How does it feel?

by Consti Tution on November 25, 2009

Consti here walking through the bunker’s eco-dome where I am studying the effects of artificial sunlight on environmental scientists. If I test it on the plants it would be cruel. Trees have feelings you know. In what arguably could be the news story of the decade the MSM as usual has ignored the story of the Global Warming e-mails. If you haven’t heard about it I am not surprised. Basically a hacker broke into the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England and exposed 60gb of Data and e-mails. (The info in the article states 160 GB, but earlier stories reported it as 60.) Information so damming as to raise the question; Was Global Warming an entire hoax?

Here’s an editorial and some other links on it since there hasn’t been any “hard” press on the story. I am sure as time progresses more will trickle out, but spin control is already up and running. Think ACORN. For those of you who don t know the CRU is considered the TOP authority on climate change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

or

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

“Now Consti you are just jumping to conclusions! There is more material than just that little bit to support Al Gore’s Global Warming!” True, but let me take you further down the Global Warming trail. You might be surprised where it leads. From the beginning the Global Warming craze sounded like it was being run by the SEIU. Skeptics within the scientific community (the pier review) were labeled “deniers”, had been locked out of the research data, and their funding threatened. As well as their lives in some cases. The people conducting the research refused to release the hard data for review.  Despite over 200 hundred scientists globally signing onto a statement that the data wasn’t complete Al Gore and the IPCC claimed the debate was over. Just like that any dissenting voices were silenced and labeled “kooks”. Sounds like Alinsky rules to me.

In the U.K. there was a court of inquiry about An Inconvient Truth. A case where a British judge found nine (9) glaring errors in the movie being force fed to school children. If asked about the errors these days Mr. Gore simply responds; “The final finding was in favor of the movie”.

Now according to the leaked e-mails that the CRU admits were taken, but refuse to verify it looks as if a lot of the data to prove Global Warming was manipulated or outright faked. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].” Now I work in IT and have used the term ‘trick’ before to mean a shortcut in process. However, I ve never used it followed by the phrase, ‘to hide’. But wait! There s more!

Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and, “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Additionally he and others mentioned in the e-mails express a need to talk others into the destruction of data in regards to the flawed science. There are even discussions about how to discredit or omit the warming data from the medieval times. You know the data that says there was more warming in those times than there is today.

‘But Consti why should I care if a bunch of square, egg-heads don t know what they are talking about then?’ Good question. Here s your one word answer, money. And lots of it! Cap and trade is the signature piece of Obama legislature for global warming. It is in fact a HUGE tax on businesses and middle to low income families. Heating costs are actually raised by the legislation over $1000 a year per family. General Electric (GE) is HUGE into the green industry right now and is working behind the scenes with government to promote a legislation that will net them TRILLIONS in profit! Al Gore and his investments in green tech built outside this country (remember being green saves jobs) stands to make him the first eco-billionaire. All the while stumping for government legislation to force a flawed policy down the American throat. Never mind the man behind the curtain! The one who FLIES to all his Earth Day and Global Warming speeches. Or the fact that his home uses 20X more power than anyone else in his state. These people GE, Al Gore, and the government all stand to make a killing in Green tech. That translates into YOUR MONEY! Cleaning up from a broken Green light bulb in your home can cost you over $8,000 since it s considered an environmental hazard! (CFC and methyl-mercury specifically.)

This is all based on what now appears to be junk science. All the promises of Green jobs and a better environment are a bunch of Barbara Streisand (BS). It s another form of control over the public. And the staggering display of ‘do as we say not as we do’ from Al Gore and the rest of the Green lobby makes my jaw drop every time! Doesn t our pal Al know that flying in planes kills the planet! Or that the steak he just ate took 10 years off the life of the planet? Doesn t anyone care that Global Warming is causing prostitution?

I am willing to bet that ‘the One’ won t mention the scandal next month in Copenhagen. So I ask all you Global warming believers out there how it feels to have been lied to. How does it feel to know what they are forcing on your kids in school is based on a lie from liars only interested in their research money? The call for a Congressional investigation is exactly what we need in an addition to a moratorium on ALL Green legislation and policy until the truth is told.

Do you demand the facts, or drink the Global Warming cool-aid?

Consti.

{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }

Anonymous December 1, 2009 at 1:06 am

Erik,

From their own website. Any group that started with any sort of political affiliation and is looking to fight strictly “liberal bias of the media” should instantly be suspect when it comes to their objectivity as well. Please use objective and unbiased sources if you are trying to prove a point, not the John Birch Society and various right wing, conservative and fundamentalist blogs. That is not “fact” any more than if I found the most liberal of publications and sites to prove my point. If I want propoganda, it isn’t hard to find, but propoganda is still that and is not proof of anything.

About the MRC (Media Research Center)

The mission of the Media Research Center, “America’s Media Watchdog,” is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public’s understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

Reply

Consti November 30, 2009 at 10:08 pm

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

HAHAHAHAHA!! That’s funny. Distriction of data despite a FOIA request! This just gets better and better. Now the IPCC has done exactly what I said it would. According to the IPCC head, the scientists were “indiscreete”. And he goes after the hacker.

Hate to be the one to say it….

but I told you so.

Reply

Consti November 29, 2009 at 1:11 am

I like that word… unimpeachable.

I don’t want to give the impression that I condone what the hacker did. It was and is a crime if caught they should do the time. Period.

Shuold the e-mails be dismissed out of hand because of this crime? No.

It’s too important to humanity and our tax laws that the science be spot on. The fact that the CRU has so far dodged any responsibility to discredit these mails is telling in of itself. Especially since it’s reputation is on the line. Any good science be it genetics, astronomy, mathmatics, etc should be replicable. 100% Global warming science is not there, and if these e-mails turn out to be true then ALL faith in the sciences will suffer. As my algebra teacher in HS used to preach…. show your work.

The CRU needs to come clean and go public or they will be hung in the cort of opinion. (such as ours)

Reply

Erik the Red November 29, 2009 at 12:35 am

dfunzy,

Gavin Scmidt is just one scientist. I used the Wizard of Oz analogy in one of my earlier comments. Apparently the discovered contents of these hacked emails is so damning, that even some top-tier global warming supporters are breaking a sweat (and not because of higher global temperatures either).

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091123052812.aspx

Reply

dfunzy November 29, 2009 at 12:04 am

For those with the interest and the time, the stolen emails can be read on line. (link)

Last night on his show Art Bell, who believes that global warming is real, said he read the emails and found no smoking gun. I scanned a few. I may read more later.

Leading scientists, such as Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context (link)

Any way read and see for yourselves.

Reply

Consti November 28, 2009 at 11:19 am

Here’s the best explanation I have heard yet:
“But the deniers’ campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

Reply

Consti November 28, 2009 at 10:35 am

SilverWun,

What ever you are taking… up the dosage.

And I am not an infadel, I am a pagan. Get it right.

Reply

Erik The Red November 28, 2009 at 10:33 am

For anyone interested, “Anonymous” is Erik the Red. I did not enter my name as Anonymous – it must be a site glitch. It happened on another article as well.

Reply

SilverWun November 28, 2009 at 10:31 am

You are, on the face of it, an infidel who works for the Evil One who would deprive us of our virgins after the sky falls.

That Hell will ever ‘freeze over’ is a false prophecy and your faith is misguided.

I’ll keep my thermometer in the wind and pray for your conversion. See you at the Oscars!

Reply

Consti November 28, 2009 at 10:30 am

Dfunzy,

You state; “Our judgment should be based on the science, not on the opinions of pols or on the interest of the oil, gas coal business.” And I completely agree with you. However, if the science is flawed what then?

Since the CRU won’t release the data to peer review we only have their word for it. There is no supporting data and many in the science community itself doubt the CRU’s findings. But since they won’t release the data to peer review there is no way of validating their claims.

Someone talked about buying a rolex of a masked man in an alley. I say they have done the same thing with global warming since we can’t review the data.

I don’t “blindly” believe everything I read, hear, or am told. Neither should any intelligent human. However that is exactly what the CRU wants us to do. IF they have nothing to hide and the science is sound RELEASE THE DATA TO PEER REVIEW!! Like ALL scientists do.

Other wise you are buying the rolex of global warming.

Reply

Anonymous November 28, 2009 at 10:24 am

dfunzy,

Your first paragraph more accurately describes the Gore crowd than does the second paragraph. Gore made a whole lot of money by exploiting a theory that is now gaining momentum as being manufactured. Gore is in that group you described as starting a war for oil. Gore invented the internet, remember? Surely he could have invented a more powerful firewall for his phony files, right? These hackers are likely criminal, but also likely don’t have the clout to do those other things you describe. All of the thieving, fraudulent people you mentioned are following the same playbook that Gore is, except that Gore just happens to be their face regarding this one topic. Of course, as Consti pointed out, his face has suddenly been hard to find. I can give you three hints of how to recognize it when you see it:

(1) It will be munching on some crow;
(2) It will be trying to save itself;
(3) It will have a bunch of eggs on it.

Gore is not on the “other side”. He doesn’t care about ecology. If he did he wouldn’t drive his three SUVs and live in a multi-thousand square foot mansion that consumes tons of energy. He would take some of his gazillions of dollars and distribute it evenly like a good little Socialite instead of spending it on the “feel-good” items he has purchased. Yet few of the “responsible, enviro-conscious” crowd ever seem to think twice about that hypocrisy. Do I have a problem with a person in America having success? Positively not! But when they do it at the expense of millions of duped people around the world for the purposes he has stated, that is troubling.

Reply

Consti November 28, 2009 at 10:15 am

Again… the CRU REFUSES to release the data on global warming to peer review. Why is that? What do they have to hide? And why won’t they verify the validity of the mails? Smells like they have something to hide. Now a credible scientist would release the data to peer review to gain credibility in the science community… why won’t the CRU? As I satated before, you focus on the hacker, not the data uncovered. If as you say the e-mails aren’t valid due to criminal activity then I say global warming isn’t real because they won’t release the data to peer review. Or discredit the validity of the e-mails. While I know it is possible to fake content of e-mails faking the header information is not that easy. It’s very simple for someone with technical knowledge to determine where the mails originated from or if they are faked.

Is there man made polution? Yes. Is there man made global warming? The data is inconclusive, and now in doubt.

Don’t forget while you are talking about cabals trying to keep or make money so do scientists in the form of GOVERNMENT funding. So keep in mind the money is also a motivator on BOTH sides. And the scientific community is just as compliciant. How noble their intentions is a laugh, since they are paid to do the research. So don’t forget the old axiom, job security.

There is an old saying we database people use often; junk in – junk out. If the science is flawed then the entire concept is tossed out the window, and any GOOD scientist will tell you that. You can’t base findings on flawed data. And since they refuse to provide the data to peer review then why should we trust that the data is accurate.

Focus on the hacker, never mind the man behind the curtain. While he quietly picks your pocket.

Reply

dfunzy November 27, 2009 at 9:25 pm

The case of the stolen emails? Is it a mystery? Not really. There is a whole of money on the table. And the big players are playing for keeps. They play hard. The big money boys and gals will do anything to have their way. A little theft. A little fraud. A little misrepresentation is nothing. This is the sort of crowd who will start a war so that they can manipulate the price of oil. To save themselves billions, they will slaughter millions. Or they will sell you a pile of dung and say, don’t worry about the smell, just eat up.

Now on the other side is Al Gore and his ecology crowd. What do they have to gain? Could be a more healthier planet? Al Gore has been accused of being in the game for the money. Gore inherited money and there are easier ways for a rich man to make money, than to put him out there to be a target.

Gore is a pol who set out to sound an alarm. You don’t sound an alarm by talking softly, and sometimes you walk on the R’s and the T’s don’t always get crossed. His mission was to draw people’s attention to a danger. Our judgment should be based on the science, not on the opinions of pols or on the interest of the oil, gas coal business.

Oh yes? I see, a commenter mentioned the Russian connection in this case of the stolen files? Well, Russia is a big producer of oil and gas. Just a thought.

Reply

JFesta November 27, 2009 at 3:56 pm

Consti (whomever you are),

If these documents had been obtained by legal means I d be willing to consider them. The fact of the matter is these documents are stolen. If the act of obtaining the information is not legitimate there is no reason to believe that the information contained therein has not been tampered with. By virtue of the way they were obtained and released these documents are fruit from the poisoned tree. Had these documents been obtained by legal means, FOIA, Congressional or legal Subpoena, etc. I would be more than willing to take them as true and factual.

The source counts. The most damning piece of evidence means nothing if the source is not reliable and the facts independently verifiable. The fact the aggrieved party will not comment on the documents is not proof that the documents and the facts the contain are legitimate, that is supposition. Verify the documents authenticity and I will happily concede to you the facts within.

Reply

Erik the Red November 27, 2009 at 3:30 pm

jfesta,

Sure you’ll take these documents as dubious! Fortunately, unless there is something I don’t know, you are likely not going to be called to be an expert witness for this case, if it ever gets that far. As a matter of fact, neither will I. Even if they succeed in finding and arresting the hackers and “closing” the case, it would be similar to the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy had already seen the puppet master and wouldn’t ignore that fact no matter what he told her to believe. The same will hold true with the public. A case largely without merit that has attempted to be sold to the world community (with a lot of success, I might add) has been coming apart at the seams for quite a while. This situation is only going to increase that momentum.

If you look at my first comment, your input was totally predictable. You are using a common fallacy technique that involves discrediting the hackers before you even have the full story. In addition, the discoveries made from this mulititude of emails pretty much lays out a map of what has been going on regarding “Man-made global warming”. However, based on your statements, I am guessing that you aren’t going to pay attention to the context of those emails – the context that confirms that this whole thing was invented because of an underlying agenda. As I’ve said many times, I am not suggesting that there is not legitimate pollution that needs to be controlled – that would be plain silly. What I am suggesting is that “they” (Gore Inc) are exploiting the situation in order to collect more revenue and to control the masses. They have even gotten to the point where they are suggesting that humanity is the problem. Well, this sect of humans have proven that a tiny portion of humanity IS the problem. Their exposed lies, deceit and hypocrisy have done the trick.

Reply

consti November 27, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Jfesta

The CRU admitted to the break in but won’t verify the authenticity. Ask yourself why is that? Especiall since they won’t share their data to peer review. As I stated instead of looking at the info the spin will be about the hacker. So far you are true to form and my statement holds sound. Congrats. You are part of the spin machine. Additionally if you read the article closely you will see I used the term allegedly. So really you are not addressing the data just the crime. Just like I predicted it will be the same spin they used for ACORN. That makes your statement predictable. But thank you for sharing your opinion.

Reply

JFesta November 27, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Let me see if I understand this. A hacker (that s all we know) some nameless, nefarious character online, from parts unknown, commits a crime by illegally entering a secured database and stealing thousands of e-mails and documents, and posts them on a file sharing site in Russia. Russia, a country known to be, among others, a hotbed of electronic fraud, theft and espionage.

Now, we are to believe that this internet second story man has only the noblest of intentions and published these documents in pristine shape, completely unmolested, for the good of the people on a files haring site based in a country known to be a leader in electronic crimes. This is the equivalent of a masked man selling you stolen goods in a dark ally and taking his word for it that what you re buying is genuine. I would invite anyone to buy a Rolex under similar circumstances and be happy with what you get.

You can believe in the fruits of this thief s labors if you wish, considering the anonymous and felonious source, I ll take the authenticity of these documents as dubious at best.

Reply

Erik the Red November 27, 2009 at 8:23 am

Laura,

First, it is fine if you throw criticism my way, I expect it and can handle it. But, to suggest that “Maybe because it does not come from the John Birch society, it can t be true ” really isn’t fair since I use links and verifiable data from a variety of sources. It just so happens that the JBS has an impeccable record over the course of 51 years.

Next, this is just what Consti and I were discussing: that people are going to try to use smokescreens to distract people from the most important situation here, and that is the one that has to do with the fact that the Global Warming Hoax is becoming unraveled. This isn’t at all a surprise since it had a flimsy foundation (at best) to begin with. Yet there will always be those who choose to inject statistics from the CBO and others to try to take a person’s eye off the ball. For you to say “But I m sure you ll quote CBO figures all day when it suits you ” only suggests that they aren’t objective or, at least, not reliable. They use the “non-partisan” label just like Fox News uses the “Fair and Balanced” label.

Oh, and speaking of the CBO, this is the same CBO that claimed Medicare would only cost 500 million dollars a year over 50 years. They were only 1,000 times off. I would prefer to hang my hat on the opinion of an organization who has a proven favorable track record regarding statistics. Also, keep in mind that the $1,761 per household number wasn’t pulled out of a hat. It was based on the proposed costs of health care “reform” divided by the number of American households. The number of $175 is based on a cost of approximately only 10% of the original one. But we all know what is going on here. They will try to win over the public by proposing the program with the smaller number and then pull out the rug after it’s been implemented.

Reply

consti November 26, 2009 at 12:44 pm

And since old Al put himself out in the public eye as a supposed expert then he deserves to have any finger pointed at him for decieving the public. Funny you haven’t heard anything from him about the mails. Its also funny that Obama’s science czar is implicated in the mails as well. But of course that doesn’t count because they are lying “for the greater good” of their wallets that is.

Reply

consti November 26, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Laura,

BTW even though I am currently in the hospital please don’t think for a minute that I will refrain from pointing out yet again your attempts to belittle the facts I provide to suit your narrow view. I may be sick but I am far from the ignorant partisan you attempt to portray me as. As you can clearly read I state there is more to it than just these leaked mails you don’t even try to deny. However if the science is based on a lie then NO LEGISLATION is credible period. That would be laws based on a lie and only serve to seperate the american public from their money.

Reply

consti November 26, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Laura

As always you are welcome to your opinion. I have nothing personally against gore and if he was a republican I would be saying the same thing. Anyone who profits from deception is a dirty liar. Ala bernie maddoff. However this exactly the type of rant I would expect from you. So I suggest you read my post again and a little more carefully this time.

Eric

Spot on. Exactly what I would have said.

Reply

consti November 26, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Kevin,

You assumptions are yours to bear, but refrain from vulgarity since it makes you look very ignorant. If you can’t argue points and only want to call names then you can go back to the internet hole you crawled from

Reply

Laura Bramble November 26, 2009 at 8:29 am

Or in case you won’t take the time to click on the link to the actual CBO Director’s Report…Cause then you can still deny it as more “Green/Gore propoganda”…

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300

Reply

Laura Bramble November 26, 2009 at 8:23 am

CBO says cap and trade will only cost taypayers $175 a year BEFORE economic benefits
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_11/020948.php

But then again, that wouldn’t be the first time that you ignored facts that did not suit what you wanted to believe…Maybe because it does not come from the John Birch society, it can’t be true… But I’m sure you’ll quote CBO figures all day when it suits you…

Reply

Erik the Red November 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Laura,

I’m not sure if you’re addressing Consti or me, or both, but I’ll answer anyway (Consti Tution, I hope you don’t mind if I chime in).

First, it’s good to see you again. I was honestly growing concerned.

The actual household number is $1,700. Please look it up again.

I don’t point my finger at Al Gore because he is a Democrat, I point my finger at him because he capitalizes on a LIE. He is obviously not the only one who uses a gas-guzzler (more than one, actually), but he is in a minority of people who make a gazillion dollars on something that he clearly doesn’t believe to be so. He exploits a scare which, as I stated in my post, is obviously not about global warming at all, but is about getting people to believe there is so that an elite few can grow rich(er) off of them.

Regarding the timing of global warming and the industrial revolution, there have been huge heating and cooling trends since mankind could observe and write about it. If you recall, there was an Ice Age scare earlier in the 20th century.

Reply

Laura Bramble November 25, 2009 at 6:44 pm

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost to families will be $175 a year during the retooling, but will go down after retooling is done. Guess you ignored that link in a previous post…

Shouldn’t businesses who have invested in green technology (which goes way beyond just global warming) be rewarded for not taking the cheap and easy way out by using non-renewable resources and by keeping old technology? I think they should. There are other environmental issues out there than global warming that are part of the green movement, so to say that NO green legislation should be passed because of uncertainty on global warming is just an excuse to do nothing- which is the way that the bulk of corporate America wants it because then they won’t have to spend the money to refit anything or research alternatives.

As for Al Gore- besides the fact that you have an obvious dislike for the man- he is a Democrat, so there ya go- stop pointing the finger solely at him. All those Americans out there driving non-fuel efficient vehicles, who waste electricity by not turning off lights and appliances and who commute long distances without carpooling or taking public transportation do far more damage than he does. But what are you worried about and why are you on his case if there is no global warming? You just removed your excuse to get on his case about anything.

Whether global warming is real or not, the environments and climates of this earth are changing and the change happened to take off right around the time that industrialization took off as a world wide phenomenon. I find it hard to believe that it is solely a coincidence. The fact that we are blowing through resources is no coincidence. The fact that we have permanently changed water tables and drainage in major ways is not a coincidence. And those are just the tip of the iceberg. If CO2 is not responsible,could it be possible that it is something else we did? I think so.

Pointing to the supposed non-existance of global warming cannot be used as an excuse to deny responsibility for the harmful things that we have done to the environment (as some here have done.)

Reply

Kevin November 25, 2009 at 6:27 pm

I know that trying to discuss this with you would be like discussing evolution with a creationist, or the holocaust with a denier, so I’m just going to tell you to touch a damn dick.

Reply

Consti November 25, 2009 at 11:22 am

Yep, just like ACORN the focus will try to be shifted to the hacker that exposed this lie as opposed to the facts uncovered. Keep this story moving and just maybe there will be some actual press on it.

Google Al Gore and you should find that image.

Reply

Erik the Red November 25, 2009 at 10:52 am

Yep, it’s all true. I was talking about this months ago, except from a slightly different angle and, of course, was brushed off as a flake. As you say, this is going to be spun like an old-fashioned wive’s tale but many in the world community were already growing wary.

What the Gore-ites and their followers are likely going to do is try to refocus everyone’s attention on how someone hacked the email and distract them from the real issue at hand, which is the inconvenient truth that global warming (based on their definition) is a BIG FAT LIE!

Oh, and it’s not going to be $1,000 per household, it’s going to be closer to $1,700.

By the way, where did you get that picture? I’m envious!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: