taxing. We need to drill drill drill to right our economic ship, not redistribute our wealth.

It’s never been about saving the world from global warming, but rather hope and change toward a world system run by the UN.

Ordinary1 on November 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

This whole thing is a scam

deidre on November 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

On this one occassion, I wish to say thank you to a hacker.

myrenovations on November 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

I’m glad you picked this up Ed. I saw this yesterday and it’s good to know this information has been confirmed as true.

therightscoop on November 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

Normally I disprove of hacking, but this one set the truth free(what we suspected all along)

thebrokenrattle on November 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

See “Yamal scandal“.

They actually talk about that in one of the emails.

tree hugging sister on November 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

Good! I guess I don´t have to die for at leas 3 or 4 decades or so. Thanks Ed

james hooker on November 20, 2009 at 8:58 AM

The largest global hoax in history.

Blacksmith8 on November 20, 2009 at 8:58 AM

If this pans out like it looks, heck…let a million hackers bloom.

tlclark on November 20, 2009 at 8:58 AM

Al Gore is out talking about drilling to the center of the earth to release thermal heat/steam for our energy needs now

jp on November 20, 2009 at 8:58 AM

Does this mean it isn’t a million degrees a few kilometers down in the earth’s crust?

trs on November 20, 2009 at 8:58 AM

Don’t these silly scientists know that you’re not supposed to take the weather into account when you’re talking about global warming? I mean climate change. I mean whatever they’ve changed it to this week.

Jim Treacher on November 20, 2009 at 9:00 AM

This whole thing is a scam

deidre on November 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

It is. But not for the reason you think.

Grant money is given overwhelmingly to Scientists investigating Global Warming, rarely is grant money given to Scientists skeptical of Global Warming. Science has basically been bought by the politicos who need Scientific evidence to support their political goals which is always redistributive change.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 9:00 AM

What was is that Inhofe said a few years back? Something about global warming being the great hoax ever pushed on mankind…

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Chicken Little meets the Naked Emperor.

singlemalt_18 on November 20, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Well, there’s a lot of data to go through before these are verified. It will be huge if they are.

Mr. Bingley on November 20, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Right underneath the thread is a Greenpeace ad with a polar bear.

Sometimes HA cracks me up. I know it’s ad revenue and all that but still…

Bishop on November 20, 2009 at 9:01 AM

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 9:00 AM

He should’ve called it a Modern Day Piltdown Man.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 9:01 AM

I wonder how Charles Johnson will dismiss this.

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 9:02 AM

I question the timing of these facts!

Hening on November 20, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Climate change is a religion
Climate change “experts” are the ministers of that religion
Green buildings are the churches of the climate change religion
Faith is required to advance the religion of climate change
Information which runs counter to the teachings of the church of climate change is to be dismissed as heresy and hidden.
Forcing Americans to pay for cap and trade would be the equivalent of us having to pay taxes to the Church of England.

And the left says they’re for separation of church and state… Yeaahh effing right.

ted c on November 20, 2009 at 9:02 AM

And with this, Ed, you are back on Olbermann’s and Chuckles’ sh*tlists. I don’t know how you’ll sleep at night….

mjk on November 20, 2009 at 9:03 AM

I love the “I can’t recall the context” in which I e-mailed about tricks to hide the decline.

highhopes on November 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM

In the next few years, the same “scientists” will have to flip their theory of “global warming” to “global cooling” and in order to keep their funding, they’ll start arguing that we need to find ways to warm up the Earth instead of cool it.

It’s all about the coin, baby.

robblefarian on November 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Hey, Al Gore can make hurricanes go backwards now.

Since the science is all gone, may as well get the truth out.

Looking very much like it was a hoax from the start — Follow the money, taxes, grants and reparation payouts, works every time.

tarpon on November 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Or maybe it didn’t exist at all, except when scientists at Hadley were “hid[ing] the decline[s].”

Didn’t know you supported the church of warming.
I admit that I don’t fully understand how internet advertising works but why in the hell do you have an add up for Greenpeace? “HELP FIND THE SOLUTION! Urge President Obama to sign an International Climate treaty.

CTSherman on November 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Looks like, yet again, conservatives were right all along and liberals were utterly wrong. Not that I ever had any doubt.

EnglishMike on November 20, 2009 at 9:05 AM

People tend to make scientists into some sort of non-partisan ubermen. Scientists are humans and there are those who would use scare tactics to advance their larger agenda, just as politicians do. I suspect that most of these Goebbels Warmening scare-mongerers are not so much communists as they are people who believe human society can be scientifically engineered — which is an aspect of communism, but I doubt the scientists have thought about the economics or human rights aspects.

Heck, science at one point thought there were real differences between the “races” enough to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws, or Nazi & Japanese experimentation on people.

Science is a wonderful thing that helps us understand our world. But be suspicious when it is used to further a political agenda.

rbj on November 20, 2009 at 9:05 AM

robblefarian on November 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Yes and the same Politicos arguing for Global Warming now will be arguing Global Cooling then. Algore will release another movie this one titled Another Inconvenient Truth.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 9:05 AM

The debate is over! Someone interrupt starfleet_dude’s high school class and tell him. And don’t forget to turn over sethstorm’s rock, too. Bwahahahahaha! Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Keep sharp objcts away from Al Gore.

kingsjester on November 20, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Snake oil science.

Ted Torgerson on November 20, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

SCIENTISM

Ed,
You really should read The God Theory, great book. Bernard Haisch, Ph.D astrophysics, explicates scientific materialism as SCIENTISM that requires the acceptance of theory as DOGMA, making facts irrelevant. But the book is so much more: creative consciousness, energy, and the essence of light. I highly recommend this book to all, Allahpundit.

maverick muse on November 20, 2009 at 9:07 AM

What no Hat tip???

doriangrey on November 20, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Thanks for the email, Prof. Phil, you lying POS.

Have a nice day.

Geochelone on November 20, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Where are all the lefties? I want to know how they feel about being lied to.

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Climate Audit has a post on this as well

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 9:09 AM

In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

The problem with peer review in the climate community, is that the same handfull of people review each others papers over and over again.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Ed, please photo shop the photo and insert AlBoar on the ice instead of the polar bear.

We need to send this nut out to sea to never return.

yoda on November 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM

when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Obviously Al Gore didn’t show up to give a speech.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM

“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.”

Indeed, science is such a travesty when it doesn’t back up your religion.

tbradshaw on November 20, 2009 at 9:11 AM

So the global warming “data” was fake, but accurate.

I sense a trend here, lemme make a graph…

Neo on November 20, 2009 at 9:11 AM

Al Gore FLUNKED OUT OF COLLEGE.

Talk about hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance rolled into one maliciously constipated fart, ‘global warming’ where the sun don’t shine for Gore.

maverick muse on November 20, 2009 at 9:11 AM

This whole thing is a scam

deidre on November 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

It is. But not for the reason you think.

Grant money is given overwhelmingly to Scientists investigating Global Warming, rarely is grant money given to Scientists skeptical of Global Warming. Science has basically been bought by the politicos who need Scientific evidence to support their political goals which is always redistributive change.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Exactly right, Holger. I was in an MS in Meteorology program when all this talk was getting started. The only thing that matters to a Prof is tenure. How do you get tenure? By getting a grant from the NSF. The NSF is driven by the politics of Washington and all during the 90′s Al Gore was deeply involved. If you were a meteorology/climo prof and you didn’t include a “global warming” position in a research grant you were dead in the water. So, in order to get a grant you played along. Why? Then only way you could get tenure was to bring money to your university (Universities would get 45 to 70% of all grant money before the prof would get any). Therefore, you supported global warming to keep your career going. Vicious circle of deception.

Agent of the Cross on November 20, 2009 at 9:11 AM

“Nevermind”
– Emily Litella

crash72 on November 20, 2009 at 9:11 AM

“Just because the data is skewed, faked and invented from thin air, and the globe is actually cooling, doesn’t mean that man made global warming isn’t going to kill us all unless we cease using anything but wind power.”

-Bleeds Blue

Bishop on November 20, 2009 at 9:12 AM

They actually talk about that in one of the emails.

tree hugging sister on November 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

I see Ed added it as an update. I remember this when it came out in September because of the debate it created where I work. As a researcher, this issue of ethics in peer-review is all too real. When you’re publishing to such a small subset of the scientific community and likely at conferences with the same people, it’s very easy to cross an ethically boundary where you’re friends with the people who are supposed to be peer-reviewing your work. And when that happens because either they don’t want to be critical of your work as a nicety or they want to falsify work just like you (and expect reciprocation), it degrades EVERYONE’S work; the journal itself is tainted.

I also thought at the time, I’m glad I research in a field of such little importance — not because this allows me to cheat unobserved — but rather because I wonder how tempted these scientists would be to cheat if there was little money in it.

LastRick on November 20, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Thanks for the email, Prof. Phil, you lying POS.

OK rocket scientist. Explain to me why and how he’s lying. Please explain what “diagram” he’s referring to. What “series” he’s talking about and how “Mike’s series” differ from the other two he mentions. What’s “NH land N of 20N” mean? And please unpack “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.”

When you do all that douche, then you can gloat.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Where are all the lefties? I want to know how they feel about being lied to.

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 9:08 AM

They will explain this away or ignore it just like they do everything else that doesn’t fit their agenda. Some in the Lamestream Media is starting to ask some questions, but most of them are in the tank for the liberal agenda. This will be but a speed bump in the road to their quest of a world government.

Ordinary1 on November 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Neo on November 20, 2009 at 9:11 AM

HA HA! Dan Rather Science. And they believe this is perfectly okay.

They start with a conclusion and search for the evidence backing it up. When they don’t have enough evidence they help it along with their own.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Meanwhile in Australia the Australian Senate votes on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Cap and Tax in US) next Thursday or Friday.

I expect to be paying more for almost everything if it passes.

Crux Australis on November 20, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Climate change is a religion
Climate change “experts” are the ministers of that religion

ted c on November 20, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Indeed. Phil Jones referred to “Mike’s Nature trick.” I don’t think that capital “N” was an accident. To him, and other knaves like him, nature is deity.

flyfisher on November 20, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Steve McIntyre has got to feel vindicated today….hurrah for our side!

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 9:15 AM

OK, so I guess someone should tell Gordon Brown we have a little more than 9 days left to save the world.

Alden Pyle on November 20, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Hey, it’s Fins, the poster who got busted copy/pasting fake quotes in an attempt to smear conservatives.

Kind of ironic you’d be on this thread.

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Ooooh look!! The egghead said “Hide the decline”!! That there means he’s a liar!!! Dunno what the rest of this egghead speak is about, but I sure does know me what “hide” and “decline” mean!! Woohhoo!!

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Ed, none of these guys are scientists. Faking data is a crime against Humanity in the minds of real scientists.

Heck, Climatology hardly qualifies as a branch of physical science in the first place. Its is more like Phrenology.

Geochelone on November 20, 2009 at 9:16 AM

I wonder how Charles Johnson will dismiss this.

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Oh he’ll try and distract you with meaningless shallow
photography.

Firmworm on November 20, 2009 at 9:17 AM

who got busted copy/pasting fake quotes in an attempt to smear conservatives.

When? By who?

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:17 AM

Don’t jump to conclusions this probably Climatic Warming Stress Syndrome….

Caper29 on November 20, 2009 at 9:17 AM

Google News search just now:

Results 1 – 2 of about 2 for East-Anglia-Climate-Research

mudskipper on November 20, 2009 at 9:18 AM

The only time Carbon Dioxide was a driver of climate was probably when the Earth was an Iceball.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM

The desperate rear guard action begins.

Why do we need to know which chart he was applying his tricks to in order to hide the decline?

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Yet another example of why science and politics do not mix.
And science and pseudo religions.

QOTD Will Gore have to refund the money for an Incontinent Truth and return his award?

LincolntheHun on November 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Yes, we all know what “hide the decline” means.
It means they have to do whatever it takes to disguise what is actually happening.

People who do this, are not engaging in science, they are engaging in propaganda.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Listen up racists, this is “settled science”!

NickelAndDime on November 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Hackers: Doing the job American media won’t.

cntrlfrk on November 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM

Next you guys will be telling me Gore fudged the facts a bit to sell his carbon indulgences.

I am totally shocked. I guess I didn’t learn people fudge the facts just a bit to get research grants in grad school.

Oh wait…

jhffmn on November 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM

OK rocket scientist. Explain to me why and how he’s lying.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Sure, no problem. Originally, there were 252 tree samples which were used to estimate temperature. Of these, 12 were picked to produce the famous “hockey stick” graph; coincidentally, these 12 showed global warming. When the other samples are included, the average shows no global warming.

Is it a lie? Maybe not, the data is real. Is it unethical? You betcha!

LastRick on November 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM

Ed, one of the commenters over at Climate Audit says if you follow the money, it leads to Soros. I dont have time to verify the accuracy of that, but you might want to look into it.

mrfixit on November 20, 2009 at 9:22 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:17 AM

If you are a true believer you may want to GROW GILLS instead of fins.

fourdeucer on November 20, 2009 at 9:22 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:17 AM

Don’t play dumb, liar.

How’s it feel, as a dishonest liar, finding out you’re being lied to about global warming?

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 9:22 AM

Can someone tell me when my heating bill will go down?

Mr. Joe on November 20, 2009 at 9:23 AM

Will AlGore give back his Nobel Prize now?

petefrt on November 20, 2009 at 9:23 AM

mrfixit on November 20, 2009 at 9:22 AM

That Nazi Sympathizer Soros is the Rain Maker of nearly all Lefty Causes so I would not doubt that he is behind those Frauds.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 9:24 AM

And climate audit must be getting a lot of traffic because I cannot get in.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 9:24 AM

Of course, a real scientist would revise his thinking and perhaps his hypotheses.

But no, that won’t happen. These “scientists” are politicians, activists.

It’s sad what they have done in the name of science.

rogersnowden on November 20, 2009 at 9:25 AM

Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

There’s the scientific method, and then there isn’t.

If I were testing a theory of global climate change, I’d have a dense worldwide set of thermal sensors, because I’d expect any form of climate change to have changed local minima and maxima. It’s entirely possible for global warming to be occurring and for Denver to get colder, because Denver’s weather patterns are part of the world’s. What’s actually happening right now is that “temporate” climes has been getting colder, while the area around the north pole has been getting warmer, while other areas around the south pole are showing both warming and cooling trends.

Of course, this report causes all science with respect to determining global warming or cooling to be suspect. When scientists fake their results to meet their hypothesis, they harm not only their own reputation, but that of every other scientist on the planet, because the data they provide pollutes cognate studies.

unclesmrgol on November 20, 2009 at 9:25 AM

but, but, but, the debate is OVER! /s

Muletrain on November 20, 2009 at 9:25 AM

Grow Fins: “These emails are just more proof of Global Warming.”

LibTired on November 20, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Ooooh look!! The egghead said “Hide the decline”!! That there means he’s a liar!!! Dunno what the rest of this egghead speak is about, but I sure does know me what “hide” and “decline” mean!! Woohhoo!!
Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:16 AM

See? The scientist who is lying is just an “egghead” not to be taken seriously, though yesterday he was an esteemed climate expert whose opinion was beyond reproach.

When message not acceptable, kill the messenger.

Bishop on November 20, 2009 at 9:26 AM

algore: “Polar bears are threatened”
skeptic: “The numbers of polar bears have been increasing.”
algore: “What, you don’t think polar bears are threatened?”
skeptic: “Their numbers. They’re increasing.”

Facts.

ted c on November 20, 2009 at 9:26 AM

The Gorbull Warming Lie was debunked last year. Now we are entering the “Climate Change” portion of the scam. Climate Change is obviously real, but is caused almost exclusively by Solar activity. Like any good Con-Man, ManBearPig will continue altering his theories all the way to the bank.
The degree of hypocrisy coming from this POS is equalled only by the level of stupidity coming from the Useful Idiots who follow him.

ronnyraygun on November 20, 2009 at 9:26 AM

These e-mails don’t prove a thing, but the unsourced quotes I post prove that conservatives are racist – Grow Fins.

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 9:27 AM

May I have my lump of coal now, please, sir?

tomg51 on November 20, 2009 at 9:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7