Someone once famously said, "A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on". Thanks to what appears to be the publishing of over 1000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, the truth about Global Warming, er Climate Change, er Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) could be dressed and headed out the door.
It's a lot to sort through but the emails look legitimate and there has been some excellent work involved in breaking it all down. The overwhelming magnitude of emails that have been cross-checked at many levels appear at first, second, and third glance to simply bee too much to be debunked. The CRU has already confirmed through the BBC that their servers have been hacked into. Among others,
PAJAMAS MEDIA has posted a copy of one of the emails that's getting quite a bit of attention:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxx, mhughes@xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx,t.osborn@xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXXXX
University of East Anglia
Yes, it's from 1999 but when you use the words "trick" and "hide" in the same sentence, eyebrows and red flags will be raised. James Delingpole, writing in the
LONDON TELEGRAPH had more on Friday, the 20th. He highlights a typical liberal tactic being used by the CRU folks in one email, which I've put in italics:
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Rid themselves of this troublesome editor? In true leftwing form, when faced with the facts and the truth provided by an opposing view, the strategy of necessity is to discredit and silence its source. It's the same reason Al Gore avoids debate while saying the science is settled.
Moving on, the
WASHINGTON POST actually has a decent article from the 21st in which they quote Myron Bell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who is known as one of those evil "skeptics":
"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."
The last two paragraphs of the WaPo piece appear to indicate that merely discrediting and quashing opposing views isn't always good enough for some of these people:
In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.
Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.
If you are accused of such behavior, wouldn't you adamantly debunk the claims? These guys might be excellent Community Organizing candidates.
Lastly, I thought this juxtaposition would fit right in. Believe it or not, Al Gore has a new book out. It's called "Our Choice: A Plan to solve the Climate Crisis". Tony Hake at the
EXAMINER totally picks apart the book without even getting to the introduction. The book cover includes two pictures of earth - one of it today and the other of what it will look like if we don't listen to Allegory, er Al Gore. Here are the two photos:
As Hake points out, the ugly photo of earth was created by some supposed expert who believes that's what earth will look like if we don't reverse course. There are several problems with that according to Hake, who enlists the help of a hurricane expert from Florida State University:
The retouched image depicting our planet at some point in the future, contains images of five hurricanes. One storm off the coast of Florida is turning in a clockwise motion, an impossibility in the northern hemisphere. Another hurricane is shown near Peru and the equator, a place where hurricanes cannot form. It is also a bit ironic that so many storms are depicted when hurricane activity is currently at a 30 year low.
I found this excerpt particularly interesting relative to the effects of a rising sea level:
In the modified image, Cuba appears to be completely submerged. That would require a sea level rise of more than 6580 feet as that is the height of Pico Turquino on the island. Much of Florida as well is now under water as is a great deal of Central America.
The problem is that if there were indeed a rise of that level, Florida would be entirely gone as its highest point only reaches an altitude of 345 feet. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and virtually every single other state that borders an ocean (and many landlocked states) would be submerged. Even Denver, the Mile High City, would be under water although presumably its residents could escape to the Rocky Mountains.
I'm not sure how many more people need to be convinced of the truth - that Al Gore is a despicable human being who is perpetrating a fraud the likes of which the world may have never seen - but it's high time he be exposed for what he is to the masses.
h/t to
HAP
With a position like that, it's no wonder Sunstein hasn't appeared on Hannity's radio OR television show. Anyone tasked with defending the position that Ayers and Obama weren't very close is simply defending the indefensible. The fact that Sunstein is one of Obama's Czars makes his position even more untenable. Think about it. Why would he attack the accusations that there was a significant relationship between Obama and Ayers while calling for tougher libel laws and refusing to defend his position?
