Computer hackers have obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails, which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked closely with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny.
Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]."..."
Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discusses in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be seen in the results. Professor Mann sent Professor Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he is sending shouldn't be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming. Time after time the discussions refer to hiding or destroying data. ..."
Lots more at link...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Post Climategate, How Long Will They Allow the Rouse to Continue?
The Anthopegenic Global Warming theory is the biggest hoax that's ever been perpetrated.
Rush is covering this right now.
Main Entry: con·sen·sus
Pronunciation: \kÉn-Ësen(t)-sÉs\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
Date: 1843
1 a : general agreement : unanimity
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned (the consensus was to go ahead)
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Here's the gotcha, CONSENSUS does not mean proof only the there was an agreement among a group to agree. I'm sure the Nazis had a consensus about ethnicity and the KKK a consensus about race but in no way does consensus imply truth or proof.
In essence they are saying their own emails are BS. What then should we make of their “science”—???
Funny. “Climatologist” seesm to be code speak for “total liar.”
Like bl**dy h*ll there isn't. The comments and code showing that they substituted temperature measurements from weather stations for tree ring data when the actual tree ring data didn't support their pre-conceived notions are not scientific investigations of any quality, not interpretation, but outright fraud.
The fact that the temperature measurements and tree rings didn't correspond should, if these were honest scientists, have been the basis for reconsidering the use of tree growth ring data as a proxy for temperature at all.
It’s time to clean the septic tank.