Union Against Union and the Best Cheater Won » « gays “shouldn’t be allowed out in public…” 


Blessed be the Hackers
November 20th 2009 General, Dumbasses, Junk Science, Global Warming

Just some interesting links to AlGores worst nightmare.
Global Warming’s ‘Blue Dress’ Moment?
Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released
Mike’s Nature trick Heavy traffic, might be hard to access.
Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable
The hacking is real, the only question is how accurate the files are. and so far it looks like the emails will make (un)realclimate, AlGore and others eat their words.
And really I can’t think of anything to say that hasn’t been posted at the linked sites.

UPDATE: This may be the raw file. I say again it might be the file.

UPDATE2: OOOpps messed up the link and it’s one of two from Ace of Spades.

Submit to Stumbled Upon!
-genes







Comments on this post:

  • Alfred Centauri
    November 20th, 2009 | #1

    At the NYT:

    Hacked E-Mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics

    In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discussed whether a string of recent years of relatively stable temperatures undermined scientific models that predict long-term warming.

    “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,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

  • Alfred Centauri
    November 20th, 2009 | #2

    Ooops, one more quote:

    But several scientists and others contacted by the Times confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mails included in the file.

  • genes
    November 20th, 2009 | #3

    Alfred, have you downloaded any of the files? I can’t make heads or tails of the data but the titles do suggest that it includes the data that they claimed was no longer on file.

  • wtfo
    November 20th, 2009 | #4

    popcorn - check.

    earplugs for lefty shrieking - check.

    countdown timer for outlandish warmenist dog-ate-my-homework excuses - check.

    glee - check.

    Yeah we’re good to go here.

  • genes
    November 21st, 2009 | #5

    I think this explanation makes lots of sense.

    Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

    At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

    Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

    Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.

    Nothing there Doc? You just said that the main source of historic temperature data is “not reliable”. Does this mean that all those charts you guys made using only unreliable tree ring data are wrong?

  • Bill Quick
    November 21st, 2009 | #6

    “Through the last century…” means “in the previous 100 years.” Given the date of the email, this means since 1899. So…for the first sixty years the data are accurate. For the next forty years, the data are inaccurate.

    The only justification I can see for making this judgment is that the a bit more than half the data supports this guy’s theories, so he says those data are correct. A bit less than half don’t support his theories, so those data are incorrect.

    And he calls himself a scientist.

    Well, by the degraded and pathetic standards of the “science” of AGW, I suppose he is.

  • Lorenzo
    November 21st, 2009 | #7

    I was under the impression that climate data showed a period of cooling from 1940 to 1975, and warming after 1975. Did that data somehow get “reevaluated”?

  • TraitorHater
    November 23rd, 2009 | #8

    How Mann can still be allowed to show his proven-fraudulent face anywhere after his Hockey Stick fraud was proven I can’t imagine. But then the agenda is all that matters, and power is the sole purpose of the entire exercise. Data don’t support the agenda? Bye-bye to the data.

comment on this article

Note: Daily Pundit uses the Akismet spam filter, which has been known, on occasion, to start flagging regular commenters' submissions as spam for a while until we can smack it around enough to change its mind. If you're having problems like this, you can bypass Akismet by registering. Your comments are still very welcome whether you register or not. The only drawback of not registering is, if Akismet flags your comment as spam, it may take us a while before we see it and fix it.

Quicktags:

Tags allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <img src="" alt="" /> <li> <ol> <s> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <ul>
Comment Preview (updated when idle):

 


return to main page (at this post)