sda2.jpg

November 22, 2009

The Sound Of All Hell Breaking Loose, Pt. 4

The mainstream is getting into the meat of the CRU hack - Wall Street Journal;

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.

Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate scientists have dismissed those claims.

The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.

Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.

Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.

Boston Herald;

In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics.

The story is moving from the blogs to mainstream. Don't be too critical of the delay - I do know that there are Canadian journalists working on this, but it takes time. Anyone who has been sifting through the database will understand why.


Posted by Kate at November 22, 2009 12:44 AM
Comments

Funnily enough after all this, the moon seems a little bigger and the stars seem to be shining a little brighter...or is it just me?

Posted by: Leslie at November 22, 2009 12:36 AM

The story is moving from the blogs to mainstream. Don't be too critical of the delay - I do know that there are Canadian journalists working on this, but it takes time. Anyone who has been sifting through the database will understand why.

That's actually good to hear Kate, thanks for the heads up.
Fox, now WSJ and Boston Globe thought it wouldn't see the light of day until early next week, this is encouraging.

Posted by: ldd at November 22, 2009 12:44 AM

Ops, Boston Herald.
And more to come. Good.

Posted by: ldd at November 22, 2009 12:55 AM

I'm very encouraged to hear that things are moving quickly and I'm also very amused at the attempts thus far by the Glo-Bull Warmers in trying to rationalize the content of those E-mails, they're twisted up like pretzels I tell ya.

Posted by: Bruce at November 22, 2009 1:03 AM

I find it hard to believe that this "hacking" has occurred so close to the Copenhagen meeting. Rather than just some random hacker, I wonder if this all is actually the work of a whistle blower with access to the Hadley server?

Posted by: Robert W. (Vancouver) at November 22, 2009 1:07 AM

I have to agree Robert W, it sure smells like an inside job, three cheers to the hero that pulled it off.

Posted by: Bruce at November 22, 2009 1:19 AM

Slow to work through ?. Yes, I have spent an hour or three paging through the archive and it takes your breath away at the sheer arrogance and attitude to those who dared to raise an opposing view. Good to see on the Climate Audit mirror site that the CRU refused to comply with Steve McIntyre's FOI request - and the next day - out comes the flood of information. No wonder they don't want to share information.

Posted by: KimW at November 22, 2009 1:26 AM

Globe and Mail, page A15, "Emails show data collusion, climate skeptics say"

Article by Andrew Revkin, from the NYT News Service.

A bit surprised actually. I usually don't get the G&M, but they had run out of the NP.

Derek

Posted by: dkite at November 22, 2009 2:07 AM

Nice to see I am not the only one wondering about the timing of it all.
There is more going on than meets the eye, I do not think it a coincidence that the "50 Days to Save the Earth" was postponed. Perhaps the hack was discovered but the perpetrator was not, so instead of going ahead with the "50 Days to Save the Earth" Copenhagen conference, a strategy was devised to deal with the fall out before the conference - just a thought - seems strange to me that the Copenhagen conference was postponed - after all - we only have 50 days.

Posted by: coincidence at November 22, 2009 2:00 AM

Posted by: coincidence at November 22, 2009 2:08 AM

I won't rest until I see every MSM outlet in Canada give top billing to this crime against science.

In the meantime those of us in the scientific community will prosecute the offenders with dispatch.

Posted by: Wild Thaing at November 22, 2009 2:09 AM

India is now challenging the Global Warming Liars (GWLs).

Posted by: Robert W. (Vancouver) at November 22, 2009 2:11 AM

"Don't be too critical of the delay - I do know that there are Canadian journalists working on this, but it takes time." Funny how that works out to the Warmist's advantage. If it was a conservative group that had been hacked, the mainstream media would have put everything in the worst possible light immediately and if they were being generous, after the gut feel of the public has already been fully set, they would make minor amendments to the statements. In this case what will happen is that the Mainstream media starts off with saying that the hackers did something illegal and that the media does not immediately see any wrongdoing on the parts of the CRU emailers. Once the public moves on to the next news cycle, then they might possibly have some bad things to say?

Posted by: AStoner at November 22, 2009 2:19 AM

NOOOOOOOOOO
this cant be true
if it's not reported at CBCpravda it didnt happen.

3 days and waiting like the ugly girl on prom night. the phone call , the admission never comes.

Posted by: cal2 at November 22, 2009 2:31 AM

Robert W. (Vancouver)2:11 AM
[..India is now challenging the Global Warming Liars (GWLs).]
That was last week when they cried foul with their own studies which disproved the IPCC claims of rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers.
What are they going to say about this???
Rajendra Pachauri may have to stay in Zurich or something....
The Indians might stake him out on the Seachin Glacier.....so he can do his own research.....

Posted by: sasquatch at November 22, 2009 2:51 AM

Wall Street Journal:
A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive.

See that right there is the problem.

These Warmongers have been declaring the science is settled for years.
They've been shouting skeptics down and claiming their research was conclusive and the debate was over.

The Warmongers are the ones who have been shutting down debate with lies saying that skeptics shouldn't be listened to because they didn't have any peer reviewed or journal published papers while secretly squeezing skeptics out of peer reviews and blocking journal publication of their papers.
The Warmongers are the ones who have stifled dissident views, who delete comments by people who refuse to believe the hoax on every Leftist website.

You don't see rightwingers trolling on Leftist sites, you see Leftist trolls on rightwing sites all the time!

Until just the 21st of November 2009, the day after the release of the UEA HadleyCRU data captures, the Hadley CRU Warmonger Team's puppet website, RealClimate, deleted the posts of and banned everyone who dared question their Global Warming junk science.
Starting yesterday, since the release of the damning e-mails, Real Climate has been trying to put on a mask of tolerance because of the new scrutiny they are getting and are finally allowing skeptic's comments to stand for the first time ever.

The Warmists are the ones who have for years consistently refused to release their data sets proving that their theories are valid, even in the face of FOIA requests.

And the Wall Street Journal pretends that EAU's Hadley CRU may have had grounds to think the skeptics are partly to blame for the tension?

Sure the released data capture has finally begun to get some coverage in the MSM, but they won't get any credit from me for the new balanced approach that pretends that they, the MSM, haven't been totally in the pocket of the Warmongers all along.

Posted by: Oz at November 22, 2009 3:13 AM

Already put the popcorn on to watch the meltdown.
Its been a long time but finally the Chicken Littles are being exposed.
Justice is a riding towards them looking for the Money & lives stolen in this con. The sickly sweet smell you notice from the Enviro-manics is fear. In some cases in different Countries it could end up cordite.
People don't like being played for billionaires, hack scientists just like the fly guy. Mischief in making 10 fortunes on a lie. Killing economies, forcing people to follow their insane dictates.
Luddites pretending to be scientists , busybodies
trying to get their own neurosis's projected on us. To justify our becoming beggars for Mother Earth.
JMO

Posted by: Revnant Dream at November 22, 2009 3:29 AM

Agree 100% with you Mr. Stoner@ 2:19. No one would reasonably expect the MSM to issue a mea culpa overnight, but how about a lede that says that Hadley CRU has been hacked and files that allege certain things have been exposed.... more to come?

But nothing? Come on. Gunter will be on it, and a few others, but the over all silence of the MSM says to me they are trying to figure out a way to manage- and mitigate the damage - of this story.

This statement:

"In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming"

still validates the global warming meme.

It should read: "In an embarrassing blow to the global warming advocacy movement" if it were to be honest at all.

Sorry but other than a few good journos still getting paid for their trade, who will come out with something in the days ahead, I do not give the MSM an inch at all for ignoring this story, or for their coverage of the last three years (ramped up hard when Dion stumbled up the middle to lead the LPC, and it was promoted by the MSM to get the LPC back into power. He even named his dog Kyoto!!!))

Lets be frank. There has been zero interest in the MSM to do any investigative journalism into the claims of the pro AGW crowd, despite tremendous amounts of solid information and observable data that contradicted their claims.

Gunter has been great, as has Solomon. Lorrie Goldstien has nibbled around the edges but not much more (Shame on you Lorrie). Other than that, very little.

Compare the smoking gun calibre of this to the empty rhetoric of Karlheinz Shreiber that was given front page coverage daily.

Verifying the info? Horseshit.

Posted by: ward at November 22, 2009 3:33 AM

Wall Street Journal: The issue is very serious in that it impacts the economic health of all Green companies on Wall Street.. GE could flat line monday...Carbon trading may not open. The Media should be very careful and get it right.

The quickest & best outcome for science is if a RICO investigation begins immediately, otherwise it will become the epic story of the 21st century

I think that how Obama reacts will determine his Presidency. Easy to get caught & bagged in the international tradition of blame game.

Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw at November 22, 2009 4:36 AM

This will have an economic impact alright.

If and only if they retract the punitive taxes that have been placed on energy usage, kill recycling grants, and let people keep their own money to spend in productive ways.

This rampant environmental hysteria is throttling the economic engines of the world at the grassroots level.

Here is a video about a Englishmen telling the Americans to forgo implementation of Cap@Trade.

http://ceiondemand.org/2009/11/06/cooler-heads-event-on-emissions-trading-w-matthew-sinclair/

It's 1 hour 11 minutes long and in it he says the UK, with a population of 60 million has lost 1.7 million jobs because of their version of Cap@Trade in Carbon credits.
He say that since they implemented it the economic cost at the household level has killed 30 thousand people in the UK annually, and that in the U.S., with a population of 300 million, it will cost America about 7 million jobs on top of the jobs they've already lost, plus 100-150 thousand lives annually.

Posted by: Oz at November 22, 2009 5:06 AM

Let us not forget that, boiled down to its essence, the problem remains: in developed countries, the method used to keep the masses in check has reached ludicrous extremes. The SUVs got ridiculous in size, the houses on postage stamp sized lots became gargantuan, and with China and India coming on - line in this never ending quest for rising standards of living, those who rule have to do something.

And since nothing grabs your attention like, well, survival itself, "Saving the Planet" became the plan, just like squeezing more productivity out of the masses begot "Women's Rights". All those women sitting at home (with nothing to do but create more little 'problems' that all - to - quickly grow up) - had to harness that, right?

Since "Global Warming" might not now fly, they will come up with something else to scare the beejesus out of us to limit our consumption while keeping our noses to the grind stone and out of mischief. War is the old last resort and Obama appears on track. The nuclear thing is a new twist and kinda iffy, but with China now in the game, maybe not so much. It could be fun to see how the elites might flip - flop on 'war', if things get really bad.

Posted by: cottus at November 22, 2009 6:31 AM

Just a little clarity here: Hadley Met Centre and the CRU are not the same organization. This was an error in the original reporting, and shouldn't be perpetuated. Hadley is a function of the British government's meteorological service, and while it has its own problems, its not part of this expose.

CRU - the Climate Research Unit, is a function of East Anglia University, not of Hadley. Its incorrect to refer to this as Hadley/CRU.

There is some nice analysis of the emails going on at Powerline Blog by John Hindraker and at Bishop Hill as well.

Posted by: Skip at November 22, 2009 7:45 AM

"I do know that there are Canadian journalists working on this, but it takes time..."

Would Lorrie Goldstein be one of those journalists, Kate?

Posted by: Joanne (T.B.) at November 22, 2009 7:54 AM

Sometimes fiction does parody reality.

For instance, am I the only one who thinks this little clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE sums up very well what has taken place?

Analogously, the only part that has not yet happened is where the wizard demonstrates some humility as a response to the Scarecrow's agreesive accusation.

Posted by: Brent Weston at November 22, 2009 8:17 AM

Philip @ 4.36

The Owebumble reaction, when it happens, will speak volumes, but,here are the likely scenarios.

1-- Journo won't be recognized who wants to ask the question. Has happened already on other issues.

2--Journo gets to ask question, but is ignored, "NEXT!"

3--Owebama answers, "Hacking is a serious offence!, blah, blah, blah"

We really don't expect Him to answer this question correectly, do we? He cannot disobey his master, he is the puppet, the TOTUS, after all!

It would also vindicated FOX news.......oh, the leftard world must be having sh!tfits about now. No word from his Suzuki himself yet?

Interesting the timing of all this too. The Goreacle stated in the last week or so a change in direction, that methane was actually a worse GG than CO2.......and now the release of the e-mails, data sets, etc, that basically state that the CO2 theory is not the solid 'ifso facto' that they have led to believe.

Does the Goreacle know more than he is letting on? This is starting to really stink!

Posted by: DanBC at November 22, 2009 8:18 AM

(2nd time - this time after doing a preview first)
Sometimes fiction does parody reality.

For instance, am I the only one who thinks this little clip Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain sums up very well what has taken place?

Analogously, the only part that has not yet happened is where the wizard demonstrates some humility as a response to the Scarecrow's agreesive accusation.

Posted by: Brent Weston at November 22, 2009 8:21 AM

sigh....(need to wake up).... agreesive -> aggressive

Posted by: Brent Weston at November 22, 2009 8:37 AM

I suggest that Quebecor Sun Chain with papers across this land, run this story of AGW corrption as headline News on Monday morning.

The fact that all of GlobeMedia especially CTV, CBC and particularly Canadian Press have been aware of the magnitude of this story and are totally silent after four days of intense internet coverage tells me they are in as deep and complicit in the GLOBAL WAMING scam as the charlatans at Hadley / CRU.

What say you SUN chain editors?

Do what is right and make it headlines on Monday morning!!

Posted by: Joe Molnar at November 22, 2009 8:45 AM

"Wall Street Journal: The issue is very serious in that it impacts the economic health of all Green companies on Wall Street.. GE could flat line monday...Carbon trading may not open."

Wonder if

A) CBC would notice
B) How they would spin the story to say it was caused by Global Warming.

Posted by: Fred at November 22, 2009 8:47 AM

"one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist"

I can see the headlines now, "Global Warming Blamed For Increase In Violent Crime"

Posted by: Arty at November 22, 2009 9:03 AM

The CBC will do a story on it as soon as they think of a way to imply Brian Mulroney was behind the deception.

Posted by: blair at November 22, 2009 9:13 AM

"What say you SUN chain editors?"

It would be nice to see this front page across the country. It would also be a good business move by the company. It makes them more credible than all of the other newspapers in Canada. Readership would surely go up.

Likewise for a television channel that would run with this. People would tune into them to get the truth. Their viewership would go up.

Posted by: gord at November 22, 2009 9:16 AM

I wonder how long it will take the CBC to cover this?

Posted by: Phil at November 22, 2009 9:30 AM

Some more headlines

Global Warming Fueling Increase In Hacker Activity

Global Warming Causes Food Shotage. Some Scientists Forced To Eat Crow.

Global Warming Blamed For Man's Incessant Blog Commenting. Wife Threatens Divorce.

Uh Oh gotta go.

Posted by: Arty at November 22, 2009 9:39 AM

It's a motley CRU.

Posted by: Herman at November 22, 2009 9:51 AM

From the emails-
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=54
It is a long email with a draft copy of a proposal for how to deal with discussions about the impact of climate change presumably to involve the public.
Perhaps I'm making too much of this but what was listed later in the email , to me, suggests radical restructuring of the earth's governments perhaps into one government.
Why would this be passed around to members of the group if there wasn't some sort of common interest....if not in the goals then perhaps in how to "hop-on" to any associated gravy train.
I would be interested in any reaction.

Posted by: Rich at November 22, 2009 10:08 AM

Christopher Moncton has stated many time that the AGW scam is the route to a One World Government.

Posted by: Rob C at November 22, 2009 10:12 AM

Meanwhile, over at CNN...........

"Pushcart educator CNN Hero of the Year"

"Fedora, other MJ items fetch $2 million"

"Homes here lowest priced CNNMoney"

"Ticker: Palin slams health care vote "

"Chatting with David beckham"

Funny, no Brad Pitt headline either, but it's early

Posted by: DanBC at November 22, 2009 10:27 AM

Did Mann and three other Americans help scientists in the U.K. break the law by destroying emails required under the U.K. Freedom of Information Law?

Here is the sequence of emails[ I appolgize if my email 'double spaces everthing']:


Cast of Caracter:

Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Michael Mann, Penn State
Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Ray Bradley, U. Mass
Caspar Ammann, NCAR
Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
David Palmer, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Gene Wahl, NOAA

The Sequence[[adjusted for Time Zone]:

From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxx
To: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxx, “raymond s. bradley” rbradley@xxxx
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: “Caspar Ammann” ammann@xxxx
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.

………………………………………………
From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxx
To: t.osborn@xxxx “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” David.Palmer@xxxx
Subject: Re: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 – IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process [FOI_08-23]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:13:35 +0100
Cc: “Briffa Keith Prof ” k.briffa@xxxx, “Mcgarvie Michael Mr ” m.mcgarvie@xxx
Dave,
Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA, Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn’t get any additional comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith should say that he didn’t get any papers through the IPCC process.either.
I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn’t get any. What we did get were papers sent to us directly – so not through IPCC, asking us to refer to them in the IPCC chapters. If only Holland knew how the process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland.
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments.
As for (3) Tim has asked Caspar, but Caspar is one of the worse responders to emails known. I doubt either he emailed Keith or Keith emailed him related to IPCC.

…………………………………………….
From: Phil Jones p.jones@x
To: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxx
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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 be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

…………
From: Michael Mann mann@xxx
To: Phil Jones p.jones@xx
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxx
Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.
I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx
talk to you later,
mike
….................................……………

Michael Mann acted on the request to destroy documents! Did NOAA???

Here's the link to the searchable database of emails: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

Posted by: alec, a.k.a. daffy duck at November 22, 2009 10:33 AM

From a distance by a non academic, the whole circus seem to be that the “scientific” institute is more a bureau for self-preservation of apparatchiks than anything else.
The focus is damage control rather than serious scientific enquiry.

Posted by: Lev at November 22, 2009 10:42 AM

When one calls these climate people "scientific" it is worth while to remember that most of them are at the bottom of the barrel: fourth-raters who couldn't make it as full-time workers in geology, physics, etc. There are exceptions (well, I know of one exception), and capable geologists, oceanographers etc. have contributed from time to time; but I stand by may main comment. Hell, they can't even understand the main problem with long-range climate forecasting.

Posted by: John Lewis at November 22, 2009 10:52 AM

"Don't be too critical of the delay" - yeah, I'm sure the AP has 11 reporters on this...

Posted by: PabloNH at November 22, 2009 11:04 AM

Oz:
"You don't see rightwingers trolling on Leftist sites, you see Leftist trolls on rightwing sites all the time!"

There is so much wrong with this statement I don't know where to start. How much time do you spend on leftist sites, that you would know this, exactly?

As far as the topic is concerned, I'll be the first "leftist" to admit that it has always been *reasonable* to doubt in the IPCC's consensus, and that there is bureaucracy and politics involved that ideally there shouldn't be -- and that more importantly, the error bars on its findings have been too small for years, and that more importantly some doubt is cast on its findings with the release of this data. I am not a climate scientist, so I don't know conclusively either way, but this is pretty damning evidence so far.

Also mad props for the hackers that got the data.

Posted by: themusicgod1 at November 22, 2009 11:13 AM

I see that many on this blog refer to the "hacker". It is quite clear from the original e-mail posting the data to to Russian ftp site that this is indeed the work of a whistle blower.

Posted by: James at November 22, 2009 11:26 AM

I'll have to quibble with that last comment, Kate. I feel fully justified in being critical of the lamestream media. You make a completely valid point that investigative and opinion pieces might need a few days to be fleshed out and researched by their authors.

But, for the story to be completely ignored as a news event, and unreported, is unacceptable in my view.

Heh, it occurs to me, how quickly did the lamestream media invent Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder after the Ft. Hood shootings? Hours, I think. ;-)

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. at November 22, 2009 11:44 AM

I see that many on this blog refer to the "hacker". It is quite clear from the original e-mail posting the data to to Russian ftp site that this is indeed the work of a whistle blower.
Posted by: James at November 22, 2009 11:26 AM

Agreed. I bristle every time I see "hack" and "hacker" in reports of this story. "Leak" and "whistle-blower" and derivatives of those two words are much more appropriate.

IMO.

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. at November 22, 2009 11:45 AM

SOz:
"You don't see rightwingers trolling on Leftist sites, you see Leftist trolls on rightwing sites all the time!"

There is so much wrong with this statement I don't know where to start. How much time do you spend on leftist sites, that you would know this, exactly?


I'd love to see proof of this, not being snaky, just want to know if this is your opinion or a fact that you have and can give proof.

Personally I started out on the internet being directed to leftist blogs, I quickly found out that dissenting comments are not allowed. Couldn't even ask a question challenging anyone's views, the host of the site nor their favourite regular commenters. Just not allowed.
ONLY when I found rightwing sites did I find relevant information that was NOT examined by MSM and the commenters providing links and facts, or even questions and evidence of different results, without the bloghost rushing to delete questions or opposing views.

Lets say it's my unscientific opinion that the left sites censor their material far more than the right does. IF this were not true think we'd be seeing what is happening with this whole AGW scam being snuck out the backdoor like it is?

Once, I went back to a site I had started out on and tried to discuss media influences at Huffington Post, I made a comment, they took down a whole post (IIRC was some article about how wonderful the media is); I complained about the BBC at the time, piping in hate AMERICANS emails to Canadians during the CBC strike...they took down the whole post.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Kate has ever removed a post just because she didn't like the qusetion or response in the comment thread.


Posted by: ldd at November 22, 2009 12:26 PM

[quote]Did Mann and three other Americans help scientists in the U.K. break the law by destroying emails required under the U.K. Freedom of Information Law? [/quote]

The law of self-preservation would determine that some, with an active brain, would keep copies. The Ancient practice of getting and keeping receipts (all notes etc) must have made it's way into the PhD world...maybe not.

The fact that they destroyed, or attempted to destroy, would normally be used as probable cause for a immediate court ordered search & seizure. That would include all IPPC participants home & work space…UN

Not a lawyer, just MHO

Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw at November 22, 2009 12:49 PM

There are a lot of not-particularly-bright people when it comes to electronic communications, especially it appears in management material and the like. I regularly get emails from my management chain in which the entire reply commentary is attached, and way too frequently, demonstrates a rather pathetic bit of management dumb-think throughout. These I dump to printer right off, and put into a "dumb things mgmt did, yet again" folder. Go ahead, delete the emails, they're still on the record...

Posted by: Skip at November 22, 2009 1:16 PM

Posted by: ward at November 22, 2009 3:33 AM

That about sums it up about the 'MSM'.

Posted by: Merle Underwood at November 22, 2009 1:17 PM

There is nothing in the Globe and Mail online site today about this story Nada. Mind you chief poobah , Jeffrey Simpson, has drunk the AGW koolaid.

Posted by: tranio at November 22, 2009 1:33 PM

Ask Al Gore and David Suzuki...

As you may have heard, on Wednesday (Nov. 25) Q has the privilege hosting two of the most prominent environmental activists and spokespeople in the world: former U.S. vice-president Al Gore and scientist and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki. They will be here together in Studio Q.

And we'd like you to get in on this unique conversation.

If you have a question for Al Gore and David Suzuki, we'd love to hear it. If you had a chance to address these two, what's the single most pressing question that you would you ask them?

Post it here.


http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2009/11/ask_al_gore_and_david_suzuki.html

Do you think this just might get canceled?

Ask a question............

Posted by: Bruce at November 22, 2009 1:34 PM

I can't find anything on National Post either

Posted by: tranio at November 22, 2009 1:37 PM

Just give McIntyre the Order of Canada.

Brave, Forthright and Tenacious- this Canadian took on the world and prevailed.

Posted by: RCGZ at November 22, 2009 1:42 PM

CBC Q blog program for Nov 25 has scheduled Al Gore and Suzuki to answer qestions about climate change. The questions closed before the hacking story became prominent. Somehow, I don't expect any reaction from either Gore or Doc Fruit Fly.
A-M Tremonti and E Solomon are srangely silent on this story.

Posted by: Martin at November 22, 2009 1:45 PM

Maybe they should consider a change of venue for their little get together in December. Might I suggest moving it from Copenhagen to The Hague?

Posted by: Sylia at November 22, 2009 3:38 PM

As Kate pointed out - not to worry about MSM jumping right on it - there's fair bit of evidence appearing that they're slowly starting to get the big picture. This story will be the latest hockey stick - starting slowly and growing exponentially. The spectre of civil damages in US federal courts to companies and industries by agw policies based on faulty and conspiratorial manipulation of data is being raised...

Posted by: Skip at November 22, 2009 4:06 PM

NP on Sat carried the story by Andrew Revkin. Typically, their sister paper Ottawa Citizen did not.

Posted by: Martin at November 22, 2009 4:06 PM

"Maybe they should consider a change of venue for their little get together in December. Might I suggest moving it from Copenhagen to The Hague?"

oooh, good one, Sylia. QOTD!

Posted by: Skip at November 22, 2009 4:08 PM

I somewhat disagree with Kate about the acceptability and, more to the point, the significance of the delay in the mainstream media's coverage. I fully acknowledge and understand that the leaked information is a huge database, and that to render a full and comprehensive analysis one would need to be aware of the various players and their professional/governmental/IPCC associations of the players involved in the email exchanges, but, as Colin mentioned further up this thread, mainstream journalists didn't refrain from covering the Ft. Hood massacre, for example, in the interests of waiting for all the facts to come in; a delay of even two or three days covering the enormous significance the Hadley story not only ensures that - by definition - it won't be hard "news" (it will certainly be an "issue" discussed by opinion journalists) but it also pretty much obviates the possibility the story will ever be considered a bombshell in the way that - you'd think - it should be when you consider the unprecedented, government and world-changing scope of (ongoing) proposed actions to combat AGW.

"Bombshell" stories like the Ft. Hood Massacre or the death of Michael Jackson carpet the media within hours, and the increasingly commutative nature of news coverage is such that news outlets - in effect - determine the significance and newsworthiness of any given story based on how many other news outlets are covering it. The more a story is covered by the rest of the media, the more professionally-obligated outlets on *other* political sides are to also cover it. In this case, readers of the WSJ or viewers of FOX will probably aware of this story, but if outlets whose readers support both the AGW theory and the necessity of action being taken now bury and/or elide the story and its significance it's not going to have the effect we'd hope for. AGW has always been in its essence a political, and not a science, story.

Since the Hadley emails expose the fraudulent nature of the putative "science" behind the AGW promoters, in a way that extends all the way up to the IPCC and various national governments and involves untold billions of dollars, this story should have been a dead-to-rights bombshell, but - I'm repeating myself, I know - it can no longer be a bombshell *because of* that very delay.

(I'm making an optimistic and not necessarily well-grounded assumption here that the story is merely being delayed, as opposed to elided or buried.)

This story undoubtedly has legs, but it's got a million little ones. I believe that was uncovered in the Hadley emails isn't necessarily the game-changer it appeared to be when the story first broke on the blogosphere. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: EBD at November 22, 2009 4:28 PM

Quick, somebody have David Suzuki put on suicide watch.

Posted by: bryceman at November 22, 2009 5:04 PM

Quick, somebody have David Suzuki put on suicide watch.
Posted by: bryceman at November 22, 2009 5:04 PM

Mrs. Fruitfly: Dave, you've been in the bathroom an awful long time.

{silence}

Mrs. Fruitfly: Dave, is everything alright in there?

{silence}

Mrs. Fruitfly: Dave? Dave?!

{cue slow creaking of weighted rope}

~~~~~~~~~~~

The above is black humor, and is not intended to be taken seriously, or literally. Anybody offended by the foregoing can go f*ck themselves.

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. at November 22, 2009 5:42 PM

a dog named Kyoto was just killed by a hacker!!!!

Posted by: GYM at November 22, 2009 5:53 PM

EBD, I think you have to acknowledge the MSM sources - for this story it will be mostly the AGW supporters, Real Climate etc., and of course they're all saying "no big deal". Don't forget, most these guys are warmers. The head of CP thinks of McIntyre as "that stock trader", so it may not even be up on CP yet.
Also, many of them take their feeds from the US and its just slowly coming up.
Then you have the problem of practically no Cdn MSM understanding what they are talking about. They'll be spending half their time googling the big words just to see what they might mean. Then there's problem of how to find, download and unzip a 62meg file. Then there's the denial, the incredulity, further denial, outright sobbing and crying, more denial, and for some transient and maybe even permanent catatonia.
Plus half of them are so broke, they can't afford to turn the hydro until Monday.

Posted by: Skip at November 22, 2009 5:58 PM

Sylvia, you get the prize today with the comment that the venue should be changed from Copenhagen to the Hague.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at November 22, 2009 6:22 PM

"Now excuse me for a few moments while I disassemble, clean, and conceal this fragrantly smoking .50-calibre rifle I’ve just noticed lying at my feet." Mrs Deeyawn

She doesn't say who she shot - Iggy, Martin, Kinsella ...

Oh!! I get it - a dog named Kyoto !!

Posted by: ron in kelowna ∴ at November 22, 2009 6:45 PM

As I expected, Lorne Gunter has reported on the emails:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Good+climate+news+alarmists/2252439/story.html

Kate, if you could put this on your blog, that would be great. Thanks!

Posted by: Allen at November 22, 2009 8:06 PM

Lorne Gunter has reported on the emails:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Good+climate+news+alarmists/2252439/story.html

Posted by: Allen at November 22, 2009 8:07 PM

Stock analyst is getting cold feet(sic) on AGW fraud.

Remember the old adage: Money is panic.

These words tell us that the AGW fraud is a false religion, in particular the word “sacrilege”:

“What I am writing here may be sacrilege to some people.”

More: “but what happens if Mr. Market decides to price in the possibility of global cooling?”
…-

“Global Cooling?

I woke up on Saturday to see the New York Times headline Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute. The New York Times headline editor was restrained while others were far more outraged. As an example, Mish’s blog stated the story as:

It’s now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam.

Thanks to hackers (or an insider) who broke into The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and downloaded 156 megaybytes of data including extremely damaging emails, we now know that data supporting the global warming thesis was completely fabricated.

He went on to detail some of the incriminating emails in his blog post about the alleged conspiracy to fudge the data. You can also see the emails here.

Sunspots and global cooling
Before the news of this hacker break-in, there had already been skepticism about the global warming thesis. I had previously speculated on this topic in a post:

What I am writing here may be sacrilege to some people. The popular consensus about Global Warming is that the Earth is undergoing a warming period caused by the effects of industrialization. However, there is another view that global warming is caused by solar activity – sunspots and solar winds.

Currently, the forecast for the latest solar cycle is that it’s late. Such extended cycles have been associated with cooling periods such as the Little Ice Age experienced a few hundred years ago. Indeed, there have been reports that there is more ice in the Arctic (yes – it’s only one data point) and there has been some hand wringing among the scientists about the timing of the solar cycle.”

“I am not investing based on global cooling as my base case, but what happens if Mr. Market decides to price in the possibility of global cooling?

What do you think that would do to energy demand if the Earth were to undergo a period of global cooling?

What are the possible effects on food production and commodity prices?

Just thinking out loud…”

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3656847

Posted by: maz2 at November 22, 2009 8:21 PM

100 companies seem to want on the great GW gravy train heading to Copenhagen.

Makes me want to stop purchasing pop.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116310

Posted by: Marcia at November 22, 2009 8:33 PM

Perfect timing - right before Copenhagen. What have I heard? 20-30 thousand people from all over the world attending??? Excue me, can the 'one world' group say 'global recession'? And - hey - how 'bout that outside thermometer as you all fly, drive (alot), stay, eat, etc while you're there. Meanwhile countries are declaring vigorously that they'll attend but have no intention of doing anything. Cancel the whole thing - sorry Copenhagen tourism....

Sure hope all this checks out

Posted by: ma100 at November 22, 2009 11:48 PM

ldd: truth be told I have never in my wildest dreams thought that I should be saving links to trolls, rightwing or not. Seems about as nonsensical as saving spam, as valuable as they can be. But I will try to facilitate your request, although as some may recognize; I've been getting slow at this sort of thing /:

In the meanwhile I've been soaking up this CRU debate all evening (I'm pretty far into the pro-science camp, so all the details in this case seem to be pretty important).

As far as deleting views go, I hear similar stories from my leftist friends all the damn time -- there's deletion of comments on both sides.

Also; what backdoor?

As far as what kate allows or does not, that is clearly offtopic and I'm not going to touch on it as it's liable to get me banned from this site anyway; as I am kind of a socialist hippie I walk a fine line being here to begin with and no sense treading across the line.

Posted by: themusicgod1 at November 23, 2009 12:45 AM
Site
Meter