Posted on 12/12/2009 7:02:34 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
...Yes, emails came from here - but we didn't do it, say Russians
...when the ‘warmest for 1,300 years’ claim was published in 2007 in the IPCC’s fourth report, the doubters kept silent.
... the full context of that ‘trick’ email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling.
...Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly
...‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
This is a MUST READ. It`s clear and concise.
The thing is that Russia does have nafarious intentions with these emails. The Russians are DEMANDING about 500 billion dollars worth of carbon credits to go along with the treaty, as well as an exemption.
Your analysis of a Russian motive makes no sense:
The release of the e-mails makes the ratification of any treaty inflicting “carbon trading” on the world less likely.
So long as a carbon trading scheme creates salable credits from lower CO2 emissions than 1990 levels, Russia would have a motive to keep the AGW myth propped up.
Mann and others were preparing to respond to British FOIA requests for this info.
In preparation, they gathered these items and placed them on Russian servers, because they thought no one would ever find them there.
Oops.
Might be interesting to see what else was on those servers.
“...a grad student in Russia made a deal with a grad student at CRU to rent space cheap ~ to the benefit of of their stipends!”
And then, apparently, disclosed the information to the rest of the world.
Damned grad students!
Next time put it on your own server. It’s not like the technology can’t be put in your basement, or even on your bookshelf with today’s technology.
Somebody sent the emails first to the BBC, about a month before they went public. And apparently the BBC sat on them.
Interesting to see the Russian connection confirmed, but I really doubt that this was a KGB plot. More likely, it was leaked by someone at CRU. And after the BBC decided to simply ignore the emails and the opportunity for a huge scoop, they posted the stuff on-line instead.
It’s no news that the Russians want to get paid rather than pay. That was also their position on Kyoto, which they refused to join after the US declined to pay them to do so. Torpedoing Copenhagen certainly won’t get them carbon payments.
Putin's new Russian Empire is coming along nicely while Zer0 fiddles and America burns.
My youngest used to use Chinese government servers to stash his Anime critiques. He had hundreds of them.
The Chinese have since gotten quite a bit smarter about server security of course, but those were "military" servers.
The Russians?
I think the answer is "show me the money".
The way to find the good stuff is to do a simple Google.com search for MANN and JONES and CLIMATE ~ there are, at present 2.440 million such references on the net.
Fine. They have oil to sell. That's a tangible product exchanged for money. The "carbon credit" crap is imaginary bullshit.
Indeed. An excellent article.
The "apples and oranges" comparison is appropriate. Such a substitution is simply stupid and certainly scientifically invalid. It alone proves that the "warmists" were committing fraud.
The chance of the FSB using this server is about as likely as the CIA using a server in Langley to get out information it didn’t want traced back.
Iowahawk has a great analysis of the statistical gambits behind the asserters’ climate data. Check it out.
Iowahawk has a great analysis of the statistical gambits behind the asserters’ climate data. Check it out.
This is really not true. And I'm not defending the BBC.
That BBC article was poorly written and was meant to convey that the author of the article had been shown some, probably only a few, of the e-mails that showed up via the Climategate leak. After the Climategate e-mails were release he was obviously in a position to verify the authenticity of those that he had been given. That was not a leak. The e-mails were freely given to him by CRU for some purpose.
Add to that the fact that there was at least 1 of the e-mails was dated just a few days before the release. The BBC guy could not have had that particular e-mail. And he said nothing about any other documents.
I think the whole BBC deal is just a red herring.
OK, could be. If so, then as you say the article I read was poorly written and deceptive.
Yah well, until I hear a big outcry from so-called self-professed "scientists" over this, I'll just lump them in with the Muzzies -- can't believe a word they say.
And guess what? I'm not hearing a big outcry.
Hang them all. The slow way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.