Home     |   Back     |   Printer Friendly Version  

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Climate Gate 2.0 and more proof of criminality

Ah but the science is over.....

by Craig Read

 


The lamebrain media and their friends will downplay the importance of ClimateGate 2.0 and the 5.000 new emails found here, which show the depth of corruption and depravity at the IPCC-UN Climate-Baloney circus. The big brains will refer to the over 15.000 now public documents [Climate Gate 1.0 emails are here], as 'internal politics'. But of course the science is settled. Act Now!, to save the Earth Mother, cuddly ursus maritimus, and of course the children's future, from a natural chemical 95% of which is emitted by the Gaea goddess and which constitutes a whopping 1 % of all atmospheric gases. The math of course makes GlobaloneyWarming fascism real. Human emissions of Co2 at 5% x .01 % = not much of anything. Ergo your SUV is causes Hurricanes.

Climate Gate 2.0. Delicious. But for the eco-cult and the devotees of Globaloney-something-or-other, it won't matter. They will keep goose-stepping in rhythm.

Wattsupwiththat

date: Sat Sep 18 08:48:09 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: Re: kilimanjaro
to: “Jenkins, Geoff” <geoff.jenkins@metoffice.xx.xx>
Geoff,
The data that are used for the grid box should be within the grid box. They will be low
elevation sites though, and this may be part of the reason. It might be worth seeing if
there is anything in the U/A data – but I reckon there won’t be much in that region.
I’ve heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures – that we don’t have access to, and there was little warming in them. The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can’t pin anything down. They are going though.

Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:

<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.

<3115> Mann:  By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

<3940> Mann:  They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Climate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.

<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause

<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process

<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IP

Newsbusters:

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. [...]

<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement ["probably the warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

<3062> Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. [...]

<3373> Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. [...]

<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

[note: Of course, the "Mike" and "Michael" being regularly disparaged by his peers is Michael Mann, the creator of the thoroughly-debunked Hockey Stick graph which so much of this myth is dependent on. As physicist Lubos Motl notes, these messages "surely show that Michael Mann is a fraudster even according to most of his colleagues." Also for those not connecting the names, Jones is the infamous Phil Jones of UEA. Speaking of which:

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/22/climategate-20-5000-new-emails-confirm-pattern-deception-and-collusio#ixzz1eXQXk8l7]

Only 5.000 new emails. Only 5.000 pieces of evidence of the science being unsettled, and members of the cult trying to hide the data, destroy it, or find some support for the politically-correct answer of ever-increasing warming. Nice.

This is a criminal fraud. $100 billion per annum is being wasted on Climatehooey and non-science. $37 Trillion over the next generation is being 'demanded' by the UN and the Eco-cult as the minimum spend to move the hated human off of carbon energy to Mother Earth loving 'natural' energies. Indoctrination of young minds. Endless propaganda. Drowning Polar Bears [who can swim 60 miles in reality]. It is a cult. Cults are irrational and mindless. They have no business in a modern civilization.

 

 

 
Top

Related Articles

The Eco Cult and the Cult of Warm


There are no Reader Comments on this article


  Comment on this article
   * All fields are required
    Name:
    Title:

    Comments:

  
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Craig Read. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate.