Friday, November 20, 2009

More Climate "Science" Lies?

Hot stuff, yet to be verified...but really, really damning if it's real.

The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown...


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.

Shocked! Shocked, I say!!

UPDATE: More from Morrissey. Like this:

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.Removing ENSO does not affect this.It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Why the blip, indeed....

HT: Headless


Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight. To you, climate change is a lie at worst or voodoo science at best. That is, climate change currently being promoted by scientists as "fact" is dubious. So, apparently,
anything to expose their fabrications is justifiable. Even if it means stealing files
(violation of 7th Commandment), for the "truth" must be exposed.

So where is your culpability? You provide a link and sample of those stolen files. Isn't your action "wrong"? Isn't your action "immoral"?

What happens if the files are NOT the proverbial "smoking gun"? Oh, that's right, just issue an apology like you did with the
Lawson story. Situational morality at its finest.


Disclaimer--I hold no strong opinion one way or the other when it comes to the current global warming/climate change debate.
It's a possibilty that human actions cause climate change, just like it's a possibility that the world is experiencing a warming/cooling cycle.

jimspice said...

The scientists respond:

While you're there, you might want to click on the "start here" menu item and look around for a while.

Dad29 said...

No, thanx, Jim--you go right ahead and post your findings.

I have to read Zoo Interchange engineering reports to find out how long the State's known that the bridges are falling down.

Dad29 said...

Anony: are you an old biddie, or a young girl just going through first menses?

jimspice said...

Here's a tip on that bridge research: just pick a number out of a hat and then only look at the reports that back up that number.

Dad29 said...

That's not bridge science.

That's AlGorism.

Anonymous said...

Anony: are you an old biddie, or a young girl just going through first menses?

So, the good Christian making insults and avoiding the questions at hand. It would be appear that you are ethical when you just want to be. So much for observing the "golden rule" and the Ten Commandments.

Dad29 said...

Old biddy, then.

Anonymous said...

The greatest of all sins is self-righteousness.

Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC said...

The Left is never so upset as when they have been "found out". Watch the spin. You are already seeing it in the current comments.

I wonder if there would have been such self-righteousness (lefteousness?) if this had been some "smoking gun" on the Bush administration.

Anonymous said...

So "finding out" the "truth" means doing whatever it takes, even if it is immoral or unjust? Are you a Machiavellian? That is the issue at hand, not whether the information gleaned from the cyber-terrorist is factual. It may very well be the "smoking gun". I can't speak for anyone else, but if there had been illegal means used to obtain info about the Bush, Jr., then he/she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Are we or are we not a nation of law, or only when it suits our purpose???

Watch the spin...

Headless Blogger said...

Dad - This is definitely the work of a whistleblowing insider. The emails and files are not a "random selection" as was stated by the individual who purloined and posted the files. They are carefully selected out of over 10 years for correspondence and data to put the global warming co-conspirators in the worst of lights. Very well done.

It is my opinion that while the emails will subject their authors to criminal charges, the data files will do the most damage to the climate alarmists and their groupthink theories. The data files were carefully selected to include the subjects of several of FOIA requests that have been heretofore illegally denied. With this data in hand, the real scientists (McIntyre, Spencer, et al) can deconstruct the IPCC findings and flush them for once and for all.

Anonymous said...

Good stuff. Even-handed.

The revelations will invite public discord as international climate meetings take place in Copenhagen next month. Some believe the messages show “the integrity of scientists", while others believe the comments are part of something more sinister. Is the timing of these leaked e-mails coincidental???

Oh, so now if a "whistle blower uncovering a conspiracy", the ends justify the means. Morality wins out after all. Got it!

Headless Blogger said...

Yes. What is not to get, you dumbass.

Watergate, Pentagon papers, CIA leaks, Plame leaks... The ends justify the means. Right?

Anonymous said...


Pentagon Papers = FULL disclosure of documents which CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY showed evidence of malfeasance. Was Ellsburg "wrong" in stealing???

Watergate = A criminal investigation facilitated "secrets" being shared.
Was "Deepthroat" "wrong" in providing information to Woodward/Bernstein???

Plame = See what happens when a government official says there was no "proof" of Iraqi WMD's? Were Bush officials "wrong" in outing her?

Compare those situations with what appears to be cherry-picked, perhaps out-of-context quotes, but nonetheless STOLEN from private e-mails.

Indeed, I certainly enjoy how the good "Christians" here resort to name-calling when some posters bring to light important questions. Either we follow the Ten Commandments strictly or we refer to them as a guide for situational morality scenarios.

Dad29 said...

Actually, Anony, a very credible guy actually looked at all the email headers, sequence numbers (etc.)--to me, it's gobbledygook--but the credible guy wrote email security systems/programs.

He thinks that whoever released the emails was on the distribution-list in the first place--that is, that they were sent to him.

If that IS the case, then it's more than likely that the guy was morally allowed to release them to the public.


The moral question you raise is a good one. The end never justifies the means, of course; that's settled moral law 101.

Too bad, then, that TWO morally-bankrupt actors were involved, eh?

Of the two, I think the "hacker" (or whoever) has a better chance at redemption than the slimeball money-grubbing lying scumbags.


Dad29 said...

Finally, Anony, I'm a bit tired of your perverted "shut up!!" bitch-slaps with your Christian-baiting.

This is a public square, bozo. Just because YOU don't like the way the truth materializes...well, tough cookies.

Go try to intimidate someone else. Or, of course, YOU could shut up. The whining is getting a bit tiresome.

Anonymous said...

"Christian-baiting"??? Moi. Not a change. Actually, your 10:15 a.m. post was sufficient.

So who's trying to intimidate who, with your last post??? Go back to monitoring them and show only those whom agree with your positions. But that wouldn't be neighborly, now would it.

"Too bad, then, TWO morally bankrupt actors were involved, eh?"

Yet, you were compelled to link to one of the "scumbags"...hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

"Not a chance." Damn typos.