ClimateGate T by ClimateGateScamfrom CafePress.ca. Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia. If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don't use Wikipedia. "Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy", is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you'd ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is.
Even Wikipedia's own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an "uninvolved editor" makes clear. Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia's entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Connolley has supposedly been defrocked as a Wikipedia administrator. Get that? Wikinews. Climategate” Summary In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker.
Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded: The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. Analysis Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate. " Missing the Mark We find such claims to be far wide of the mark. Even as the affair was unfolding, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Dec. 8 that the 2000-2009 decade would likely be the warmest on record, and that 2009 might be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The facts support this assertion. Mixed Messages. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That) When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest: One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
Climategate. Climatic Research Unit email controversy. New Leaked Emails Cast Doubt on Climate Change. Another round of leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit have surfaced, once again illustrating why governments should not be making serious policy decisions based on mainstream climate science.
Several of the following excerpts not only call into question conventional “climate change” wisdom but also suggest the selective use of information with an agenda in mind: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. So climate change is not certain, and there is evidence to the contrary. He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica—he thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the supplementary text.
Possibly exaggerated predictions? I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical.