Posted on 11/23/2009 12:08:45 PM PST by dila813
Now that the weekend has passed and the cries of “the arse is really out of ‘er this time” have echoed throughout the stratosphere, the hacked e-mails turn out to not reveal much of anything (the only exception is possibly the alleged deleting of e-mails in regards to an FOI request) – or so I thought. I was feeling fairly smart when I came across the smoking gun!
I must now say that I was wrong.There is strong evidence of alleged fraud in the e-mails from the CRU hack. I stand corrected.
That is me on the right.
Still, NY Times won't cover the story. That should tell you something.
I don’t think you read that blog post in its entirety.
later self ping
Except for the Pentagon Papers, of course. And those classified CIA memos about funding for the Nicaraguan Contras. And that article on terrorist surveillance methods. And all of those classified documents that still had Pat Leahy's warm fingerprints on them. And the article that blew the cover on one of our CIA station chiefs...
“Smoking guns in the CRU stolen e-mails: A real tale of real ethics in science”
Well looky who growed up a little bit.
You should have read what he linked to.
He is purporting that warming skeptics are the fraudsters.
ah, my mistake, I thought that link is where he said he was wrong about this.
I thought he was refuting himself.
pwned myself
It’s very confusing. He was indeed referring to the linked article that says the CRITICS are the fraudsters, but then says he was wrong. I don’t know what to think...
I was trying to muck thru all the rambling but that was the impression I got too.......
His post he states he is wrong about
No E-mails please
Damn - I see that the good Doctor beat me to it! Well, since we are all talking about the hacked e-mails from the CRU, I suppose I should post about it as well. There are three points that I want to raise.
First, I think this is one of the most despicable acts I have come across. The e-mails contained personal opinions and observations. Who among us has never written an e-mail which they would not want someone else to read. Regardless of what you think of the content, you have to give full credit to the way they have handled the broadcasting of such personal information.
Second, from what I have seen, there is no smoking gun here and the documents have been around long enough for someone to develop a searchable index of them. To begin with these appear to be a sample (and a small sample) from e-mails involving a number of people over a period of about 10 years. Without all the e-mails a great deal of context is lost. This means that the remaining posts are misunderstood.
Just one example (although others will probably come up in comments) it is claimed that the e-mails show that:
Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”.
While this appears to paint Dr, Briffa in a bad light, the actual e-mail provides more context:
>through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to
>present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented
>warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in
>reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a
>lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at
>least a significant number of tree proxies) some unexpected
>changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I
>do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
So what Dr. Briffa actually says is that the “story” is not tidy and it should not be presented as such.
Third, and most important, there is nothing in here that even begins to address, let alone challenge, the underlying science of global warming. Nothing that says we’re not causing CO2 to rise, nothing that shows that our understanding of radiation physics is wrong, nothing that says the natural greenhouse effect is wrong.
My prediction is that nothing of substance will be found in the e-mails and in a month the big story is how the media and others ignore the “clear proof” of fraud. To those loyal readers who are still with me, here is a bonus link. I won’t provide any description except to say it is related to the topic of this post.
This yoyo is just trying to wave away the climate fraud scandal, as he and a million other leftists have been programmed to do.
I think you forgot the illegal wiretap between Newt & Boehner — the one passed on by that ethically compromised congressman from Virginia.
bump
As a hypothetical example, even if I had information on good authority that certain members of the Boston Globe's editorial board were known to frequent gay establishments where sexual favors were commonly traded, it would be wrong of me to publish that information. So I would not.
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.