As the climategate scandal continues to unfold exposing the biggest scientific fraud in human history, the smoking guns abound.
The so-called 'hacked' emails between fraudulent scientists who succeeded in perpetrating the hoax were not hacked at all. They were leaked...by an insider who is now a heroic whistleblower.
(AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs has done a super-job in investigative journalism in uncovering the truth behind the scandal, including providing proof that what is being reported in the state-run media (SRM) is FALSE:
Climategate, the biggest fraud in science history, has more twists and turns than a Christie novel. Check out this latest stunning post which I found over at Watts Up With That -- the leading blog on the true science of climate change. It's a very thorough and technical analysis, which proves that the release of documents came from an inside whistleblower, instead of from some Russian hacker. His identity has not been released. This is important, because the climate changers have been using the hacking as an illegal act in an effort to mitigate the impact of the released messages that show Global Warming is a scam. The moochers and looters have attempted to disqualify the evidence as it was "illegally" obtained (the NY Times, of FISA and NSA leak fame, would not run the emails as they were private ...heh). Read the post. We have much more to fear.
The gist of the truth uncovered by Geller and the investigators at 'Watts Up With That' is that there are trustworthy scientists who are so burdened by the blatant distortion and deception of the 'global warming' proponents that they felt compelled to take the truth public.
This is of extreme importance for 2 reasons: one, the public needs to know that they have been duped into buying into the so-called 'green initiatives' by liars, deceivers, and scam artists--one of whom is Al Gore, and two, real science is not in jeopardy and never has been. Real science has always remained skeptical of such flights of fantasy based upon an unproven hypothesis.
For those who truly wish to delve into the heavy science and raw data showing that the global warming hysteria is based upon an unproven hypothesis, you can do no better than to immerse yourself in this in-depth study and analysis at Watts Up With That.
The writer, Willis Eschenbach. addresses each of the erroneous assertions of the purveyors of the climategate hoax--and their apologists. But get ready to do some hard reading unless you are a climate expert.
Yet such a treatise is absolutely necessary in order to show hoax-deniers that the raw data simply do not support the theory of global warming and that those who unleashed this balderdash on an unsuspecting public did so for political reasons and personal gain...and NOT for the advancement of true scientific research.
The key conclusion of the Eschenbach study, however, is encapsulated in this:
Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.
One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.
So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust” Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted” or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list.
The entire thing is worth a careful reading.
For commentary on other issues, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.
Comments
Just a quick comment. Aside from agreeing with everything you wrote: Data are plural. Datum is singular. When using the word data, say that "the data are", rather than "the data is", as if "data" referred to a singular body, which is grammatically incorrect.
Please don't think me a nitpicker here. Your meaning is quite clear, regardless of the syntax used. It's just that I know how dismissive climate elitists (and elitists in general) are about such relative irrelevancies when they come across them, and we're already dealing with people who are deluded into believe that the "science", the "consensus", and therefore all intelligence and wisdom, is somehow on their side. When some of them read "the data is", their immediately shuts off, rejecting anything else you might have to say, as if you've somehow confirmed their suspicions.
One must also realize who owns the media and how those owners will profit from (or would have profited from) Cap and Trade. CO2 is not evil, al goretesque is. The man can't stop lying because his masters have committed him for this cause.
You are right, it was whistleblowers; however, why try to crucify the people who saved the child from being raped (well, raped again and again)... who cares, the data given to our gov was manipulated and those responsible should be jailed.
There is no if... our planet does change and thankfully so.
Mr. Douglas,
Your correction would be spot-on had it addressed an error on my part. Nowhere in this column do I use the words, 'The data is..'
The only place that is found is in the final quotation, where the author states, 'One part of the data is...' which is correct grammatically, since he is referring not to the entire data (pl) but only ONE PART of it (singular).
But thanks for the grammar lesson nonetheless.
Does this mean Al Gore has been being dishonest? I'm shocked.
And for another example of how warmers avoid inconvenient truths, Bing or Google another Wattsupwiththat that deals with the hockey stick being observed in the NOAA ice core data. (I'd put in the URL but this doesn't let me).
No wonder geologists are not welcome at "climate science" gatherings.
PS. Since Al Gore is on the board of directors for Google, I recommend everybody switch to Bing--it works better than Google for me.
I thought from your title that you would reveal that the Climategate virus was found in other important IPCC data sets. You didn't reveal this, but it will be found shortly.
Warmers claim that the the CRU data is correct because it's mimicked by the other two major sources, GISS, for instance.
I think just the opposite... I think that since the other data sets are practically identical to CRU, it PROVES they to have been tampered with also!
Oh, excuse me, "adjusted," for population growth, relocation of the instrumentation, or "calibration."
Red--naturally there is much more info on the way. That is a given, considering the magnitude of this scandal.
the link to all the data and emails, for your consideration.
wikileaks .org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009
Please spread it around, so the debate can go farther than quoting people on both sides that may have a financial interest in the debate.
*chuckles* My better half,that I have referred to elsewhere? She is a Geologist!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!