21 November 2009

Delete the emails! More from the climate-hacks

Wow. Now the hacked/leaked emails are demonstrating a "conspiracy" among the global-warming alarmists to suppress evidence, shut-out peer reviewed papers, ignore Freedom of Information Act requests, suppress opposition comments on their websites, and they even celebrate the death of a leading global-warming skeptic!

One of the scientists writes, "...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish." Regardless of the starvation, natural disaster, disease, etc. Wow.

Remember last year when tons of climate data was "lost":

From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008


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!!



Wow. Just wow. Governments all over the world have spent billions and billions on this nonsense and it's looking more and more like the whole thing really is nothing more than a giant hoax.


  1. Not that I am an avid follower of the climate change craze, but a couple of questions still linger.

    The emails seem to indicate that the authors truly believe global warming to be real, though they appear to be fudging the numbers to bolster it. In other words, they do not believe the concept is fake and therefore attempt to justify what they are doing.

    Second, regarding the numbers, especially when things go through the IPCC, these things are peer reviewed like crazy. How do fudged numbers stand up to that scrutiny, unless hundreds are in on the conspiracy? I know that many scientists are willing to push the agenda, but I'm not sure I'm convinced that all of them are willing to fudge numbers or accept fudged numbers to do it.

    Just my two cents as I try to make sense out of this thing...

  2. Alan, in order for results to be peer-reviewed the data used has to be public. They were not only hiding exculpatory data but altering it as well.

    Also, the emails indicate that they were picking and choosing who their "peers" would be...IOW, they were intentionally trying to dodge sceptics. That's not what scientists with integrity do.

  3. Reminds me of stories regarding the Piltdown Man. Good example of people seeing what they want when presented with lies, falsehoods and half truths.

    "...it's looking more and more like the whole thing really is nothing more than a giant hoax."

    Gee, who'd a thunk it?

  4. On a different topic, did you see this: www.manhattandeclaration.org

    "We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s."

    Signed by people as various as Archbishop Dolan of New York, Joni Eareckson Tada, Chuck Colson, Archbishop Chaput of Denver, and Peter Kreeft