My Favorite Topic

Just when I think I cannot get any more good information about the scam known as Global Warming Climate Change, I come across an article that really gives me hope.

Firstly, while I am ecstatic about the revelation of scientific buffoonery, I want to go on record as believing that the culprits who stole the data need to be arrested and prosecuted. (Ok, I am rooting that they don’t get caught. After all, sometimes you have to have a recon group go deep into enemy territory to find what you need. But they DID break the law, so I will not feel sorry if they get arrested.)

For those who don’t know what I am talking about, it seems that hackers broke into a prominent CLIMATE CHANGE group’s email system. In there were damning messages and documents that showed how those inside tried to manipulate the data and outright lie in order to promote AGW and to squeeze out dissenters.

Good. Let the battle rage on. I have no doubt that the authors of those letters will cry foul and say the messages were falsified.

Read more here.

The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?

14 thoughts on “My Favorite Topic

  1. It would be nice to see a nation wide campaign to boycott the sponsors of the main stream media. Maybe if they start to feel it in the wallet they will force them to report the REAL news.

  2. While a nationwide campaign to boycott sponsers sounds nice, it will, unfortunately, never happen. It’s refreshing to see their viewership slip away, but when you combine all of the Alphabet News networks against Fox…it’s still David vs. Goliath.

    At this stage of the game, we have to depend on bloggers like Vets here and others like him to pass on the information they find then utlize social media like Facebook and Twitter to share it. I’m sure my FB friends are sick to death of me posting links to blogs all day long….I”m just hoping EVENTUALLY the mind numbed robots on the left open their eyes and see the truth!

  3. Unfortunately blogs like this only preach to the choir. The mindless drones that put these morons in power don’t have the ability to think for themselves. They’re easily swayed by the corrupt media.
    If there were some way to reach the board of directors of the companies the pay for this garbage and let them know we’ll stop buying their products, then the “ship will hit the sand”.

  4. I agree with you up to a point on the “preaching to the choir” thing. When I read something that makes sense to me, though..I share it with everyone I know…including “mindless drones”. Sometimes they have an epiphany…*shrug* That said…corporate sponsors don’t care what you and I think…boycotts are rarely more effective that that “buying gas on certain days” thing….I think it will, unfortunately, take for the drones to hit rock bottom in their own lives before they wake up and smell the coffee.

  5. Liz,

    The problem with the “lefties” is that there are two types. You have the better off side which usually have something to gain from this, and you have the “mindless drones” that are too stupid to realize they’ve hit bottom, and when they do…they’ll blame Bush.

  6. *Snort*….you have a point….and I think the majority of the lefties fall into the latter category…..I hold out hope that some of them will come to their senses.

  7. Well just don’t hold your breath. Every time I’ve tried to have a discussion with a liberal, I usually end up with a headache or acid reflux. When you counter them with facts, their eyes glaze over and they turn to personal attacks.

  8. Big deal…

    Incidentaly, I got the infomation… and the content “in my hands” : no need to be a hacker, not even to download that illegal stuff — you can simply do that, even with a quick research tool, there :

    So I’ve spent the hole day reading the content of dozens of those emails.

    Honestly, there’s nothing in that hacked stinking file.

    Only what you would easilly imagine to be the usual matter in that kind of research world, knowing that they’re friendly colleagues speaking to each others : being a little too nice with collegues and a little too bad towards others. Knowing also there’s a lot of political pressure on this issue.

    Fisrt thing I’ve checked all the emails they’re talking about online : for half of them, it’s clearly wrong how they’re presented ; for one third, there’s nothing interresting ; for the rest, we just have confirmation of the fact that within IPCC it’s the same approximated methods and false assurance.

    One find several cases of “hey guys, that’s only for your eyes, don’t tell others, especially those sceptics who’ll be to glad to find another good story on such an insignificant detail”. Exemple, one foreign collegue anoid because he actually made a mistake in an old study, and one of them scientists being asked by the editor to take part in the review, who simply responds something like “you wan’t my opinion, just drop that (acusing) article. Even that arrogant Mike E. Mann telling collegues that he’s just corrected his Matlab code one year after his piece was spread in a nice Nature-or-something paper, because he’d made a stupid mistake leading to a 30% error. The usual stupid thing you’ll find everywhere in science.

    The “trick” and “decline” affair ? Made me laugh. Everybody knows tree data leads to a drop in (reconstructed) “temperatures” in the late 20th century so for curves using those proxies they let away this period and even if they they don’t know why the drop there’s nothing to be ashamed of.

    This lead to the “deleted any emails” affair : those emails concern talks around that sticking but probably not important problem : “Keith” is Keith Briffa, the very man they have good but “inconstant” relationship with, and whose research brings those problems. As I said, he can’t explain that drop in what seems to represent recent tempertures when one’s using tree proxies, so they eventually let away his work in the AR4, I suppose, or just asked him not to ask for too much place and just “soften” that stinking problem. But the emails shows that they used to be in bad terms some years ago and that he can be easily upset. So he probably threaten someone after that and they just prefered throw away that part of sticking talks they had — mainly the emails including bad words, I think, because there are a lot of emails they kept, whose content show the usual discuss about this matter. Yes, he also plays some kind of sceptical role… in a particular way. No, nothing.

    Asking people being kicked off peered-review… ? No, realy, absolutely nothing surprising. They just try to defend against sceptical anoing a little too much. And that’s words. They even “laugh” about the fact they’d better not remind those people that the Freedom of information Act exists… You’d like to see the public, a very excited one, having their nose in your work every day ? And what if you’ve made a little mistake there and there ?

    All in all, we mainly have confirmation that climate research still knows very few and cannot tell that too loud, for they simply can’t be seen as ignorant as they actually are among the world’s best researchers of the matter, nobody wants to say he’s useless and nobody in this role want to admit he used to be mistaken — the problem is essentially political pressure on the subject. But it’s only surprising for ignorant people, among global-warmers — I swear I’m not — … and people ignorant about science in general.

    Yes, this is all shocking… As any job is, any company within, any party, any family or friends band.

    If I was the hacker, I’d be mad… so many efforts, now the cops coming soon for… nothing. Worst : surprising there’s nothing more chocking in all that content (I’ve read). We even discover that some “sceptical” ones aren’t so and that other “academic” are really sceptical.

    And you call that a good day for global-warmers ennemies ? “Revolution at hand”…

  9. Really? Dude…your post was so rife with run on sentences and bad spelling that my eyes just glazed over. Whatever point you were trying to make was completely lost (at least to me) in that maze of verbiage.

    There are several respected journalists and members of Congress who have reviewed the information and see something worth looking into. So quite honestly, your rant hasn’t changed THIS woman’s mind.

    Put down the crack pipe and take a nap….try again in the morning.

  10. @ Elisabeth,

    sorry I’m not English… Just passed there, had a spare quarter of an hour and tried my best with spelling (at least I should have taken more time to review).

    As for the content behind ‘run on sentences and bad spelling’: after a good resting night I don’t think would change it a lot — much too early. Or course, they are so many emails I still haven’t look at. At least I’ve checked every emails and serious words they’re talking about online, and this already give some interresting information.

    However, maybe this precision will seem to bring a big correction to what I’ve said yesterday.

    Of course those are stinking new for several scientists involved — if you let away half the “info” of the sumaries given online, which are a clear distorsion or even lies (but I found some other truely stinking ones).

    And of course this provides a major proof of IPCC leading biased rules and wrong ways and conclusions. In particular, you’ll find parts of proofs that accusations against MBH methods were funded and that the authors new that… But they too understood it too late. Too much fame: too impossible to come back. And some of those guy were already IPCC lead authors, with their biased theories and results shown as ‘evidence’, etc.

    So this actually is a serious *political* matter but the point is: almost nothing new can be found in that hacked emails… except for people who’ve been willing to remain blind. I mean, ignorant regarding the climate matters but mostly regarding the fact that those fame, lies, distorsion, friendship… affairs are something usual in science.

    A few decades ago, “all of” the “scientists community” was supposed to believe “continental drift” / “plate tectonics” (sorry I can’t translate that) was a completely wrong theory. And a few years later, “all of” the “scientists community” was apparently say the contrary.

    No sooner Marie Curie had discovered radium, comanies used it… to put in lamp-shades, dancers’ skirts and even in lipsticks…

    But each times they are supposed to be “quite sure”.

    Remove political and economical pressure, you’ll see that scientists themselves will be as “sure” but that the result changes completely for the general public.

    Margaret T (you know, that old Sarkozy of yours…) liked this global-warming idea, see the english mines’ trade unions. In 1987 she and Bush (father) asked the G7 (now G8) to launch that IPCC. An *intergovernmental* institution… Has anybody seen one of them turn something else than an horrible machine? Bad constitutions give bad behaviour and sad consequences. Only idiots — so called *liberals* like others — ignore that.

    So who’s surprised in the end?
    That’s what I’ve tried to say here, because I thought I could consider you’re not… Right?

    By the way, if you’re interrested on good theories about the what are the main climate drivers, you’d rather have a look at young Pr. Shaviv’s blog, especially these pages :

    Once again, sorry for so many “run on sentences and bad spelling”.


    p.s. : I roll my cigarettes; no additives — personally prefer wisky (and most of all, good red wine such as the ones we have in France).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s