Climategate 2

Pages: 1 2

Here are other excerpts from the e-mails just released from Professor Phil Jones:

Basis problem is that all models are wrong—not enough middle and low level clouds….[W]hat he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Casper and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

Also: “One way to cover yourself and all those working at AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process.”

Here are two candid e-mails commenting on the work of Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, the chief inventor of the infamous hockey stick graph. (The hockey stick graph was used to show Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last 600 or 1,000 years by indicating a sharp rise in the late 20th century temperatures suggesting the shape of a hockey stick):

Professor John Mitchell, U.K. Met Office: Is the PCA [Principal Components Analysis] approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH [one of the key hockey stick articles by Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes] the answer in each case is no.

The myth of man-made global warming posits horrendous climate developments, ranging from rising sea waters to shortages of food supplies and collapsing biodiversity systems. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, for instance, has said, “Much of Florida would be under water” and temperatures could rise by “5 to 6 degrees.”

The mainstream media has accepted global warming hook, line, and sinker. New York Times “reporter” Andy Revkin recently asked the alarmist community for the most persuasive data that will convince stupid Americans of climate change. He was quoted as writing: “Our Week in Review folks want…to pull together a graphic and short story by me explaining what aspects of recent…warming speak most clearly of probable human greenhouse influence….”

Global warming is big business. Even though by some accounts there has been no warming since 1998 and a dearth of sunspots portends global cooling, maintaining the myth of dangerous global warming brings in dollars to federal agencies, college research grants, rent-seeking alternative energy companies, and others. These unnecessary expenditures contribute to our $14 trillion budget deficit.

But Obama knows we have plenty of money to spend needlessly. We’re only $15 billion in debt.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Alexander Gofen

    This is a disgusting example of the intrinsic baseness of the human condition even amongst the formally well "educated" class in the best and freest of the worlds.

    Those "scientists" exemplify the infamous Lysenko type, as well as other soviet persecution campaigns of the then "politically incorrect" Genetics and Cybernetics. Yet unlike their Soviet colleagues, these Western "scientists" betrayed the science willingly without any prompting from comrade Stalin…

    Unfortunately the "Global washing" is not the only instance of the ugly dishonesty in the Western Scientific community in the field of hard science.

    1) The other example in this field is a total domination of Darwinism and suppression of the concept of the intelligent design in the biological systems – philosophically perhaps the most important discovery of the 20th century (see "Expelled").

    2) Total suppression of the truth about objective differences in the IQ amongst certain ethnic, racial, or social groups of people ("The Bell Curve").

    It gets much worse in the direction to the philosophy and humanities.

    3) The Western "ideologues from Science" have much overdone their soviet brethren in the total expulsion of God from any scientific and philosophical discourse! Again: willingly, on their own initiative…

    Yet the humanities, sociology and politics – it is where it becomes really grotesque.

    4) Promotion of Marxism (!) became a norm. Self-Cannibalization of the West, rejecting of the absolute superiority of the Judeo-Christian civilization, reclassification of homosexuality from an illness into a norm up to invention of the "LGBT" and "diversity" "studies" – that is just an incomplete list of "scientific achievements" in the Western universities.

    The recovery of the Civilization (if ever) must begin with complete dismantling of the existing university system (which is rather a schools of low life).

    • Bamaguje

      There's no scientific basis for "intelligent design."
      It's just a politically correct rehash of Biblical/Quranic creation.

      Racial differences in IQ (if any), are most likely due to socio-economic/cultural differences rather than any inherent supremacy of one race over another.
      You sound like a rabid racist.

      • lscott

        Way to go! The best way to win an honest debate is to play the race card.

        Why is it that most people will recognize – but mayby not say it – that certain physical attributes make members of some races, on average, better suited for some sports than member of other races, but refuse to examine the proposition that there are cognitive differences between races as well? Notice I didn't say 'superior', just different.

        Natural selection favors different physical traits depending upon the local environment. Why is it so abhorent to consider the posibility that it might cause cognitive differences between races in addition to the others that are clearly more visible?

        Why is everyone who even raises the question labeled a racist? I have no problem with knowing that my racial background makes me statiscally less likely be intellegent enough to become a nuclear physicist or mathematician or aerospace engineer than someone else.

        What's the big deal with trying to determine if that difference is racially or socially caused? It's not ging to make me any smarter or dumber to know the truth.

      • truebearing

        The Bell Curve isn't proposing to explain all of the reasons for the differences in intelligence. It is simply providing evidence that there is a difference. Where did you get the idea that the findings of that research was to establish racial superiority? That's a bit of a non sequitur, don't you think? BTW, Are facts "racist"?

    • PhillipGaley

      "disgusting"? , . . . yeah, . . . I suppose so, . . . it strikes me as, . . . kind of sad, . . . the corruption and all, . . . and, except that, someone such as Algore made off with just a whole lotta money, . . . and where that money comes from, . . .

    • tarleton

      It is clearly the return of LYSENKISM …science corrupted by ideology ….but apart from the obvious opportunists feeding at the goverment trough , most of the GW are true believers …they desire it to be true as then they can ''save the planet '' and pontificate to us mere mortals on how to be good stewards of the planet …enviromentalism is clearly a new religion of sorts for folks without anything tp believe in any more's a secular vision of the apocalypse clearly has psychosamatic origins , not scientific

  • Herman Caintonette

    TT: "Even though by some accounts there has been no warming since 1998 and a dearth of sunspots portends global cooling, maintaining the myth of dangerous global warming brings in dollars to federal agencies, college research grants, rent-seeking alternative energy companies, and others."

    Hate to break it to you, but the sunspot theory has been discredited. NASA records show that in 2010, we were in a period of solar quiescence… , but NOAA records show that it was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record.

    And let us not forget who is financing the deniers.

    • Dale

      Hottest on record in 2010 and 2005? I remember as a kid it getting over a 100F here where I am and staying there for days, sometimes weeks. It hasn't been that hot in the last 20 years at least. Yea, I know. It's a global thing. Thing is, I read the same sorts of things from people all over the place.

      What is even funnier to me. About 30 years ago they were predicting global cooling. They can't tell me what the weather will be next week with any accuracy but they can tell what it is going to be 20 or 30 years from now. I don't think so.

      • Herman Caintonette

        I am inclined to rely on peer-reviewed scientific measurements over lay observer anecdotes. Nonetheless, I can counter yours with my own experience. Back in the day, Coloradans could count on at least one decent September snow every few years. They used to be able to ski at Arapahoe East, an area a few miles out of town. Today, the land is owned by the Medved family (car dealer), which built a massive house on top of the hill … and there is no longer enough snow to make a resort viable. At least in Colorado, the climate has changed.

        The effect on the arctic regions is even more pronounced. In Fairbanks, houses built on permafrost have been structurally compromised by warmer temperatures.… . In twenty years, the Arctic Ocean is projected to be ice-free. See e.g.,… . This is literally changing the albedo of the planet, which means that it will retain more solar energy (thereby raising global temperature. And the same problem is evident in high mountain environments around the world: Melting glaciers mean that the water supply for at least a third of the world — the Himalayas — will be imperiled. In North America, the first region that will feel the effects is the desert Southwest.… . Unless there is some countervailing force that no one sees, or we can figure out a way to mitigate the damage (e.g., solar shades that duplicate as energy farms, which is currently the stuff of science-fiction), this is a problem with permanent and global implications.

        Weather forecasting is actually more difficult, but they are one helluva lot better at it than they were 20-40 years ago. Moreover, the measured temperature changes are far more pronounced in arctic regions, where most people have never been. Actions have consequences.

        • tarleton


        • tarleton

          pseudo scientific psychobabble ………ALL CANT

        • Dale

          "peer-reviewed scientific measurements" is what you call the lies? You did read this article right? It is about how the global warming people are lying and some just plain making things up.

          I rely on what people that have no reason to lie say. By the way, we are about to get snow here. It's about time the winters got back to the way it was when I was a kid.

          They may be better at forecasting what will happen a couple days from now but years from now, I don't think so. I watch the weather a LOT here. I garden and I have to. First they say it will rain on Sunday and be a 100% chance of it. They say that on a Tuesday. By the time Sunday gets here, the sun is shining. It's not even cloudy much less raining. That happens a LOT here. I get my weather from multiple sources too. I have to say, accuweather gets it right more tho. Of course, they likely get it wrong for someone else.

          You go ahead and believe the fud and spend your money on it. Me, I got better things to do with my time and energy. Leave my money alone. I don't have enough to save the planet from something that is based on lies and people trying to make money. I hear Al Gore is making a ton of money off this thing.

          You care to respond about the global freeze they were predicting 30 years ago? I notice you didn't mention it. Maybe you don't have a answer for that one. lol

      • tarleton

        That's right ..they cannot predict the weather next week or the climate in 5 years but they can predict the climate in 25 ? hahaha

        the elmore gantrys of climate change

    • Nick

      and do not forget who is financing the GW…their only source of income..when I start to have doubts, I take a box out from my closet and look at the doz pr of long johns I purchased in the 70's when I believed in the New Ice Age lol

    • truebearing

      If you knew anything about science you'd know peer review is a joke. It has turned into a matter of professional courtesy, not rigorous analysis of scientific claims.

      You defeated your own argument by pointing out how our measurement capacity has changed/ improved. That also means our records of the past are less reliable. Worse yet, many of the recordings are being taken in metropolitan heat sinks where the temps are artificially higher. A clever way to skew results.

      We haven't seen warming for ten years, plus. Winters have been getting colder and lasting longer. Early snows out west set records this year. I guess you had your blinders on too tight to notice.

  • Leslie Lebl

    $15 billion? how 'bout $15 trillion in debt!

  • Rifleman

    It's a dead giveaway when they have to hide the raw data. It’s no accident that the data and methodology the EPA uses for its’ regulations and standards are better kept secrets than our nuclear weapons designs.

  • davarino

    Just another way to funnel money to the leftists that want to destroy America.

  • BS77

    The only global warming is the huge amounts of idiotic hot air expelled by leftist ideologues.

    • Herman Caintonette

      The effects are real; even Sarah Palin acknowledged them. Alaskans notice it because it has affected them disproportionately. The theory that it was a natural phenomenon precipitated by sunspot activity has been discredited by recent data (see my previous posts). Worse yet, we have already reached a tipping point, where negative feedback loops are going to exacerbate the problem. We've fouled our nest to the point where there is no going back; the only question is whether we have any hope of mitigating the damage.

      • UCSPanther

        More good news: Canada refused to renew its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

        Harvest them oilsands, pump that oil, mine that coal and metal ore and mill those trees for pulp and paper.

        We've gotta survive, and all environmentalist obstacles WILL be removed…

        • Herman Caintonette

          Who cares if you destroy the Yukon? No one was really using it, anyway.

          It seems that your celebration is premature, as Reuters reports:

          Canada dismissed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change on Monday as a thing of the past, but declined to confirm a media report it will formally pull out of the international treaty before the end of this year.

          Although the right-of-center Conservative government walked away from its Kyoto obligations years ago, a formal withdrawal would deal a symbolic blow to global talks to save the agreement, which opened in South Africa on Monday.

          Canada says it backs a new international deal to cut global emissions of greenhouses bases but insists it has to cover all nations, including China and India, which are not bound by Kyoto's current targets.

          Although Japan and Russia share Canada's view, and the United States never ratified Kyoto, no nation has yet formally renounced the treaty."

          Yeah, this is a pretty fair objection. If we don't do something about China, the endeavor will be a failure in any event.

          • UCSPanther

            And it will die nonetheless, and all I see is lip service.

            It obviously burns you to know that Canada is not the same country that American draft dodgers fled to in the 1960s.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Truth be told, I could care less. While I have been from one end of your country to the other, I haven't gone more than ten miles into Canada in the past ten years. If Canadians have finally caught the American disease of extreme social darwinism, it is to their discredit and eternal shame.

          • Chris Nichols

            Anyone with a basic understanding of science knows that H2o in solid form (ice) has more volume than H2o in liquid form. Do a search on the archimedes principle, or better yet, do your own test, take a can of soda and put in in the freezer and see what happens. Then remove it and let it get warm and then open it, Co2 is released. See what happens is the increases in temperature cause an icreae in Co2, not the other way around. All of this leads to the fact that if the ice caps are melting, which they are not, we will get a reduction in the sea levels, not a rise. Another thing you sock puppets don't realize is that warming is good, you will have longer growing seasons, as long as the government allows farmers to grow things and a liberal judge doesn't shut off the water supply to arable land, as in what happened in California. There will be also more food for plants. Plants convert CO2 into food, just in case you didn't know that. What is even more hilarious is linking to a NASA site, headed by the fraud James Hansen who copied and pasted Russia’s temperatures for September into October and reported that October 2008 was the hottest October on record. Soros needs to open up that check book of his and hire him a better class of troll.

      • tarleton

        dude … it was warmer in the early middle ages than it is now here in england

        we had six feet of GW last winter followed by the worst summer in 15 years …but who are you going to believe , the experts or your own lying eyes ?

      • Gary Hagland

        You said, "Worse yet, we have already reached a tipping point, where negative feedback loops are going to exacerbate the problem."

        Am a bit confused. Negative feedback would tend to dampen the effects of global warming. Positive feedback would increase them. All the computer climate models, which predict a significant increase in global average temperatures and are essentially what the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) paradigm is based upon, require positive feedback loops. Positive feedback is not found in most natural mechanisms. That is a fundamental point of contention between CAGW believers and skeptics.

  • Ben

    Physisists are ready to refute special relativity after half a century of successful corroborations. But this global dubious project based on primitive models gets world authorities` support and rediness to spend billions and destroy economics!
    This is the plot of the mad!

  • tarleton

    Global warming has psychosamatic origins not scientific …it's a substitute religion of sorts
    It's like carl sagan said about UFOs ''there's something strange going on ,but it's in inner space , NOT OUTER SPACE hahaha

  • Bert

    There may be something else going on here that is being missed. So-called conservative's insist there is NO effect on the climate from burning immense amounts of oil, coal and natural gas. Further, they insist that burning fossil fuels does not contribute to a corresponding rise in atmospheric CO2 which is now the highest ever in the past half million years. It is just happening all by itself and may even be a good thing that we should welcome. And the earth is not warming because greenhouse gases do not actually trap solar radiation like windows in a greenhouse, just because they say so. But if it is warming then that is good because we can then grow oranges and bananas in New York. But it is also not warming because the polar caps are expanding and not melting – because they say so. No need to actually investigate.

    They insist that there are NO climate problems such as record breaking floods, droughts, storms, temperature extremes. etc. In the next breath they also insist that even if we are now seeing climate extremes it is all just normal. And if it is not normal it must be the fault of the sun which is acting differently. It is definitely not man-made and we are all innocent.

    All this leads to the firm conclusion that fossil and nuclear energy are just fine and we must consume ever more amounts of coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power. Problems with these either do not exist or are greatly exaggerated. It's "Drill baby drill' forever.

    Conservatives claim to support free enterprise. But INDIVIDUAL energy inventors have been suppressed for decades by liberals and also by CONSERVAIVES! No free enterprise for them! Big business with big conventional energy is not suppressed although today Obama is trying to do just that.

    The individual energy inventors who have been suppressed are, coincidentally, ONLY the ones with breakthrough technologies that can eliminate coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear. One example can produce clean, unlimited, safe, cheap energy from ordinary water with units small enough to power a car or a home! That development would create jobs, greatly boost our economy, strengthen our country and weaken our enemies. But it would also take away the enormous wealth and power of the global energy establishment and their allies in government and finance. Follow the money! If global warming is considered a total hoax then we justify remaining with coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear. Get it?

    A lot of this depends on whether breakthrough energy technologies really exist and if they have been suppressed. The internet contains enormous amounts of information for those not to lazy to inquire. For starters I would recommend going to You will read about the history, the inventors, the politics and technologies such as using tap water as fuel. Then you will realize what the so-called conservatives and also the so-called liberals are BOTH not telling you.


    I don't see why Darwin and God can't be reconciled. The Literal interpretation of the Bible is an impediment to accepting a religious basis for the understanding of life both biologically and morally. The problem with Islam is that it was founded by a bedouin caravan raider (pirate of the desert) on an ego trip who designed a god fit for his extremely limited horizon without love for man nor beast.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    There is a verifiable fact of global warming, it makes millions of thinking people
    hot under the collar when understanding the basic falsity of the claims and
    the fact it is a grand scam and the scammers will not quit. Without laws broken
    and culprits prosecuted it moves or rather slithers on it's way looking for
    the "Rubes"……………………………………………..William

  • ajnn

    peter – i agree.

    science can tell us HOW the world was created and religion [bible ?] WHY it was created.