Monday, November 23, 2009

The Stimulator Vs. Alex Jones!

The Stimulator Vs. Alex Jones!

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:33:12 -0600
R406028
1 week ago
Namaste_Rich

“You got knocked the fuck out” bump…


R406037
1 week ago
sisyphus

five. the jonesites are gonna be all over your site, stim


R406038
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

Hackers Leak E-mails, Stoke Climate Debate

By DAVID STRINGER (AP) – 1 day ago

LONDON — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.

The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.

In one leaked e-mail, the research center’s director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

One of the colleague referred to by Jones — Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University — did not immediately respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.

The use of the word “trick” by Jones has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change.

“Words fail me,” Stephen McIntyre — a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change — wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.

However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward,” he said in a statement Saturday.

Jones did not indicate who “Keith” was in his e-mail.

Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails — Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — did not immediately return requests for comment.

The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine “the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.”

“The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said in a statement.

Alex Jones TV: Doom & Gloom Climate Fraudsters Exposed

Infowars
November 23. 2009

On the Sunday edition of the Alex Jones Show, the hacked CRU documents and the victory this represents for the truth and the ongoing effort to defeat the New World Order. The documents reveal how scientists working for the globalists one-world government effort falsified data to push the climate change scam. In addition to faking global temperature data, the outed scientists engaged in a coordinated campaign to ostracize climate skeptics and use their influence to keep dissenting reports from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, as well as using cronyism to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests.

Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming Fraud Implodes

Hacked emails discussed manipulating data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
November 23, 2009

Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

Former British chancellor Lord Lawson was the latest to demand an impartial investigation be launched into the scandal, which arrives just weeks before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. “They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth,” he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.

The emails were leaked at the end of last week after hackers penetrated the servers of the Climatic Research Unit, which is based at the University of East Anglia, in eastern England. The CRU is described as one of the leading climate research bodies in the world.

The hacked documents and communications reveal how top scientists conspired to falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the premise that man-made factors are driving climate change. Others illustrate how they embarked on a venomous and coordinated campaign to ostracize climate skeptics and use their influence to keep dissenting reports from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, as well as using cronyism to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests.

As expected, the establishment media has gone into whitewash overdrive, characterizing the emails as evidence of “rancor” amongst the climate community and focusing on some of the lesser emails while ignoring the true significance of what has been revealed.

Organizations with close ties to the CRU have engaged in psychological terrorism by fearmongering about the planet with doomsday scenarios, illustrating their argument with outlandish propaganda animation videos which show pets drowning and others that show computer-generated polar bears crashing to earth in a throwback to 9/11 victims jumping from the towers, when in reality polar bear population figures are thriving.

“One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999, reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” reports the London Telegraph.

The author admitted to the Associated Press that the e mail was genuine.

In another example, researchers discuss data that is “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”. Apparently, the “real temperatures” are whatever global warming cheerleaders want them to be.

As Anthony Watts writes, attempts to claim e mails are “out of context,” as the defense has been from CRU, cannot apply in this instance.

You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.

Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.

Another email discusses changing temperature data to fix “blips” in studies so as to make them conform with expectations, which of course is the cardinal sin of scientific research.

“Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the 61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read, writes Andrew Bolt.

Another email appears to celebrate the death of climate change skeptic John L Daly, with the words, “In an odd way this is cheering news.”

In another communication, the author expresses his fantasy to “beat the crap out of” climate change skeptics.

In another exchange, researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal, by means of an academic witch hunt, because of his sympathies with climate change skeptics.

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

Other emails express doubt about whether the world is really heating up and infer that data needs to be reinterpreted.

“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.”

Scientists discuss trying to disguise historical data that contradicts the man-made climate change thesis, such as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), which must be ‘contained’ according to one email.

Suppression of evidence is also discussed, with scientists resolving to delete embarrassing emails.

“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” writes James Delingpole, 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!”

Scientists also “discussed ways of dodging Freedom of Information Act requests to release temperature data,” reports the Daily Mail.

The emails show that scientists relied on cronyism and cosying up to FOIA officials to prevent them from being forced to release data.

“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests,’ the email says. “It took a couple of half-hour sessions to convince them otherwise.”

“Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the chief librarian – who deals with appeals.”

It is important to stress that this compendium merely scratches the surface of the monumental levels of fraud that have been exposed as a result of the hacked emails.

People will look back on this moment as the beginning of the end for global warming alarmism and the agenda to implement draconian measures of regulation and control along with the levy of a global carbon tax.

Many more revelations will be forthcoming as a result of this leak, and the desperate effort on behalf of the establishment to whitewash the whole issue will only end up making the damage worse.

Post Modified: 11/23/09 11:38:35

R406039
1 week ago
sisyphus

you’re a spamming fool, flyod


R406041
1 week ago
sisyphus

Gavin at realclimate :

“As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.”


R406042
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

Climate Emails Stoke Debate
Scientists’ Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming

By KEITH JOHNSON
The Wall Street Journal
NOVEMBER 23, 2009

The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents — posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center — that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.

The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn’t certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.

“The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said.

Most climate scientists today argue that the earth’s temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.

A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.

In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call “disinformation” using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.

The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.

The IPCC couldn’t be reached for comment Sunday.

In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was “tempted to beat” up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn’t be reached for comment Sunday.

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.

The emails were published less than a month before the opening of a major climate-change summit in Copenhagen.

Representatives of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a large professional organization, expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The association believes “that climate change is real, it is related to human activities, and the need to counteract its impacts is now urgent,” said Ginger Pinholster, an association spokeswoman. She added that the association’s journal, Science, evaluates papers solely on scientific merit.

John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, “It’s disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.”

Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, “I simply can’t believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published.”


R406043
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

A comment from Stimulator’s site (reposted here in case teh stimulator deletes it):

1 Response to “The Stimulator VS Alex Jones”
Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1. 1 scrumpit
Nov 23rd, 2009 at 8:03 am

You are a fucking idiot Stimulator.. Fucking Clown Shoes…

Climatic Research Unit Hacked E Mails & Data
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

Summary
This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.
The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a computer hacker 3-4 days ago.
This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.
The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.
DOWNLOAD/VIEW FULL FILE FROM
http://88.80.16.63/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip
or
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip

RELATED: Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
RELATED: Caught red-handed in a monumental fraud, disgraced Climategate scientists settle on a ludicrous defense
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/11/caught-red-handed-in-monumental-fraud.html
RELATED: E-mail leak turns up heat on global warming advocates
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1213483&srvc=business&position=recent
RELATED: Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward climate skeptics
http://www.prisonplanet.com/stolen-e-mails-reveal-venomous-feelings-toward-climate-skeptics.html
RELATED: CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-bombshell-hacker-leaks-thousands-of-emails-showing-conspiracy-to-hide-the-real-data-on-manmade-climate-change.html

Leave a Reply

You must login to post a comment.

Post Modified: 11/23/09 12:09:31

R406044
1 week ago
Disenchanted

again a crack not a hack…


R406045
1 week ago
FloydAnderson

Post Modified: 11/23/09 17:41:08

R406048
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

how’d you get that pic of floyd and his cat, stim? seems you’ve upset the lad…


R406049
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

R406050
1 week ago
remarcus

damn floyd, your skilz are awesome! the ultimate internet empiricist!

you should get outside more often and take a good look around you. do the real fucking math, go to a stock-yard, try to catch a fish, hang in a fresh clear-cut or breathe in mexico city on a windless day.

prisonplanet… enough said, your psychosis is apparent


R406051
1 week ago
remarcus

how’d you get that pic of floyd and his cat, stim?

where? i missed that… heh


R406052
1 week ago
ShiftShapers

in the fuckin’ show


R406053
7 days ago
ShiftShapers

tin foil hats for all!


R406054
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

ShitShapers just added his brain-dead comment:

Nom de Guerre
Nov 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 am

right on Stim, that was freakin excellent. you hit the nail right on the head. expect the typical reactionary backlash. i see scumpit has already delivered.

Post Modified: 11/23/09 13:03:42

R406055
7 days ago
ShiftShapers

R406056
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

R406057
7 days ago
ShiftShapers

i can’t believe you think “lolcat” is a well-reasoned or valid response.

fucking intarnetz, what have you done?


R406058
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

Dr. Tim Ball On the Significance of the CRU Hacked Documents

Corbett Report
November 23, 2009

Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which expose deceit, duplicity and collusion between climate researchers to maintain the fraud of the manmade global warming theory. These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details about how this fraud has been developed and perpetuated, and Dr. Ball shares his insights on what they show.


R406059
7 days ago
Truthcansuk

I’m so going to miss this.

Floyd… never change, baby.


R406062
7 days ago
sisyphus

Retired climatologist and oil industry shill Dr. Tim Ball

fixed that for you floyd


R406063
7 days ago
tango


R406065
7 days ago
sisyphus

ur doing it wrong tango


R406066
7 days ago
tango

NEEDS

SCARLETTE


R406067
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

R406068
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research

By Tony Romm
The Hill
11/23/09 01:23 PM ET

The publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails that climate change skeptics say proves the threat is exaggerated has prompted one key Republican senator to call for an investigation into their research.

In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”

“[T]his thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with,” Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said during the interview.

He added that it was “interesting” that the e-mails surfaced only weeks before an important climate change summit would bring world leaders to Copenhagen.

Fueling Inhofe’s concerns is last week’s news that a blogger hacked into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (Cru) and published about 1,000 e-mails and more than 3,000 private documents relating to climate change.

Some of those communications disparaged climate change skeptics and their views, while others contained conversations about how to best portray climate change research.

The scientists have since insisted their e-mails were hardly deceptive and that their words were taken out of context. Still, their assurances have not settled the concerns of their biggest foes — including Inhofe, who has long maintained global warming is a hoax.

However, it is not immediately clear what Inhofe hopes to accomplish with his proposed hearing. U.S. lawmakers and scientists routinely cite IPCC evidence when discussing climate change legislation, but Congress can hardly force the United Nations to halt spending on a program over which it has no jurisdiction.

Rather, Inhofe perhaps hopes to deal a symbolic blow to next month’s climate change conference, at which IPCC is likely to play a major role.

“The timing couldn’t be better,” said the Oklahoma Republican, who previously announced he would attend the December summit as a “one-man truth squad.” “Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their time was good.”


R406069
7 days ago
sisyphus

It’s good to see a sitting US senator come out as a supporter of illegal activity.


R406071
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

Alex Runs Down Man-made Climate Change Hoax Exposed in CRU Emails

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 23, 2009

Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.

In the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty.

In the above video, Alex Jones examines the startling revelations of the CRU files and spells out what it means for the global elite who have planned to use the ruse to impose crippling carbon taxes and put the finishing touches on their global totalitarian super-state and its accompanying control and slave grid.

Infowars and Prison Planet are now feverishly going through the documents and will post the result in the hours and days ahead. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from the perpetrators:

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.

Kevin Trenberth

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

Phil Jones

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

Mike MacCracken

Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).

Tim Johns

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.

Phil Jones

Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress.

Christoph Kull

Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.

Keith Briffa

The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.

Michael E. Mann


R406072
7 days ago
Truthcansuk

Sourcewatch – James M. Inhofe has voted in favor of big oil companies on 100% of important oil-related bills from 2005-2007, according to Oil Change International. These bills include Iraq war funding, climate change studies, clean energy, and emissions.

In 2003, the Natural Resources Defense Council noted that Inhofe “scored zero with the League of Conservation Voters since 1997, was the only senator to oppose Everglades restoration, and once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo.”

I’m going to miss this, too… I mean, who else on the interwebs is going to be dumb enough to keep grabbing Inhofe as a supporting source?


R406073
7 days ago
Truthcansuk

Infowars – Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.

No, they didn’t. But since you aren’t going to actually read the e-mails or ask for the context of the snippets you’re going to be seeing on the internet, I guess you are right about one thing: Al Gore and his friends at the UN are in trouble, but it’s the same trouble Socrates got in: people are just too fucking stupid.


R406074
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

have you gotten your swine flu shot yet dummy?


R406075
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

R406076
7 days ago
Truthcansuk

Have you read them Floyd?


R406077
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

I’ve looked through some of them. I’m watching videos of Alex right now.

How’s that pig shot treating you?


R406078
7 days ago
remarcus

better question, has alex read them or is he being spoonfed too?


R406079
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

Have you been paying attention to anything here remarcus?


R406080
7 days ago
Truthcansuk

You’re always watching videos of Alex. Naked. Can’t you take a break and read all of them?

Have to wait to get the shot. I’m not in a ‘high priority group’ category.


R406081
7 days ago
Truthcansuk

Alex Jones doesn’t get spoonfed this stuff, Rem. He’s a pretty sharp tack. It’s his job to do the spoonfeeding…


R406083
7 days ago
Trainspotter

The hacked documents and communications reveal how top scientists conspired to falsify data

Floyd all you are doing is entertaining those that find you to be entertaining. This thread is a virtual sideshow. Post post and post more, you aren’t convincing anyone, or haven’t you noticed? The fact is that there is a lot being read into the email comments and not a lot of overall context being offered. The only thing proven so far is that scientists are human beings – what a surprise.


R406084
7 days ago
tango


R406085
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

Floyd all you are doing is entertaining those that find you to be entertaining. This thread is a virtual sideshow. Post post and post more, you aren’t convincing anyone, or haven’t you noticed? The fact is that there is a lot being read into the email comments and not a lot of overall context being offered. The only thing proven so far is that scientists are human beings – what a surprise.


R406088
7 days ago
xenonix


R406090
7 days ago
Trainspotter

Fine. Be a sideshow.
Have you noticed that nobody throws quarters?
One would think you’d at least find a way to make it pay for your internet…


R406094
7 days ago
mtnlungta

ahhhhhhhhhh
the news and then the weather
tv was so cool when it first happened
you used to be able to actually trust the news
but it only took about a week
to never trust anyone about predicting the weather


R406095
7 days ago
Trainspotter

Partially cloudy
Partial sun
Temperatures hovering near seasonal norms

“There is no such thing as bad weather, just inappropriate clothing.”

Unknown


R406097
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

Hey stimulator, who gives you your marching orders?


R406098
7 days ago
sisyphus

check out comments at youtube and lol

vote while you’re there too


R406099
7 days ago
sisyphus

yeah, FLyod, I bet stim is on the NWO/JEW payroll


R406100
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

and by the way, GNN is not dead and we’re not blogging in a closet. if a thread is worth a damn or requested to be archived, it’s being archived at http://gnnarchive.blogspot.com/


R406102
7 days ago
sisyphus

why not just create a new echo chamber?


R406103
7 days ago
Truthcansuk

Stim, good job as always…


R406104
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

teh GNN archive is comedy gold.

Post Modified: 11/23/09 21:41:43

R406105
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

I just checked out teh blog about an Iraqi throwing shoes at bush. lolz. that’s comedy gold!

Post Modified: 11/23/09 21:43:15

R406106
7 days ago
FloydAnderson

R406115
6 days ago
Disenchanted

“The hacked documents and communications “ – So if they were “hacked” then they don’t contain the original information.


R406146
6 days ago
jonbray

Wow of the fuck are the “deniers” now. Scientist fluffing data for money, your argument now on a different foot.

It is amazing that you fucks trust the biggest STATIST institute in the world more than some fucks of pump oil out of the ground and sell it to willing costumers.

THE FUCKING UN boot lickers need to realize that when they talk about “saving the planet” they mean for themselves.

What is even more disturbing is that you some how call yourselves ANARCHIST. The Doublespeak is ridiculous, your are ECO-Socialist and will be expected to expire yourselves for the good of the planet.


R406147
6 days ago
Truthcansuk

Have you read the e-mails, jonbray?


R406150
6 days ago
FloydAnderson

here’s one with teh infamous “hide the decline”

Post Modified: 11/24/09 14:30:47

R406160
6 days ago
FloydAnderson

check this one out:


R406162
6 days ago
Truthcansuk

My problem is that I don’t have a clue what Prof. Phil Jones is talking about in that e-mail.

Can anyone translate it?


R406164
6 days ago
FloydAnderson

Seems like he’s saying he used a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperature.


R406171
6 days ago
Trainspotter

Seems like he’s saying he used a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperature.

You’re talking about global domination and willing to go on what it “seems” to say??

It only “seems” that way based on a shallow read – the conversation in question is more intelligent than the shallow analysis which concludes how it “seems”. That comment is dealt with somewhere way up in this thread; it is clear that one should perform some deeper analysis to draw conclusions.

The level of conspiracy that you want to believe in, the sheer scale of it, is just not possible. Face it. Something fishy may very well be going on in Big Al’s financial world, but …. ah fuck it.

More LOL cats perhaps? I like the white one on the fence….


R406178
6 days ago
FloydAnderson

R406182
6 days ago
Trainspotter

LOL!!

You done did outdo yourself Floyd! Phucken-A….

Dime Bag Kitty?


R406194
5 days ago
bacchus

HIDE THE DECLINE!


R406196
5 days ago
Truthcansuk

Have you read the e-mails, Bacchus?


R406199
5 days ago
xenonix

....it is clear that one should perform some deeper analysis to draw conclusions.

oh, come now! get serious, that would go against the gooey-rilla creed!


R406207
5 days ago
tango

HIDE THE DECLINE!

“Hide” was a poor choice of words, as was “trick”, but these were not formal corespondence. My colleagues and I talk like that all the time – and I’m sure if any of you batshit insane assholes were able to hold down a job, you would informally talk like that too.

In this case, as was pointed out previously I believe, “trick” was used as a slang term for equation or solution to a problem, e.g., solve the problem of a discrepency between two data sets, and “hide” in this case was used to indicate a statistical transformation that would prevent a known, and proven, discrepency in the data (the tempertures that are projected from late tree ring data don’t match recorded temperature data, even though earlier tree ring data does) from affecting their models.

If any of you ignorant assholes bothered to actually investigate this stuff, instead of just accepting it at face value like the sheep you are (Bacchus, Flyod), you would have found this out already.


R406208
5 days ago
tango

And since none of you will bother reading and trying to comprehend my above post, I may as well go back to discourse on your level, so here’s a picture of a penis:

Post Modified: 11/25/09 11:26:03

R406214
5 days ago
xenonix

nice ass


R406255
5 days ago
remarcus

wheres the tits?

post modified for the kids
Post Modified: 11/25/09 13:58:55

R406265
5 days ago
ShiftShapers

jesus christ what the fuck is wrong with you people.

so i guess now that gnn is “closed” i have to worry about whether or not there are kids in the fucking room?

fuck you


R406267
5 days ago
FloydAnderson

drop the ban hammer Anthony!


R406269
5 days ago
ShiftShapers

no just realize that some of us live with children. thanks.


R406276
5 days ago
remarcus

heh, fine.. censor me now. for the kiddies…


R406280
5 days ago
sisyphus

so i guess now that gnn is “closed” i have to worry about whether or not there are kids in the fucking room?

lol

here’s a picture of Barney to balance it out:

Post Modified: 11/25/09 13:33:22

R406283
5 days ago
remarcus

heh


R406286
5 days ago
ShiftShapers

the kid’s reaction: “FUCK BARNEY!”


R406291
5 days ago
xenonix

oh, for the life of a cartoon character….and i don’t mean floyd


R406297
5 days ago
tango

Damn, my bad, Shifty… here’s something a bit more age appropriate.

Post Modified: 11/25/09 14:31:54

R406298
5 days ago
remarcus

heh… fuuuuck.. omfg material. dont let the kiddies click that one, it’ll ruin them for life

Post Modified: 11/25/09 14:35:38

R406302
5 days ago
sisyphus

I know what that is, tango. I don’t want to see it again. I’ll also refrain from posting the vid of MrHands getting fucked by a horse that killed him


R406324
5 days ago
xenonix

thank you, sis…you, sir, are an officer and a gentleman


R406325
5 days ago
Truthcansuk

Ok, I come back to this thread and suddenly I read SIS WARNING ABOUT A QUESTIONABLE LINK!?!

Is this what it’s come to? Has this finally become bizarro world? Has Tango started supporting Bacchus? Has Floyd started making sense? Has…

Well, nothing could really top Floyd making sense, so I’ll leave it right there.


R406342
5 days ago
tango

Has Tango started supporting Bacchus?

Oh, I’ve always supported Bacchus – he makes anyone he argues against look like a combination of Richard Feynman and this guy.

How can you not support that?

Post Modified: 11/25/09 17:15:37

R406345
5 days ago
Namaste_Rich

^ Win.

And shit, I became a fan of the other guy, who turns out to be the same guy… Heh!

^ He’d fucking kill Alex Jones…


R406349
5 days ago
desultory01


R406356
5 days ago
sisyphus

to be fair, remarcus already warned about tango’s link before I said anything. And everyone’s seen the Mr Hands vid already


R406360
5 days ago
Truthcansuk

Not factually true. I’ve avoided it thus far.

Although Deadduck did describe it in somewhat fetishist detail…


R406365
5 days ago
tango


R406375
5 days ago
remarcus

the mr. hands vid? where?


R406692
19 minutes ago
FloydAnderson

No comments:

Post a Comment

Archived GNN Threads