How hard will the corrupt activist media work to bury this explosive story? Many of us have exposed the hoax of climate change as revealed by legitimate, responsible scientists for years, but still the elites rob us blind and torment us with legislation, regulation on "the greatest threat facing humanity" (akbar!). The Goreacle stuffs his gourd with his "carbon footprint" ill gotten gains (110 million and counting).
TC sent this: "Unknown alleged Russian entity allegedly hacked into computers of a major center of 'global warming' hoax manufacturing (the Hadley Climate Research Unit of U. of East Anglia, England) obtained 1079 emails and 72 files containing nearly 4000 documents on 'global warming,' which if true - will prove that this is the greatest of all hoaxes ever posted and documentation on the internet. (Get this - the file name containing the allegedly hacked info was FOI2009 = ref to 'freedom of information' act ...) That site/webpage has been shut down, not to worry - here are three more sources for the entire 61 mb file (these may be shut down soon too).
Caution: legal action is already being threatened by the "global warming" scammers against anyone who posts/reprints/distributes any of their allegedly hacked emails and or documentation (thereby confirming veracity and their guilt -- these guys are scientists?)"
Legal action is threatened for uncovering the biggest theft in human history. Got that?
"Attached file contains a few examples (screen shots) of the emails alleged to have been hacked from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (a.k.a. Hadley CRU) computers. The hack originates from somewhere (still apparently unknown) in Russia. The hacker(s) have released 61 megabites of confidential files. You can see the hacker(s)' original internet notice to all interested ('This is a limited time offer, download now...'). That site (apparently originating in Tomsk, (Siberia) Russia, is now down/closed). Links to stories already in public view:"
"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?" by James Delingpole
While hacking into the institute's records is inappropriate if not illegal, the activities disclosed appear illegal and damaging to science and the economies of the world.
At first many of us were inclined to dismiss the posted emails from the Institute as fraud, but the head of the institute admits the records were hacked and the emails seem genuine.
Here is a sample of the purportedly hacked material (1079 emails and 72 documents) available online:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
>Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***
Thomas Lifson adds:
Read the rest here.
Nor do they question their hunch — the idea doesn’t even rise to the level of theory — that CO2 emissions are causing climate change even as there are ample reasons to doubt it.
Anticipating such alarmist efforts, Dr. Ross McKitrick, the brilliant University of Guelph Economics Professor who helped debunk the Hockey Stick fraudulence of Mann et al, called their bluff in this June 12, 2007 Op-Ed. McKitrick’s full argumentation, including his mathematical modeling can be read here (McKitrick, Ross. “A Simple State-Contingent Pricing Rule for Complex Intertemporal Externalities,” July 1, 2008, at the Social Research Network site).
McKitrick’s premise is simple—and wait for this—evidence-based!
Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered
The IPCC [Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change] predicts a warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the surface, implying about 0.2C to 1.2C per decade in the tropical troposphere under greenhouse-forcing scenarios. That implies the tax will climb by $4 to $24 per ton per decade, a much more aggressive schedule of emission fee increases than most current proposals. At the upper end of warming forecasts, the tax could reach $200 per ton of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources.
Global-warming activists would like this. But so would skeptics, because they believe the models are exaggerating the warming forecasts. After all, the averaged UAH [University of Alabama-Huntsville] / RSS [Remote Sensing Systems] tropical troposphere series went up only about 0.08C over the past decade, and has been going down since 2002. Some solar scientists even expect pronounced cooling to begin in a decade. If they are right, the T3 tax will fall below zero within two decades, turning into a subsidy for carbon emissions.
At this point the global-warming alarmists would leap up to slam the proposal. But not so fast, Mr. Gore: The tax would only become a carbon subsidy if all the climate models are wrong, if greenhouse gases are not warming the atmosphere, and if the sun actually controls the climate. Alarmists sneeringly denounce such claims as “denialism,” so they can hardly reject the policy on the belief that they are true.
Under the T3 tax, the regulator gets to call everyone’s bluff at once, without gambling in advance on who is right. If the tax goes up, it ought to have. If it doesn’t go up, it shouldn’t have. Either way we get a sensible outcome.
But the benefits don’t stop there. The T3 tax will induce forward-looking behavior. Alarmists worry that conventional policy operates with too long a lag to prevent damaging climate change. Under the T3 tax, investors planning major industrial projects will need to forecast the tax rate many years ahead, thereby taking into account the most likely path of global warming a decade or more in advance.
And best of all, the T3 tax will encourage private-sector climate forecasting. Firms will need good estimates of future tax rates, which will force them to look deeply, and objectively, into the question of whether existing climate forecasts have an alarmist bias. The financial incentives will lead to independent reassessments of global climate modeling, without regard to what politicians, the IPCC or climatology professors want to hear...
UPDATE: Seefeutal comments:
Methinks that someone is us.