We have been reading on this in my freshman class. As usual, most of the class is “Yes, global warming is a problem that humans have caused.”
Do you think some of those leaked emails would change their minds?
The leaked data is real. I don’t think the guy understood what he was admitting.
In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics.
It’s an “embarrassing blow?” It’s not outright lies and fabrications? You can see that reality hasn’t hit the Boston Herald yet.
Global warming is NOT a problem if these guys were colluding, exaggerating, and lying.
What about Gore?
in 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore’s film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore’s “one-sided” views.
The film’s “apocalyptic vision” was not an impartial analysis of climate change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, adding that the film is “substantially founded up scientific research and fact” but that the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”
Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists — Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney — released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In “Not Evil Just Wrong,” they challenge the claims made in Gore’s film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is shown there as “an article of science, not faith.”
And this was happening before the hackers:
German scientists from the Liebnitz Institute for Marine Studies and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology led the way, admitting that “global warming is taking a break,” referring to the increasingly widespread acknowledgment that for the last decade temperatures have remained stable and that over the last 40 years the level of overall warming is considerably lower than previously claimed.
The hacker emails were mentioned in the NYTimes, but overall they are being ignored by the MSM in the US.
However, the Brits continue to discuss it.
The Telegraph says:
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 Angliaâ€™s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet.
When you read some of those files â€“ including 1079 emails and 72 documents â€“ you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be â€œthe greatest in modern scienceâ€. These alleged emails â€“ supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory â€“ suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
And, as an academic, I am appalled at the ways they discuss to limit peer review and take down a legitimate journal.
â€œThis was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the â€œpeer-reviewed literatureâ€. Obviously, they found a solution to thatâ€“take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering â€œClimate Researchâ€ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardâ€¦What do others think?â€
â€œI will be emailing the journal to tell them Iâ€™m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.â€â€œIt results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Iâ€™ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !â€