The Warmergate Scandal

[Oddball]

The press's view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a "consensus" based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one."

Settled Science? - WSJ.com

Jeez....I've been saying that for years!

 

[Oddball]

The "out of context" ploy debunked here:

CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story « Watts Up With That?

 

[Oddball]

Looks like I'm not the only one to recognize the questionable practice of parroting the line that this is a product of a hacking:

Incidentally, also note how all of these outlets emphasize as fact, up front, that these documents, codes, data and emails are the product of “hackers” (this has grown from “a hacker” when the story first ran, though no outlet has offered any explanation for that change let alone evidence of the hacking). They simply accept that the University of East Anglia’s computers were hacked, on the word of people who are shown by what was hacked to be liars and charlatans and who have an interest in making the story be something other than the substance of the material.

I do not know if the computers were hacked. I do know that there is just as much reason to suspect that the documents were posted by someone on the inside who still possesses a conscience, a “whistleblower”. Remember that this incident occurred after the most recent and audacious twist in the university’s Climatic Research Unit refusal of access to basic raw data and other material necessary to validate their claims serving as the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol (and Kyoto II), “cap-and-trade”, and so on. This was a four-year campaign to hide material — a campaign whose tactics were also admitted to in the alleged emails now made public.

Big Government » Blog Archive » Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!

 

[Sinatra]

Looks like I'm not the only one to recognize the questionable practice of parroting the line that this is a product of a hacking:

Incidentally, also note how all of these outlets emphasize as fact, up front, that these documents, codes, data and emails are the product of “hackers” (this has grown from “a hacker” when the story first ran, though no outlet has offered any explanation for that change let alone evidence of the hacking). They simply accept that the University of East Anglia’s computers were hacked, on the word of people who are shown by what was hacked to be liars and charlatans and who have an interest in making the story be something other than the substance of the material.

I do not know if the computers were hacked. I do know that there is just as much reason to suspect that the documents were posted by someone on the inside who still possesses a conscience, a “whistleblower”. Remember that this incident occurred after the most recent and audacious twist in the university’s Climatic Research Unit refusal of access to basic raw data and other material necessary to validate their claims serving as the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol (and Kyoto II), “cap-and-trade”, and so on. This was a four-year campaign to hide material — a campaign whose tactics were also admitted to in the alleged emails now made public.

Big Government » Blog Archive » Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!

YES - the individual or individuals are just as likely if not more so to be whistleblowers - not "hackers".

Ladies and gentlemen, (and Ravi) you are witnessing the dismantling of a global conspiracy - the collusion of government/corporate-sponsored scientists working to forge far-reaching policy of many for the considerable benefit of the very few.

 

[Sinatra]

Dr Timothy Ball regarding the emails. Of particular note are his comments regarding the highly manipulated peer review process, the control of the Hadley global temperature data, and the collusion within the academic publishing world regarding the topic of global warming...

___

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac[/ame]

 

[Ravi]

The "out of context" ploy debunked here:

CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story « Watts Up With That?

Google this: decline tree ring 1960 climate

and you'll find out what the "decline" was, more than you'll ever want to know about tree rings, and why my favorite comment at your link was

Once again, you guys are making mountains out of ant hills. This is just normal data processing per the 1960 divergence problem as shown by NUMEROUS sources. This is what happens when a bunch of uninformed amateurs try and “debunk” real scientists. Leave the science to the scientists and go back to your day jobs as custodians, wal-mart employees and laborers.

 

[Oddball]

A timeline of events that also tends to debunk the "hackers" angle:

CRU Refuses FOI Request « Climate Audit – mirror site

Looks like an insider with a conscience couldn't abide blatant disregard for and stonewalling of FOIA requests.

 

[Ravi]

Looks like I'm not the only one to recognize the questionable practice of parroting the line that this is a product of a hacking:

Incidentally, also note how all of these outlets emphasize as fact, up front, that these documents, codes, data and emails are the product of “hackers” (this has grown from “a hacker” when the story first ran, though no outlet has offered any explanation for that change let alone evidence of the hacking). They simply accept that the University of East Anglia’s computers were hacked, on the word of people who are shown by what was hacked to be liars and charlatans and who have an interest in making the story be something other than the substance of the material.

I do not know if the computers were hacked. I do know that there is just as much reason to suspect that the documents were posted by someone on the inside who still possesses a conscience, a “whistleblower”. Remember that this incident occurred after the most recent and audacious twist in the university’s Climatic Research Unit refusal of access to basic raw data and other material necessary to validate their claims serving as the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol (and Kyoto II), “cap-and-trade”, and so on. This was a four-year campaign to hide material — a campaign whose tactics were also admitted to in the alleged emails now made public.

Big Government » Blog Archive » Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!

"Big Government" Why not just link to Ann Coulter? Maybe eots and Terral have a place for you on their conspiracy theory board of directors.

 

[Oddball]

"Big Government" Why not just link to Ann Coulter? Maybe eots and Terral have a place for you on their conspiracy theory board of directors.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?"

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

 

[Charles_Main]

The great 'global warming' hoax

The great 'global warming' hoax
Posted: November 23, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

While all eyes focus on the unfolding drama of the "health-care reform–health-insurance reform–jobs bill," another critical part of the "Change America" plan just took a torpedo midships.

Some 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit at the U.K.'s University of East Anglia (where the "world's leading climate scientists work") have been leaked. The blogosphere is on fire – cover-up, falsified studies, intimidation of skeptics. It's all there.

and

Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the fact that from 1998 to 2008 (the last full year of surface temperature readings), the Earth did not keep warming (as the models had predicted). It actually cooled. Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the dramatic drop in the number and severity of Atlantic hurricanes when both the models and Gore had predicted ever more Katrinas every year.

Now this. The final nail in the "climate change" dogma's coffin?

The CRU e-mails expose a priesthood in inquisition mode, masquerading as scientists and protecting their preconceived conclusions from any contradictory data or the questioning of skeptical scientists. For example, the leaked (or hacked) e-mail correspondence includes fundamental challenges to the validity of Siberian tree-ring studies that helped "prove" anthropogenic global warming, and supported the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report – a report that Gore has waved everywhere like a bloody shirt, saying the debate on global warming "is over."

While the blogosphere buzzed all weekend with the contents of these e-mails (see for example powerlineblog.com) and analyzed what many began calling the biggest scientific scandal of all time, the Old Media went into protection mode. This scandal threatens the whole scientific rationale underpinning the campaign for world government, higher taxes and a decreased standard of living for all (except the Chinese). You'd never know it in the Old Media. The New York Times reported it as a third-rate e-mail burglary "causing a stir among global warming skeptics."

I have been saying for years this was some BS driven by the desire to control and to make money.

Not that I expect any of you libs to believe it.

on a funny side not. the NY times, who has no trouble publishing our nation Defense secrets, has put out the lame ass excuse that these Emails were taken out of context, and that they will not publish "emails that were never meant for the public to see"

can you say Bullshit

 

[Ravi]

You may call it whatever you wish. I do not make a habit of believing partisan blog sites.

I hope your research on tree rings and climate data goes well.

 

[Oddball]

I don't suppose you've noticed the absence of the usual "experts" on this subject, and that you and Jay Canschmuck are the only ones who've defended these charlatans, have you?

 

[eots]

shouldn't his be in conspiracy theories ?....sorry but I have waited for years to say that

 

[Ravi]

An ad hominem attack? The horror.

 

[Jay Canuck]

so exactly how many scientists have been implicated in this hacking drama?

 

[Jay Canuck]

Prof. Dud I didn't defend anyone. If there is a guilty party then I hope they are discredited and face the consequences of their actions and when they do I will still believe what 90% of the worlds credible scientists have to say about climate change over douchebag posters like you.

 

[Oddball]

so exactly how many scientists have been implicated in this hacking drama?

All of them at CRU and those with whom they've corresponded, including people at NASA and NOAA.

This is getting bigger by the minute.

BTW...The amount of information released so far (about 250Gs) would've taken considerable time to hack, zip and burn to a CD or flash drive, leaving a clear trail back to a server and subsequently to the hacker.

This is definitely an insider dropping the dime.

 

[Ravi]

Prof. Dud I didn't defend anyone. If there is a guilty party then I hope they are discredited and face the consequences of their actions and when they do I will still believe what 90% of the worlds credible scientists have to say about climate change over douchebag posters like you.

Yep.

 

[Ravi]

The hacker/hackers should get spanked as well.

A hack that exposed thousands of private e-mails and documents about global warming from a University of East Anglia climate change research center Friday could be used for more malicious attacks down the road, as hackers use cybercrime to further political agendas, security experts say. "Because they took a lot of e-mails, there's a little bit of an extra risk. Their company has been a victim of an attack," said Chester Wisniewski, senior security advisor for Sophos. "Once you know everyone's e-mail addresses, it makes you much more susceptible to phishing attacks."

http://www.crn.com/security/221900742;jsessionid=PIS3DSTXIVYMLQE1GHOSKH4ATMY32JVN

 

[eots]

"Big Government" Why not just link to Ann Coulter? Maybe eots and Terral have a place for you on their conspiracy theory board of directors.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?"

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

I see..so whats this technique called ?....but ravi we want you for our conspiracy board of
directors as I much prefer your conspiracy theory that polar bear hating criminals have falsified information to support the polar bear hating tinfoil haters that believe in this conspiracy that there is some sort of big government at work and global warming is a tax grab and denying the reality we have a small and benevolent government and its getting hotter than hades in here...