End the Lie

Here we go again: Climategate 2.0

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

By End the Lie

A mere two years after the original Climategate which exposed massive deception perpetrated by the scientists promulgating the theory of anthropogenic global warming, a massive batch of previously unreleased hacked emails have been released.

The emails were hacked by an unknown entity and contain private correspondence between both British and American scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

This comes a mere five days before almost 200 countries are sending delegates to Durban, South Africa to attempt to come to an agreement on a new internationally recognized global warming treaty which would create the current treaty which is going to expire next year, called the Kyoto Protocol.

The major so-called scientists exposed in the original Climategate scandal return with a vengeance including Michael Mann, Ken Trenberth, Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tom Wigley revealing the fact that they once again are deceiving the public.

The new dump of emails paints the promoters of man-made global warming in quite an ugly light indeed, showing that they are continuing to exaggerate the extent of global warming by privately admitting that the evidence in support of their position is quite lacking indeed.

As James Delingpole, a blogger for the British Telegraph, aptly put it, “what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.”

Yet the promoters of the anthropogenic global warming theory that is abused by criminals like Al Gore in order to rob the world blind in the name of saving the world continue to pretend it is based on hard science.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the George Soros funded Media Matters continues to promote the discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its recent report that claims “climate change will likely worsen certain extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, droughts and storms.”

Hopefully the rest of the media will not be ignorant enough to ignore the massive and widespread fraudulent activity of the scientists involved in promoting the man-made global warming theory.

That being said, the British Independent writes that, “A series of reviews in Britain and the US later cleared researchers of any scientific impropriety and said the affair had not undermined the scientific basis of global warming,” although to anyone who read the emails this conclusion seems a bit absurd.

UEA did not yet officially confirm if the emails were real while saying that they indeed “had the appearance” of being part of the batch of original Climategate emails that were released in 2009.

The emails date from before 2009 and are between the foremost researchers in the field of climate change in both the United States and the United Kingdom, which includes a leading figure in the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office, Sir John Houghton.

Of course so-called climate experts are claiming that, once again, the emails do not undermine the anthropogenic global warming theory, regardless of the fact that, as the Independent puts it, they “show climate scientists squabbling, politicking, calling each other names and, in effect, plotting how to present their information in the best possible light.”

If the data was truly there, the science would be irrefutable and there would be no need to attempt to put information in “the best possible light.”

Did Newton scheme about how to present his information in order to give the best possible impression? Of course not, if it is true science, there is no need for politicking and “plotting how to present their information in the best possible light.”

To any real scientist, this should be an affront to everything that science stands for, yet Bob Ward of the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change claims, “The emails… do not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed by the independent inquiries into the original publication of hacked messages in November 2009.”

“None of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or serious misconduct by climate researchers, but they did conclude that levels of transparency should be improved. These emails, like the last batch, show that climate researchers are human and prone to the same rivalries and disputes that occur in many professions,” Ward told the Independent.

How can Ward make such a clearly demonstrably false assertion? I’m not quite sure but it appears he has a dogmatic attachment to the theory of man-made global warming that allows him to completely set aside reality in favor of his manufactured paradigm.

For instance, Geoff Jenkins who was formerly the head of climate change prediction at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre wrote, “Would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for Kilimanjaro glaciermelt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?”

Phil Jones, the Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote, “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […]”

How exactly does discounting a “wealth” of studies showing no rise in temperatures in the tropical troposphere “not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed” as Ward asserts?

Jones also made a quite damning comment in writing, “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts [such as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which would require giving information to the public]. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”

If the science is legitimate, what need would there be to delete any emails? I’m not sure how Ward and others can take such blatant examples of misconduct in stride.

Another example of the science being discounted by the second Climategate leak is seen when the researchers mention the snow and ice cover on Mount Kilimanjaro which Al Gore cited as proof of man-made global warming in his propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

As Anthony Watts covered (also see this article),  an email from Phil Jones to Geoff Jenkins of the UK Met Office reads, “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.”

Jenkins wrote, “I got [P]hilip [B]rohan to look at temps there (see attached) and there isn[‘]t any convincing consistent recent warming in the station data. […] would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for [K]ilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?”

Clearly the science of climate change is far from settled and the claims being made by so-called climate change experts are far from accurate and truthful.

I find it somewhat disturbing that these “scientists” would be so comfortable deceiving the entire world in order to justify an enormous scam like carbon trading.

I sincerely hope that the establishment media doesn’t choose to ignore or selectively cover this latest leak as it is damning evidence showing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is far from the iron-clad science they are making it out to be.

If you would like to explore the leaked emails yourself, take a look here where they are all made available to the public and even available to search or browse through.

I encourage anyone and everyone to actually take it upon themselves to look through these and decide for yourself if you side with the so-called experts or those who think that science shouldn’t be a politicized and misrepresented field.

One Response to Here we go again: Climategate 2.0

  1. Jo November 23, 2011 at 8:49 AM

    What a scam! I hope noone buys this crap anymore


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>