Det ser ut som om russiske hackere har brutt seg inn på datanettet til det annerkjente klimaforskersenteret Hadley CRU.
Dette kan potensielt være en av tidenes største avsløringer av en sammensvergelse.
Filene ble sluppet anonymt på en FTP-server med følgende melding vedlagt:
"We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents"
De 61 MB med informasjon kan lastes ned her: http://rapidshare.com/files/309803421/FOI2009.zip
CRU director admits hacked files genuine: http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d20-CRU-director-admits-hacked-files-genuine
Nedenfor følger noen godbiter fra e-poster innad i forskermiljøet.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” 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 board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It 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. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Linker til andre nyhetskilder, med kommentarer og analyser:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/
.............................................................................................................................................................
27 kommentarer:
I .zip filen finnes et dokument som heter "Rules of the Game"
Many of the oft-repeated communications methods and messages
of sustainable development have been dismissed by mainstream
communicators, behaviour change experts and psychologists.
Before we go into what works, our principles make a ‘clean sweep’
of what doesn’t:
1.Challenging habits of climate change communication
Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human
survival instincts
Recent surveys show that people without children may care more
about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human
survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of
little use for a change in climate measured in years.
Don’t create fear without agency
Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon
the threat. Use fear with great caution.
Don’t attack or criticise home or family
It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
2.Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
change, but how we should deal with climate change.
3.There is no ‘rational man’
The evidence discredits the ‘rational man’ theory – we rarely weigh
objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear
self-interested choice.
4.Information can’t work alone
Providing information is not wrong; relying on information alone to
change attitudes is wrong. Remember also that messages about
saving money are important, but not that important.
6.Use both peripheral and central processing
Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but
peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot
of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to
public transport.
Saftig mentalitet disse folka har!
Men inneholder zip-filen noe bevis for at innholdet faktisk stammer fra Hadley CRU, og ikke bare er fabrikert?
Jeg anbefaler at du undersøker selv. Det ser autentisk ut, men man vet jo aldri. Det er jo også bekreftet av Hadley CRU at de har hatt datainnbrudd såvidt jeg forstår.
Jeg har vist lenge at det er en sammensvergelse.. Men HVORFOR, er jeg stadig usikker på. Det er det som er det store spørsmålet for meg. Gleder meg til å lese gjennom dokumentene som ligger i zip filen. Kommer til å bli INTERESSANT.
Huff! Nå kommer selvsagt (de mindre begavede) "klimaskeptikerne" (slik som Anonym her) til å tro at dette motbeviser menneskeskapt global oppvarming. Disse e-mailene forandrer altså ikke på det VITENSKAPELIGE spørsmålet om global oppvarming. Ingenting er forandret, annet enn at noen har driti seg ut.
Bortsett fra at Al Gore er en svindler som allerede har blitt saksøkt av 30.000 vitenskapsfolk fra alle mulige fagfelt.
Menneskeskapt global oppvarming handler om å skattlegge utvikling og liv - slik at man kan opprette et klimamarked og samtidig sørge for at utviklingsland som ikke kan betale for seg forblir utviklingsland.
Vi har ikke hatt global oppvarming siden 1998. Sola varmer solsystemet. CO2 muliggjør liv på jorda.
Vil anbefale "The great global warming swindle" som finnes på youtube og google video. Den viser hvordan IPCC driver å modellerer klimadata mens de ekte klimaforskerne som er ute i felten og driver med ekte vitenskap blir latterliggjort.
WeAreChangeNorway:
Dette viser bare at du ikke har peiling på det du uttaler deg om. Global oppvarming er et faktum, og det er en vitenskapelig konsensus - blant de med relevant kompetanse om at det er menneskeskapt global oppvarming. Det faktum at din "dokumentasjon" er youtube-videoer understreker bare at du ikke kan tas seriøst. Hvis du kan vise til vitenskapelige artikler som motbeviser global warming, så skal jeg begynne å ta deg seriøst.
A new study in the journal Science has just shown that all of the climate modeling results of the past are erroneous. The IPCC's modeling cronies have just been told that the figures used for greenhouse gas forcings are incorrect, meaning none of the model results from prior IPCC reports can be considered valid. What has caused climate scientists' assumptions to go awry? Short lived aerosol particles in the atmosphere changing how greenhouse gases react in previously unsuspected ways. The result is another devastating blow to the climate catastrophists' computer generated apocalyptic fantasies.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/global-warming-predictions-invalidated
Menneskeskapt global oppvarming? HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA. Glem det!
vi vet ikke hvem "ekte vitenskapsmenn" er, med mindre vi er med ut i skauen selv og har kontrollert utstyret.
begge sider har økonomiske argumenter. 'staten'e tjener på både CO2 utslipp og CO2 skatt.
vi burde ikke laste ned noe hackere sender ut. for alt vi vet er dokumentene fabrikert, og hackerne arbeider med krypterte filer for å få adgang til systemer, de har kanskje mer interesse i lagringsplass enn CO2.
New Mexico er ikke en sunn by.
Klassisk industrialisering er ikke godt for nærmiljøet (fakta), det globale/permanente er argumentativt.
temperaturen kontrolleres av flere variabler enn kun sola. og mer enn kun CO2. istider skjer i sykluser. og de er sikkert spennende; darwinsystemet trer i kraft, også for oss mennesker.
en supervulkan = 1000 år CO2/svovel/støv utslipp fra kina osv.
så med den mentaliteten kan vi jo brenne alt av olje og kull nå uansett, men om bristepungtet for neste istid faktisk er så nært som noen sier; grønnland smelter & "Gulfpumpen" stopper, da er det kanskje smart å holde oss litt i ro.
det eneste konkrete jeg har reagert på med hele denne CO2/global oppvarming greia er noe jeg fikk med meg på skolen. heller man en kopp vann i olje kan man ikke forvente en beskyttende vannhinne øverst. vann er tyngre.
-CO2 gass er tyngre enn luft.. hvordan får vi da ett "beskyttende CO2 lag" lengst vekk fra gravitetspungtet som insulerer og fungerer som ett varmeteppe? *_o det er drøyt.
Read All About it! Climate Depot Exclusive - Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up
Ser ut som det er kvelden og kroken på døra for hysterikerne.
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
Jeg har lastet ned filene og de virker å være rene.
Dette er dårlige nyheter for EU som har planlagt å introdusere "global management of our planet"(på bakgrunn av IPCC sine fabrikerte data) på det kommende møtet i København.
Jeg tror at det fremdeles er riktig å omgå dette materialet med forsiktighet. Som noen har påpekt er det usikkert f.eks om innholdet er klusset med.
Men det er for øvrig ikke en gang sikkert at "jobben" er gjort av "russiske hackere". Det kan f.eks tenkes at det er gjort av en eller flere "varslere" ved CRU.
Jeg går ut fra at dette etter hvert vil bli avklart.
Det er likevel bekreftet at i hvert fall enkelte publiserte e-mailer er genuine, og noen av de "verifisert ekte" mailene inneholder materiale som langt på vei skandaliserer en gruppe svært høyt profilerte vitenskapsmenn.
Det er upresist å si at IPCC er avslørt. De som nå sitter med buksene på knærne er først og fremst en gruppe forskere som har bygget nettverk for å sørge for at AGW teorien ikke skal kunne utfordres vitenskapelig.
Selv ville jeg føle betydelig ubehag ved å skulle lese gjennom privat korrespondanse. Likevel har saken så stor offentlig interesse, at det er bra at noen tross alt har gjort det.
Med forbehold om at ikke jeg ikke vet om alle er sjekket for genuinitet:
Her er en foreløpig liste over svært relevante mailer:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/bishop-hills-compendium-of-cru-email-issues/#more-12994
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Det er ikke ofte at en gjenstridig virkelighet så til de grader ramler i hodet på folk som er betalt for å produsere "de rette meningene"
I lys av de nye avsløringene
blir Pål Presteruds debattinlegg her: http://www.cicero.uio.no/webnews/index.aspx?id=11221
nokså ....kontraprofetisk...?
Men jeg har i grunnen snå illusjoner om at den velressigerte kakafonien frem mot København vil påvirkes noe særlig av denne saken.
Det er alt for mange folk som virkelig VIL tro på dommedagsprofetiene, og da kommer litt brysomme forbehold lett i bakgrunnen.
Det er naturligvis for øyeblikket en hektisk aktivitet for "damage control", og med mindre MSM vikrelig får øye på skandalen vil den nok visne bort uten alt for store konsekvenser for de impliserte -dessverre.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Fin artikkel fra Aftenposten:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3385865.ece
VG og Dagbladet viser seg fra sin beste journalistiske side:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaaBh8wCwEE
For de som ikke ønsker å laste ned noe, finnes nå alle e-postene kategorisert og klare for online-lesning her: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/
If you thought global warming was the reason for our excessive Hydrocarbon usage – Think Again !
Mars does appear to be experiencing short-term regional warming, not long-term global warming, as the climate scientists of realclimate.org have explained.
Jupiter is not experienceing global warming but is poised to experience climate change, “getting wamer near the equator and cooler at the poles,” as a U.C. Berkeley scientist noted last year.
As for Pluto, an MIT article explains ” Plutos orbit is much more elliptical that that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tripped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes”
One of the scientists involved in the research explained, Plutos waming was “likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant-the amount of sunlight recieved each second-is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the suns output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Plute”. And it is too sready to be changing the temperatures of the Earths, for that matter. “The sunspot record and neutron monitor date,” as realclimate.org explains, “show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
The last point is key. The causal link between the Earths waming and the alleged warming of the other planets would have to be solar activity. But a recent study has shown that solar activity, including cosmic rays, are NOT responsible for recent planetary warming. The study concluded :
Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earths climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
Could it be that something beyond Pluto is actually approaching – and warming up our solar system after all ?
A good source http://www.climateprogress.org/2007/08/08/The-other-planets-are-warming-myth
MIT ja. De er jo den mest troverdige kilden når det kommer til objektiv forskning. Du finner ikke et universitet i verden som er mer vevd sammen med militæret, den private våpenindustrien/organisasjonene og etteretningstjenesten i USA.
Her er fra BBC (ikke det at de har så mye troverdighet heller):
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
If I had to hazard a guess, I would guess that Wormwood is involved… magnetic field, electromagnetic field, gravitational “friction”… or something… in a “contest” with the Sun. The only fly in the global warming ointment is the problem of global cooling that has been the trend here on Earth for about the last 10 years. The global warming thing sort of “stalled”. We have some places that are getting warmer while others seem to be getting cooler… ex: poles with melting ice and some glaciers are growing. In other words, the temps are mostly just “shifting” back and forth. Why would they change data on global warming or cooling in the first place ? Is the data on global warming higher or less than they say it is ? Is it leaked on purpose or is it true ?
Next, The NWO will be coming right on schedule. It will replace or “superintend” the current governments of the world. Then the Anti-Christ will subvert it and take over as temporary king of the world. If we get a December, 2009 release of the 6th Seal event list, you can expect the NWO to be in place by 2011 or so… roughly. That would set the stage for the 2012 arrival of the Anti-Christ. If the 6th Seal events happen later, then you would slide the dates back.
I believe in the word of God and as Wormwood is mentioned in the book of revelation… via the 6th Seal event list… is the next item on the agenda. Then comes a period of dead calm weather. Then comes the marking of the 144,000 replacement witnesses. Then comes the Rapture/Removal of the Christian Church. Then comes the Incineration Event (Rev and the other items in Chapter 8… all Wormwood driven events. Then the spirit of the Anti-Christ is released. Then comes war in the orient… China running amok… and so on…
I will give you access to a pdf. This book is key evidence on the matter and provides crucial information on the Wormwood science. I hope you will take your time reading it , wether you are a believer or not…
Ps! This is no promotial use of the author what so ever..I just think that you need the important information available, so that you and others can prepare.
If you have any thoughts on this, please share them with us..
http://www.millenniumprophecy.com/themillenniumprophecy07012009041533.pdf
Komisk. "Rules of the games" er jo en kommunikasjonsstrategi. Det handler om å overbevise allmennheten om at ditt syn er korrekt. Hvis du mener at klimaforskere kun bør presentere fakta og ikke tenke over hvordan disse skal kommuniseres i det hele tatt, er du virkelig absurd naiv.
Komisk #2:
"- Finnes det ikke vel så sterke økonomiske interesser på skeptikernes side?
- Mener du at oljebransen og bilindustrien støtter skeptikerne? Nei. Fra skeptikernes side er dette ren idealisme – mange ser klimapanelet som en propagandamaskin, og vil forsvare vitenskapelige prinsipper."
Dette utsagnet fra professor Olav Martin Kvalheim viser helt alene at hans meninger trygt kan ignoreres. Han påstår altså at _samtlige_ "skeptikere" er idealistiske. Er det mulig å være professor og samtidig bruke slike absurde generaliseringer?
Heisann,
Hyggelig at vi har tankepolitiet på besøk her på bloggen! :)
VG, DB, NRK og TV sin totale blackout av denne saken sier sitt.
For andre kilder:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html#ixzz0Xg0kYlRe
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230122/How-climate-change-scientists-dodged-sceptics.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-Lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
De er avslørt. Game over.
ABC NEWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4VKrBtUcQY
Sjekk ut han som prøver å bortforklare :) Morsomt.
Hihi. Søtt. Noen spørsmål til dere konspirasjonsteoretikerne:
1) Hvor mange av dere 3-4 personer som diskuterer her har lest selve e-postene det refereres til?
2) Hvor mange fagfellevurderte vitenskapelige artikler blir avslørt i e-postene som er stjålet (forøvrig et klart brudd på de fleste regler rundt personvern)?
3) Er alle e-postene som er stjålet publisert, eller er det bare et utvalg?
4) Er det helt tilfeldig at noen hackere bestemmer seg for å beg¨et grovt lovbrudd bare noen uker før København-toppmøtet?
Hi hi, søtt. Slutt å drit deg ut.
Alt ligger i e-postene som finnes her: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=127&filename=933255789.txt
F.eks:
I'm sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they've said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO
***********
In particular they would like to see the section... on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50% of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a
particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
og:
"Mikes nature trick to hide the decline"
Interesting post as for me. It would be great to read something more concerning that topic. Thanks for sharing this info.
Sexy Lady
UK escort
Legg inn en kommentar