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 3 4 5 6 7

Yep. There are no polar satellites. Nothing has ever escaped Earth orbit ever – which means they’d have to pass thru the belts, um, multiple times.

lorien1973 on November 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM

I’d forgotten the 40 or 50 interplanetary probes that have been sent out. And not just by Americans. The Soviets claimed to have sent a number of probes to Venus. WOuld this make the Soviets both purveyors of the myth, as well as debunkers of it?

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM

‘fake, but accurate’

TheVer on November 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Silly me, what was I thinking citing facts and video clips from their so called expeditions?

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Undeniable proof of the moon landing. On an intelligence level even you can appreciate.

lorien1973 on November 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM

but they would NEVER lie to us about anything else and they are to be trusted without question.

Silly me, what was I thinking citing facts and video clips from their so called expeditions?

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Nice little strawman there, did you grow it yourself.

Proving that your personal little fantasy has no reality outside your fevered skull, is not the same as saying that no scientist would lie.

As to your claims regarding the video clips. I watched them, and only someone with no connection to reality would ever beleive that garbage. And to think, you accuse others of refusing to do research.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Speaking of global meltdowns, here’s the greatest hits from page 2 of the comments. How about a little fire, scarecrow?

you moron.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM

I see “Sarah” gave you your cutesy little nickname. Ugh. Barf. Go away.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:32 AM

f I gave a rat’s a** about this, or you, I’d feel bad I suppose.. But I don’t, so I don’t.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Don’t be a moron. There’s no such thing as a “lie” anymore in the age of the internet. Sarah Palin’s career is an example of this. Even if this is a “lie” (which I’m not convinced it is), it won’t change anything.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM

I know. You don’t. Go away.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM

No, you and your gallery of peanut throwing monkeys think you know it. But you also worship every ghost-written pronouncement of the Queen of the Untruth, so why am I surprised?

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Wow, she really packs a lot of logic into just 8 minutes, doesn’t she?

Del Dolemonte on November 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Oh noes! There goes my funding!

–Grow fins

riverrat10k on November 20, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Lets not forget the mirrors the astronauts placed on the moon. Scientists around the world have been using them to measure the distance between the earth and the moon since 1969. Are all those scientists lying?

Subsequent moon probes, including non-American ones, have taken pictures of the landing sites. Are they all lying?

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 1:11 PM

It must be Friday. This thread has two smackdowns on it.

kingsjester on November 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM

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

My guess is it is a reference to something published in the journal “Nature.”

riverrat10k on November 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Global warming is a religion. None of this is news. We are in a 10 year cooling trend.

Jerricho68 on November 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM


The fact is NO ONE has gone through the van allen belts.

Except for, like, the people who landed on the moon. 7 different groups of people.

lorien1973 on November 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM

More than that, actually. There were 2 (or was it 3) missions that orbited (or at least slingshotted around) the moon before a landing was attempted. And then there was Apollo 13, which was supposed to land on the moon but merely slingshotted around it to get back on trajectory to earth after an explosion blew out almost all their systems. One of the best movies of all time, that.

ProfessorMiao on November 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM

The Van Allen Belts are not that radioactive as claimed.

Ask an Astrophysicist.

A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Did you watch the videos I posted Holger?

Or do you just not want facts to interfere with your beliefs?

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM

So nothing in this thread, even the confession that the emails, and documents, are legit, sways you? I guess it’s hard on the ol emotions, when something you put so much into, goes overboard. Just remember, time heals all wounds. Just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and find REAL issues to believe in.

capejasmine on November 20, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Has everyone noticed the troll has succeeded in changing the topic from faking global warming data for personal gain to completely insane moon landing craziness?

Johnnyreb on November 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM

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

Is climate audit that site that is way over my head where actual scientists are debating this issue with each other? I linked there once, spent a few hours reading. Most of it over my head but very interesting.

riverrat10k on November 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Even if this is a “lie” (which I’m not convinced it is), it won’t change anything.Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM

An apt summation, if ever there was one.

Tonus on November 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Johnnyreb on November 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM

One is about a Hoax accepted as Truth and the other is an Actual Event thought to be a Hoax by tinfoil hat crowds.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Everyone should tweet “GlobalWarminghoax”… make this go viral.

tetriskid on November 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Stick a fork in it.

nottakingsides on November 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM

‘These aren’t the e-mails you are looking for.’

Climategate

TheVer on November 20, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Mark the self proclaimed Great One,

There you go again putting words in my mouth.

I said NO ONE(human)has gone past the Van Allen belts.Obviously if no one is on a probe,no one would be killed by the massive radiation.

Just a few years before Apollo, U.S. Scientists said that it was impossible to go through the tens of thousands of miles of Radiation belts and survive.

Then suddenly with no tests it’s all possible with flimsy equipment. It’s not like there was any sort of rush or anything.

Now,are you really going to stick with that claim that the satellites and space stations are in deep space outside the van allen belt? A ten year old who knows how to use Google could tell you you are wrong but evidently that is too much work for you to do.

You better get back to your TV all this thinking is obviously hurting your brain.

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM

They lie to keep from losing their funding. It’s really that simple. Just as Al Gore lies because he’s heavily invested in crap that relies on everyone beleiving his nonsense.

TrickyDick on November 20, 2009 at 1:30 PM

So, a satellite gets hit with about 2500 REM per year. Let us do some math and get down to REM per day and per hour.

There are 365 days in a year so 2500 Rem per year divided by 365 equals 6.8 REM per hour. With 24 hours in a day, we can divide 6.8 by 24 and get .28 Rem per hour.

Apollo 11′s Mission lasted 8 days and 3 and 1/4 hours which we will round down to the nearest hour and let us suppose they spent the entire time in the Van Allen Belt. 8 days times 6.8Rems per day equals 54.4 REM plus the 3 hours at .28 REM per hour equals .84 Rem. Grand total exposure was 55.24 REM. Which

At 55.24 REM they would’ve showed signs of mild radiation sickness; headache, susceptibility to infection and temporary male sterility.

But this is below threshold for death which begins at 100-200 REMS and only has 10 percent chance of fatality after 30 days.

For 100 percent chance of death after 14 days you need to be exposed to 500-1000 REM.

To put it in perspective:

A worker receiving 100 Sv (10,000 rem) in an accident at Wood River, Rhode Island, USA on 24 July 1964 survived for 49 hours after exposure. Cecil Kelley, an operator at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, received between 60 and 180 Sv (6,000–18,000 rem) to his upper body in an accident on 30 December 1958, surviving for 36 hours.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 1:32 PM

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Dude, at this time Scientists didn’t think Asbestos was bad for you.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Holger,

Satellites are in low orbit as are space stations.

None of them are anywhere near the outer van allen belts.

Google van allen belt damage to satellites. When they get too close to the van allen belt they get damaged beyond repair.

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM

The Outer Van Allen Belts are not the worse part of the Belt.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM

When they get too close to the van allen belt they get damaged beyond repair.

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Satellites outside the van allen belts disagree.

lorien1973 on November 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM

So the m***** f****** science is settled, huh?

If peer-reviewed science journals intend to retain even a scintilla of objective credibility, each and every one of them needs to publish retractions — immediately — of each and every published paper that used these charlatans’ data and those of each and every “scientist” who worked there

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM

The Inner Van Allen Belt starts at 100 Kilometers. The Hubble Space Telescope orbits the Earth at 559 Kilometers. The International Space Station orbits at around 350 Kilometers.

Tell me why the Crew of the ISS aren’t dead yet!

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Yes, yes they do.

RedNewEnglander on November 20, 2009 at 1:48 PM

There you go again putting words in my mouth.

I said NO ONE(human)has gone past the Van Allen belts.Obviously if no one is on a probe,no one would be killed by the massive radiation.

No need to put words in your mouth, you also said that any satellite that has ever gotten near the belt was destroyed.

Just a few years before Apollo, U.S. Scientists said that it was impossible to go through the tens of thousands of miles of Radiation belts and survive.

Care to name those anonymous scientists?
I would also mention that this was years before anyone had sent any probes to the belt, and nobody had any accurate data on what conditions in it were like. Once they did send probes, they found out that the worst case scenarios had no basis in reality.

Then suddenly with no tests it’s all possible with flimsy equipment. It’s not like there was any sort of rush or anything.

Why do you insist on telling such easily refuted lies. They did do tests. They sent actual, real world satellites into the belt to measure radiation levels.

Now,are you really going to stick with that claim that the satellites and space stations are in deep space outside the van allen belt? A ten year old who knows how to use Google could tell you you are wrong but evidently that is too much work for you to do.

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM

So are you honestly claiming that there has never been a probe sent to the moon. That the Russians, Chinese and Japanese all lied when they claimed they had?

Are you claiming that there never has been a deep space probe to any of the planets?

Are you claiming that there are no satellites in geo-stationary orbit, which is way above the VanAllen belt?

If so, then it is you who have never learned to google anything.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Holger,

Satellites are in low orbit as are space stations.

None of them are anywhere near the outer van allen belts.

Google van allen belt damage to satellites. When they get too close to the van allen belt they get damaged beyond repair.

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Geosynchronous satellites are way above the belt.

The only thing around here that’s damaged beyond repair is your brain.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 1:54 PM

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

As usual, StOlaf is safely protected from reality by an impenetrable layer of ignorance. Kind of like Mort.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Lamestream Media

I see “Sarah” gave you your cutesy little nickname. Ugh. Barf. Go away.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Pffffft, that’s how all all posts should end.

And that’s how it was, here at the lamestream media.

Speakup on November 20, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Environmentalists caught in their own lies…tsk, tsk, tsk.

Wyznowski on November 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Maximus Confessor

Explain to me why Voyager 1 which is headed or Interstellar Space is still functioning and has not been destroyed by all that nasty Radiation?

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Interstellar Space is still functioning and has not been destroyed by all that nasty Radiation?

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 2:10 PM

The Russians gave them a Get Out of Radiation free card.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

The Russians gave them a Get Out of Radiation free card.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Ah, that explains Chernobyl then.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Ed – as an FYI TGIF is a weekly online publication from “Investigate” magazine – which is a NEW ZEALAND owned and published center-right political magazine. I used to live in New Zealand and know the publisher Ian Wishart quite well. He’d be mortified to know his publication was described as Australian. You’re a Canadian – you know how touchy they get when mistaken as Americans!

Ian publicised one of the biggest corporate frauds in New Zealand history in a series of damnig books then led to resignations, convictions and big changes to NZ tax law.

fejj on November 20, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Uhhhh, yeah, this makes you look intelligent…

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Just remember, this is the guy who claims that if you aren’t a member of the Orthodox church, your a heretic, and that the Romanists rewrote the Bible to make themselves the heros.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM

And don’t forget, that the Jews rewrote the Old Testament after the early church started so it would look less like the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament that supposedly everyone used. Of course, the King James translators and most others rejected that theory and used the same Hebrew text as the Jews did for their translation.

tom on November 20, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Wow, this is the best thread ever! Personally, I blame the Weekly World News for people like Grow Fins, HAL10000 and MaximusConfessor. Bat Boy used to give them focus, now they go off all willy nilly on every crazy conspiracy theory.

John Deaux on November 20, 2009 at 2:40 PM

It’s funny that the plot to Capricorn One is actually taken as a real event.

TexasDude on November 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Actually, there was a ton of profit from the space race. Have you seen the list of products that came from NASA during that time – as a result of research and problem solving? It’s simply astounding.

lorien1973 on November 20, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Should have been more clear about distinctions between the space program in general and the ultimate objective of ‘boots on the moon’. And MTG is partially right about the spin-off technologies.

The space race encouraged the R&D of earthbound tech that was in its infant stages, invented some new things, but ultimately boiled down to a showy contest to keep the Reds from dominating space and eventually everything beneath. Direct monetary profit from the venture was zip. And do remember that NASA was and is a government dinosaur.

Dark-Star on November 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM

From: The Honorable Al Gore
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Tonight Show Correction for Core Temp.
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2009
Cc: Media Matters, List: Senate Democrats, List: House Democrats

Phil,

As you know, I had one to many shirley temples before my appearance on Conan and claimed stated temperatures, 2k below the crust to be “several million’ degrees.

Please provide me with the accurate data so I can issue a corrective press release use the sun overlay trick to adjust the data accordingly. Reply to all with the new facts once they’ve been recreated.

Best,
Al Gore
President, The Planet

JCred on November 20, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Holger,

Satellites are in low orbit as are space stations.

None of them are anywhere near the outer van allen belts.

Google van allen belt damage to satellites. When they get too close to the van allen belt they get damaged beyond repair.

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Hey genius, what about the Viking missions and the Mars probes and Voyager satellites, oh my. Are you really that dense?

Can we please pull this guy’s ejection handle for him?

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Man, is there no conspiracy theory that you haven’t bitten into completely?

Everything you don’t want to believe is an evil hoax?

Man, having you call yourself a Christian is so embarrasing.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 11:37 AM

So true…

I agree about Evolution, Biotic Oil (It’s pretty settled that the abiotic oil theory is true), and global warming. The problem is that the guy it a total nut on every other thing, and don’t even get me started on how nutty his Orthodox only theology (even in contradiction to Scripture) he has.

Tim Burton on November 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Can we please pull this guy’s ejection handle for him?

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM

If one of the admins can trace his IP back to his physical location, I really think we should put in a call to the guys in white coats.

Dark-Star on November 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Hey genius, what about the Viking missions and the Mars probes and Voyager satellites, oh my. Are you really that dense?

Can we please pull this guy’s ejection handle for him?

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Great, now he’s going to explain to us that it wasn’t actually the Vikings that went to the moon, it was the Packers.

John Deaux on November 20, 2009 at 3:16 PM

It’s funny that the plot to Capricorn One is actually taken as a real event.

TexasDude on November 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM

But, I saw it on TV.

Johan Klaus on November 20, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Great, now he’s going to explain to us that it wasn’t actually the Vikings that went to the moon, it was the Packers.

John Deaux on November 20, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Actually, it was the Houston Oilers. Houston, we have a go.

Johan Klaus on November 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Actually, it was the Houston Oilers. Houston, we have a go.

Johan Klaus on November 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Everyone knows it was the Astros.

thomasaur on November 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM
MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Just in case you guys are interested here’s a link to the NRC page giving the annual radiation dose limits. Under the heading “Dose Limits for Radiation Workers” you’ll find several links that expand on the information. The site itself is interesting and you can sift through a ton of information concerning nuclear topics and it’s a lot better than any Wiki information.

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM

A trip through the Van Allen Belt might just explain the Lions, this or any other season.

Lily on November 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM

This story has finally hit Drudge:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Lamestream Media

I see “Sarah” gave you your cutesy little nickname. Ugh. Barf. Go away.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Why are some women so envious of other women.

Johan Klaus on November 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM

This topic needs to be kept at the top of the Hot Air viewing list.

The Global Warming scam could divert hundreds of billions of $$$ that could be more wisely used elsewhere, not counting cramping our lifestyles.

And who is behind these scientists? Why are they faking information – what do they stand to gain other than more research grants and prestige? Is someone or group behind them paying them off?

albill on November 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I couldn’t find anything on this story at CNN.

Cindy Munford on November 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM

even in contradiction to Scripture

Care to elaborate buddy?

The only ones who contradict Holy Scripture are those nutty Sola Scripturist heretics.

It doesn’t matter to them that the Holy Scriptures blatantly disprove “sola scriptura”..

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thess 2:15

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Wow, she really packs a lot of logic into just 8 minutes, doesn’t she?
Del Dolemonte on November 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Gropin’s discovered her gods are frauds with feet of clay. The poor li’l darlin’ needs to check out and watch “The Man Who Would Be King” for hints on how she can best serve her gods now.

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM

And who is behind these scientists?

George Soros. And George Soros is a Rothschild agent,a puppet of the Rothschild family.

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Ah, the never-ending meme. Why don’t look at actual satellite data from the last 30 years? Why don’t you look at ground-records from the last 100 years.? Or geological records from the last few million years? Why don’t you see if temperature tracks solar activity or CO2 levels better?

Saying that the last decade has cooled is to simply ignore the facts. 1998 remains the hottest year on record, but 1998 is not the *only* year on record. Look at the long-term trend; always look at the long-term trend. To say “Hey, it’s cooler than 1998! Global warming is a fraud!” is the equivalent of saying that no one should ever invest in the stock market because it’s lower than it was last year. It’s about the long term.

And 1934? Seriously? You guys are still on about that? 1934 was the warmest year in the US (by a very small mount). But it’s called “global warming” not “American warming”. That’s like thinking the stock market crashed because a bank stock fell. 1934 had a dust bowl. 2009 had none.

As for these e-mails, there is a ridiculous amount of pulling out of context. The “tricks” and so forth are taken from published refereed publications and are no more a deception than using the “trick” of the chain rule to differentiate.

But I’m peeing in the wind. You guys have your religion of Grand Global Conspiracy to Defraud America. Anyone who disagrees has clearly been brainwashed by Algore (who is, I agree, a scientific idiot and power-grubbing fraud). I used to be skeptic until the evidence became overwhelming. And I’m still skeptical of parts of it. But the skepticism has now diverged into full-blown paranoid conspiracy theory.

You sound like a bunch of liberals.

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM

I said NO ONE(human)has gone past the Van Allen belts.

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM

The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt quite quickly, so that in the short time they were exposed, the astronauts did not receive a dose of radiation considered dangerous, at least not compared to the inevitable other risks in the mission.

Now go play in traffic, kid, you bother me.

Del Dolemonte on November 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Can we please pull this guy’s ejection handle for him?

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Sorry, its brain ejected a long time ago.

Del Dolemonte on November 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Why global warming is bullsh-t.

The greenhouse signature is missing. Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale “hot-spot” warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There’s not even a hint. Something else caused the warming.

The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data turned the theory inside out. Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window. Something else caused the warming.

Temperatures are not rising. Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many more years of NO global warming will it take? While temperatures have been flat, CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don’t know what it is.

Carbon dioxide is already doing almost all the warming it can do. Adding twice the CO2 doesn’t make twice the difference. The first CO2 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a bit-part player.

Andy in Agoura Hills on November 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM

When you do all that douche, then you can gloat.
Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Darlin’, as of today the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, its leadership and the scientists who worked and published there appear to have committed ethical breaches and practiced fraudulent science. It is incumbent upon them to demonstrate that they have not done so.

Doctoring data, or even suggesting to do so, gets one’s ass hauled into court in the world of commerce. Many private enterprises make a point of having their employees undertake ethics training and reviews annually in order to make it clear that unethical behavior, once discovered, has serious ramifications not only for the individuals who did it, but also for the company.

While many scientists may pat themselves on the back over their superior sense of ethics, it appears that in thus case they fell far, far short in practicing them.

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Explain the following.

At no point in the record does changes in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations drive climate change but lag by 800 years or so.

The Dinosarus lived in a time where Atmospheric CO2 was atleast 20 times higher than we have no but we cannot claim the Globe was warmer.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM

this case…

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Saying that the last decade has cooled is to simply ignore the facts. 1998 remains the hottest year on record, but 1998 is not the *only* year on record. Look at the long-term trend; always look at the long-term trend.
Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM

I’m afraid you’re wrong. Due to a James Hanson error, the hottest years on record (with actual thermometers and not proxies) are actually 1934-38. ClimateAudit.org and Stevie Mack blew the lid off Hanson’s error back a couple of years ago. I guess people are still watching Goracle’s movie and thus the lie is perpetuated.

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM

It’s about the long term.

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Please see previous posts about the temperatures being warmer prior to year 1000. You keep harping on short term data. It’s like looking at the stock market from March until now and saying we’re in the middle of a boom.

John Deaux on November 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Steve McIntyre:
November 20th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Earlier today, CRU cancelled all existing passwords. Actions speaking loudly.
post 129 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7806

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 4:09 PM

More on Drudge, new link:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Look at the long-term trend; always look at the long-term trend.
Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM

And what time period would that ‘long term’ trend analysis be applied?

The time period for which man been recording temperature data?

Or do you go back further? Temperature data from earlier time periods can be ‘estimated’, so when you say look at the long term trend, what do you mean?

How old is the earth? Didn’t it start out as a ball of molten material, by that relative standard, we’re in an Ice-age, right?

What long-term trend time period are you talking about?

That can have an extraordinary effect on what would consider ‘Global warming’.

Juno77 on November 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM

PimFortuynsGhost on November 20, 2009 at 9:39 AM

PimFortuynsGhost on November 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM

You, sir or madam, are a wickedly funny person! Keep sticking it to ‘em! ;-)

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 4:25 PM

What long-term trend time period are you talking about?

That can have an extraordinary effect on what would consider ‘Global warming’.

Juno77 on November 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM

Probably the Interglacial Warm Period that started around 10K-12K years ago. We probably melted that Laurentide Ice Sheet by burning wood and buffalo chips.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7