http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/brea...files-released/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb...s/hadley_hacked

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T





The global warming scientific community now has their credibility completely, utterly destroyed.

Google for 'hadley server hack' for more information.


This is BIG, the biggest fraud that would not just drag down prominent Nobel Prize winning scientists but also politicians and corporations who are part of the massive conspiracy to defraud the world.

The conspiracy has been exposed, and yes, it's not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact.


Enjoy people!


http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefi...ta-is-real.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-Coun...docs-and-emails

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7806

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2390537/posts

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...rming/#comments


For those who can't download the entire 60 megs of hacked email and fortran source code, you can read the hacked contents online here

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/




This is explosive!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm



Hackers target leading climate research unit



The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

"We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated.

"Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.

"This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.

"We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry."

Researchers at CRU, one of the world's leading research bodies on natural and human-induced climate change, played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, which is considered to be the most authoritative report of its kind.

'Inside information'

Graham Cluley, a computer security expert, suggested that December's key climate summit in Copenhagen, which has made headlines around the world, could have increased the university's profile as a possible target among hackers.

"There are passionate opinions on both sides of the climate debate and there will be people trying to knock down the other side," Mr Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos, told BBC News.

"If they feel that they can gather inside information on what the other side is up to, then they may feel that is ammunition for their counterargument."

Mr Cluley added that universities were vulnerable to attacks by hackers because some many people required access to IT systems.

"You do need proper security in place; you need to be careful regarding communications and make sure your systems are secure.

"I trust that they will now be looking at the systems, and investigating how this happened and ensuring that something like this does not happen again."



This post has been edited by manami: Nov 21 2009, 04:41 AM

The first place it occured.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/1...-62-mb-of-gold/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/1...lown-wide-open/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/no-consensus/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/4567/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/busted-2/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/it-keeps-going/

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 21 2009, 04:46 AM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hacker-releas...-warming-fraud/


But then, the whole package is very large — 63 megabytes — and seems to be very internally consistent. Several people have already corroborated a number of the emails as being ones they wrote or received. The package also includes substantial data and computer programs, which are being explored as this is being written.

The best we can say right now is that we should keep our eyes on this. If these files are eventually corroborated and verified, it is a bombshell indeed — evidence that there has been a literal conspiracy to push the anthropogenic climate change agenda far beyond the science.

It will mean the end of some scientific careers, and it might even mean those careers will end in jail.

The Global Warming scandal of the century.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-g...of-the-century/

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009...de-open-as.html


"And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails


Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in data about temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.

"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact the police about the data breach.

TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.

"That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?" he said.

The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.

Others suggest the comments are simply "scientists talking about science." In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that "if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists."

Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:

"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?"

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-h...2009-files.html


So far, the most interesting file I found in the "documents" directory is


pdj_grant_since1990.xls (Google preview, click)

which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. The major amounts came from HEFCE (6.6 million pounds) and NERC (2.7 million pounds). Later, we will get some idea whether he has used the money to do proper science and whether the truth and objectivity was kept as the key principle, beating a possibility to double the amount. ;-)

One big release of emails discrediting a climate research unit, and all of the advocates of anthropogenic global warming is now discredited? Surely you're joking. (Hint: not every advocate is in that unit)

I'll note that I'm somewhat disturbed by Hadley's comment on the trick though, but the context at which he sent his emails matters, and we'll have to examine the paper for faults - it is the paper after all that matters, not what the scientists' opinions are.

They're human too, and in a (what they expected to be a) private setting, they chose to go on rants against people who disagreed with them. Shocker, I know!

Heck, even presupposing that AGW is false, how do you propose we stop acidification of our oceans due to the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 21 2009, 09:59 AM

You did not read the data at all. You did not even read what other scientists said about them.


Global warming is a fraud. What is happening is we could be entering ice age.



Finish reading all the links and material before you make a decision. Furthermore Phil jones himself has admitted the emails were real.


There's evidence of clear conspiracy, scientific fraud, collusion and every one who's read it would agree.


There is a line one must draw between factual scientific facts and blind religious advocation of a particular topic.

What is available is very very clear cut case of scientific fraud.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16889

Climategate: Stunning Deception and Misconduct at UK Warming Research Center Revealed
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 20, 2009 4:00 PM

Climate researchers at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit may have intentionally and artificially skewed temperature data in studies

The field of global warming is a fascinating facet of atmospheric science. Unfortunately, few are approaching the topic from an unbiased perspective -- the majority is dead set on proving it, while other are equally passionate about disproving it, or at least removing the implication that man may play a role in global warming. Both sides have been found to falsify data, withhold information, or otherwise distort views on the topic, reportedly. Notably internal investigations found that the Bush administration worked to silence climatologists at NASA who published pro-warming papers. Likewise, James Hansen, the leading climate scientist at NASA, was found to be engaging in an equally deceptive game of altering temperature data to make warming look more serious than it was.

Now a stunning new example of biased science and policy has come to light. The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, one of the UK's top climate research centers, has been hacked by an unknown party, who release an archive of the emails and data from the center, which can be viewed here. The emails in the archive contain evidence of misconduct, casting climate research done at the center in a new light.

A spokesperson for the center confirmed the breach, stating to BBC News, "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry."

Some of the emails seem merely cruel, but do not indicate misconduct. For example CRU director Phil Jones cheers the death of leading climate skeptic John Daly stating, "In an odd way this is cheering news." In another email he fantasizes about physically assaulting a climate skeptic, stating, "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

Other emails are far more damning. Writes Phil Jones:

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. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

The email reads like a flat out confession of academic misconduct and deception. Obviously hiding data and doctoring values is the kind of thing that gets you expelled from graduate school, but here these seasoned researchers seemed to have engaged in such practices and gleefully got published.

The emails also contain passages concerning the center's attempts to hide the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Writes a colleague of Mr. Jones:

……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….

Still other emails reveal that the Phil Jones and others at the center engaged in campaigns of trying to silence skeptics, removing them from the journal peer-review process. Not all of the researchers at the center seemed to be onboard with the deceit, though. Some expressed doubts about the theory of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming and refused to support some of the center's actions, putting their own careers in jeopardy.

Writes Jonathon Overpeck:

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.

While there's been evidence of foul play among both global warming advocates and skeptics, the emails from the CRU may be the most shocking evidence of blatant misconduct to date. The CRU was considered a prominent climate research center, which, along with other organizations in the U.S. and abroad, has helped steer the policy of the Internation Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The University of East Anglia described the center, writing, "Widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change."

The admissions of falsification of data and suppression of counter opinions run contrary to everything that the scientific community should stand for. One can only hope that a thorough investigation is conducted and at the very least the center's director, Phil Jones is dismissed for academic misconduct, if the emails are confirmed. After all, how can we tell our college students not to cheat, when the director of a prominent research institution is advocating such fraud?

Best comment I've read!!!::


" Trying to fit data to a result you wish to achieve is not science. It's religion. And religion bears no resemblance to reality. If you're trying to fit data to a predetermined result, you're not practicing science, you are practicing religion and you are an idiot."

OT - TS, your post count just increased by 11. grats.

So what's the conclusion of all these? Sorry,lazy to read all the links.

^ That is his conclusion I suppose.

Oh, did you read the data other than paraphrasing whatever others found? I'll admit beforehand, I have not read the 64 megabytes of data, it is simply way too much data for me to handle

First, you disbelieve the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Fair enough. Made any steps to prove it other than shouting at the rooftops that it's false?

Have you finished reading all the links? I've been following skeptics for a while now, and right now I'm leaning towards it being more real than not. Come, change my mind with evidence, of clear conspiracy, scientific fraud, collusion, other than 2-3 emails where the people who advocate it being true b*tching about the skeptics (as if the other side doesn't do it.... hmmm, wait, aren't you doing it yourself?)

Please, tell me why it's so damning, instead of pointing me at the 64mb worth of data, and then saying you'll find out the truth there, because I bet you have not even looked through 10% of it yet, if at all. Provide some original commentary instead of repeating the party line or posting links. Convince us that it's true, instead of saying if you look for it you'll find it.

Here's a counterpoint, for balance: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/

And answer the question about ocean acidification please, I'd be interested to know.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 21 2009, 08:25 PM

You are in denial just like the scientists who have been exposed as frauds in their field.

The counterpoint realclimate link is bs by the same team of PHD cretins whose emails got hacked.

Guilty parties would always try to weezel their way out of their crimes.

The evidence of data manipulation, collusion to prevent peer review, conspiracy, it's all there in my links.


Global warming is a political tool for carbon taxes, a profit making venture for elites to impose a tax on the poorer nations.

Tons of corporations and political powers stand to benefit from these taxes.



Why should anyone in mainstream or rather, the ordinary people trust your ilk anymore?


Proponents of global warming, especially the academic elites, seem to effectively show themselves to be nothing more than arrogant god complex self labeled learned PHDs who would falsify and commit fraud in the name of those who funded them.


Why, should the general public trust your ilk anymore?


This fraud has exposed what is probably just a tip of the iceberg in the scientific community.


It's time the masses wake up and realize that scientists are as much a problem even though we've always grown to assume they're the solution to our problems.



These global warming scientists have shown me they're not much different from religious terrorists, except these terrorists are the types who carry PHDs, labels and other academic credentials who decide who shall live or die.



Those who're interested in the financial interests of who benefits from the global warming agenda should read up on Goldman Sachs and the Cap and Trade.

Goldman Sachs is one of the most scandal ridden financial companies and anyone who has an interest in finance would know about them.

They have people sitting and making policies in the US government. Timothy Geithner anyone?

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 21 2009, 10:32 PM

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/

Collusion, Corruption, Manipulation and Obstruction

That's ONE department tampering with data. You've got thousands of other identical departments all over the world.
Saying global warming is a fraud because of one rotten apple is like saying that the Holocaust never happened
Get over it, the world is warming up, and frickin cows are not to blame, it's us humans.

The world is not warming up, it's cooling down. Another one who can't read.

Why am I in denial? I've considered the possibility that I am, but have you?

Same team? You sure? Or are suddenly all people with PhDs with an interest in global warming just part of a giant conspiracy? Sure I accept that if they're guilty they might want to avoid it. (Heck I don't even have a PhD for goodness' sakes, nor am I studying for one right now, heck I'm not even interested in any climate science at all)

Why the heck do you think that I'm of their ilk? I'm not even certain that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but I'm leaning towards it after being shown the evidence. All you've done is come in, make various claims, most unsubstantiated, throw in multiple accusations without showing any proof whatsoever, throw in a conspiracy about 'my ilk', people I have no relation to or know, or have heard about until I read your links, and claim that I am in denial.

Stop making silly accusations about me [edited word out], and if you want to make an attempt at convincing me, perhaps you should actually start showing scientific evidence that the results were faked, no, the emails don't work, because if it were truly faked you could go back to the original paper and show the flaws in the methodology.

All you have done is say these fellas are discredited, that because of this, their research output is discredited. That's not exactly true, because the papers will live and die based on the data and methodology used, which is the important scientific principle here, and whether it's acceptable or not, not whatever their beliefs are. Stop concentrating on the beliefs and start concentrating on the science itself if you want to make a strong case.

Again, I say that this is, for me, the most disturbing (or you would call damning) piece:



But RealClimate seems to downplay it by putting it into some context, which is most important don't you think?


Also, you have not addressed the question of how is the WHOLE of climate science discredited from just having ONE research unit's (out of many) dodgy looking emails leaked.

What's with you and the religious language of choosing people to live and die? Preventing some form of global warming isn't choosing who to live and die, heck if you suppose that it's real it might even prevent people from dying based on their geographical position due to climate change.

Start concentrating on the science, cut down on the conspiracies please, if you want to convince me at all, and please, if you don't want to alienate people who are on the fence, stop attacking them personally. What you are doing now is not making a concrete argument based on the science, but throwing in all kinds of conspiracies. Start working on the evidence, and you might just win me over.

I'm going to pose this question for the third time, since you seem to have missed it the first 2 times: What do you propose to do about ocean acidification, which is a byproduct of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere?

---

Added on November 21, 2009, 11:23 pmThe world has been cooling down in the past 8 years, except that all of these 8 years have been the 14 warmest years measured (directly, I presume) on record. Have you ever considered that for context?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 22 2009, 12:20 AM

even if global warming might be false, pollution is still bad.
so i support global warming if that leads to more environment conscious thinking.

You are just arguing in circles. You are not interested at all in the truth. You're only interested in intellectual wanking, to argue and show you know something when you don't.

Circles of argument, intelligent make you not.


I am not going to waste my time answering you anymore because your answers do not make sense, and you don't read. You are just here to derail the thread, dismissing the evidence and shout as loud as you can, in short, an attention seeker deprived of attention.

---

Added on November 21, 2009, 11:38 pmThat I agree with you, pollution is still bad, but fidgeting scientific data and committing fraud is not excusable either.


We need to clean up the world, that is for sure, but I do not believe pushing the global warming and carbon tax agenda is a solution.

It is a political agenda that smacks of elitist power grab and taxation.


This post has been edited by manami: Nov 21 2009, 11:38 PM

Why am I going into circular arguments? Either you're right, that global warming is one big hoax, or the advocates of climate change are right, that it's real. I've considered the possibility that either of these sides are wrong, but you're not seemed to even accept that possibility, except in going into ad hominem attacks about me going on intellectual wanking. Where's the science behind that except in your accusations?

What's so circular about that?

I have not dismissed any evidence, except in providing some context. Note that I agree that the emails are disturbing, but I'm just saying over and over again that you need the context at which it's being said.

Again: What about ocean acidification?

Again, trying to show his intelligence. You're trying to derail a topic by showing you know something when you don't. You've avoided the scientific fraud at first and tried to defend these frauds using their own blogsite, and now you challenge me on a topic which isn't even relevant in this sense, just to show you know more, and that I know less. We could even go into minute details of any sub topic but like I said, arguing in circles, that was your intention, to drag and derail this topic and try to beat down an opponent you couldn't rebutt, after being exposed for being an illiterate attention seeker.

But this just confirms my opinion about you, a no substance intellectual wanking attention seeker, trying to show he knows more after he failed to read the links I posted.

Now you're accusing me of adhominem attacks, hey come on, you're the one throwing the SOD label around.

I've made up my mind. I don't really have to take you seriously because I have 0 respect for your intellect just as I have 0 respect for the fraudelent scientists of Hadley.

I don't waste my time with krusty the clowns who scream about adhominems while throwing the sod word around.

TS,
I could hardly make anything out from your post other than you trying to directly discredit the person rather than the point of his post which is a direct violation of the rules in this forum.
Please stop the name calling and provide more facts please, after all, that's what a forum is for, to disseminate more information and provide a better understanding.
All I could see from all your post is chunks of raw data and some very vague explanation of which I really could not make much sense of it.

On the contrary, from my personal observatoin, it's getting hotter at my place as the years go by. Ocean temperature is also on the rise resulting in the polar caps melting at an alarming rate, any explanation on that?

I do not know that all "climate" scientist is actually trying to push forward carbon tax as a solution to our problem. From what I observe, they are mostly trying to alert people about this problem and that we should do something about it. That means reducing our emission, stop polluting the environment, preserving/respecting nature rather than destroying it.

I was also unaware that "poor" nations is at the losing end of this since they are being tax. If my memory serves me correctly, the current system being in place is a quota is allocated to certain countries/industry for their carbon emission. If they exceeded it, they will have to buy those emission from other countries/industries/competitors which didn't utilise them. In other words, poor country stand to benefit from this since they are not that advance.

I apologise for calling you that, and I will retract it from my post [I tend to use it way too much anyway in real life, for both good or bad]. I was, least to say, not the happiest person after being accused to be of some ilk which I never identified myself with, and being accused of being in denial. I hope you notice that it's the only time I've actually gone into a personal attack, which is quite outnumbered by you, if I dare say such a thing I hope you do the same and retract your accusations.

Also, the contributors to the blogs are not from the institution, though it's likely that they know the scientists personally, so I am not using the accused's own words to defend the accused. I am using the words of people who know the accused to defend them, as you would say, or as I'd see it, provide the context in which it was mentioned. I am not trying to show that I know more, I am saying that your claims are quite outrageous really, beyond what the evidence from the links you have provided would support. I'm not trying to lead you into circles at all, I'm trying to argue that your claims are unsubstantiated based on the evidence you have presented, and I'd like you to show me stronger evidence that substantiates your claims, scientifically, that shows that their claims are false, i.e. global warming is indeed a hoax.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question about ocean acidification yet . That has nothing to do with global warming, but is also a side effect of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which I hope we all agree with.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 22 2009, 02:01 AM

Right. So normally I close threads where people start calling others name. But I guess I'll leave a warning here. If people insist on calling others name from here onwards, this thread will be closed.

Ok everything else aside, I'll give you my personal view (which isn't backed by scientific fact of course but based on what I believe and understand).


I do not believe in Global Warming, it is bunk, junk science, scam, rubbish.

But I do admit, weathers, temperatures, sea levels are rising, in some areas of the world, and pollution.


The earth is changing, but NOTHING to do with global warming, which is a complete bunk and scam.


One place will warm, and another would cool. This is natural and has always happened to earth.


I believe, what's happening to earth, it's magnetic fields, is what's known as Polar Shift.

We're experiencing a slow pole shift, which is possibly the bigger picture.

Global warming is just bull science to blame on humans and overpopulation.


I do believe we may need to scale down the way we consume, and how many people are reproducing.


But I do not agree with the fraud being perpetrated to achieve this agenda.


Global warming is completely rubbish to me but pole shift is more plausible.


You want humanity to change the way they live, you've got to tell them the truth, not tell lies about global warming.

Anyway, this is just an opinion, not backed by scientific facts but based on my understanding/reading and my personal conclusion.

Here's another view from another person who I can relate with.



http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/164900.php

The True Cause of Global Warming
by Timothy Burns Watson Friday, Jun. 16, 2006 at 12:51 AM
apollospear@yahoo.com (416) 272-0260 278 Runnymede Rd., Toronto, Canada, M6S 2Y6

With things warming up, no one is getting more hot under the collar than the president and vice-president it seems as a scenario not unlike "The Day After Tomorrow" begins to unfold on a global scale.

The True Cause of Global Warming
by Timothy Watson

As part of the earth changes I envision taking place, I think what is happening in part is that the shift in the Earth's pole from its current incline of 23.5 degrees to its eventual shift to zero point or true magnetic north is resulting in climate change across the planet as the entire Earth is subjected to more direct heat from the sun and less seasonal inclination of the Earth's axis, which means that global warming has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. This has been a ruse of the establishment academics to divert our attention from the real cause, which is the incremental changes in weather resulting from the pole shift that is already underway.
The result of the Earth receiving more direct rays from the sun is that the poles are melting, simultaneously leading to higher sea levels. As the continental shelf of ice recedes in Alaska, the Antarctic, and Greenland, we are seeing a lightening of the ice shelves on the landmasses weighed down by them. The effect of this most poignantly is that the great continental landmass of Antarctica is springing back into position above sea level. Increased tectonic, earthquake and icequake activity are the result. Also, as the weight of ice on Antarctica recedes, the continental weight of the Antarctic shelf also lightens, allowing fault lines dormant for centuries to move and slide. This is causing increased earthquake activity on a global scale. The resulting effect is of course increased tsunami activity. The recent spate of seismic disturbances to hit Indonesia are one such example and the resulting tsunamis that have inundated Sri Lanka are but the first of a wave of such disasters that will begin to affect the world with increasing violence as the frequency and intensity of these events continues to grow.
We had better strap on our seatbelts because the problem is not about to go away. The Pentagon white paper of early 2004 leaked to the Guardian newspaper in England warned about such future earth change-related events. This is but the first in what is likely to prove one of the most serious early effects of the pole shift. Milutin Milankovitch, a Serbian astronomer of the nineteenth century charted these changes in the incline of the Earth's polar axis and realized they were instrumental in precipitating the glacial and interglacial periods affecting the northern hemisphere, where most of the earth's landmass and accompanying human population are concentrated. This coupled with changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit around the sun result in changes leading to longer winters and shorter summers, leading in turn to a buildup of ice and snow precipitating a glacial advance known as an ice age, or the reverse—longer summers and shorter winters, resulting in a glacial retreat known as an interglacial period.
These ice ages and interglacial periods could be equated with season change on a more cosmic scale, season change in cosmic time if you like. In other words, an ice age could be conceived as a more protracted winter period of gestation and rest when the entire Earth is slumbering and in hibernation for the next period of evolutionary development on the planet. In other words, an ice age resulting from the Earth's pole shifting the landmasses of the northern hemisphere away from the sun's warmth dispensing light in addition to a more eccentric elliptical orbit around the sun, produces the kind of accumulated buildup of ice and snow over an Earth year precipitating those conditions leading to a glacial advance to more southern climbs. The reverse is true when the Earth's axis inclines toward the sun at a period coinciding with a protracted summer period in cosmic time. This leads to a buildup of heat and a retreat of wintertime ice and snow, so that the glacial ice of the ice age recedes, precipitating a thaw or spring in cosmic time, bringing an end to the ice age.
In summary, the Earth is entering a period of less intense annual season change resulting from a gradual shift of the Earth's pole to true magnetic north. This means that the entire surface of the Earth is receiving more direct light from the sun, raising temperatures worldwide including the frozen north. This in turn is precipitating a meltdown of the polar icecaps, leading to higher sea levels in turn. Rising seas coincide with a lightening of the continental ice shelf weighing down the landmasses of the Arctic, the frozen northern islands of Canada and the northern wastes of northern Russia and Europe. More importantly, the tremendous weight of ice, previously depressing Antarctica beneath sea level, has allowed the continent of Antarctica to emerge from hibernation and rise once again from its protracted period of suspended animation. The resulting climate change has sponsored an increase of quake activity on Antarctica, whose tectonic plates are no longer held in place by the great weight of ice. Simultaneously, there is occurring increased plate movement along the ocean floors as the weight once holding them in place is removed. Increased quake activity worldwide in accompaniment with rising seas does not bode well. One does not need to be a prophet to see what's coming. An informed mind and a modicum of common sense is all that is required.

Okay, great to hear you talking without the accusations Now let's get to the statement you posted above:

I'd like to ask about this claim:



Suppose indeed this is true, that the Earth's geographical pole is shifting towards the magnetic north. So what would happen is that the poles, the Arctic and the Antarctic would shift towards the Equator, and we do get ice melting on the poles, raising sea levels.

I'm assuming he's talking about the poles about which the Earth rotates, not the magnetic pole which has been known to wander about

My question is: Shouldn't this be completely measurable using our satellites (since if they're in some fixed circular/elliptical orbit), we'd be able to notice changes in their positions relative to our positions on the planet? Since we've had a hot period in the past 40 years or so, why hasn't any evidence come forward yet from satellites, which have been orbiting the Earth pretty reliably since the late 1980's?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 22 2009, 02:42 AM

It may probably already happen but the problem is how do we know? Are you or me going to travel all the way to that place to confirm? With what tools to assess it ?

This is suppose to be the job of the scientists, and dissemination of such information , is decided by those who decide to allow such research data to be published or shut it down.

Based on the Hadley's conversation they seem to have some influential power in deciding what studies can get published, everyone has to play by their game. Who is to say there isn't already such scientific committee that decides what could get published?

The mainstream news are the worst of the lot, they avoided the integrity/discussion contents of the hadley hack and focused on the hacking crime itself, instead of fraudelent scientific literature exposed, as that is they key issue with the hadley hack. The hack itself is the least important crime but that's where the mainstream British media is focusing on.


And without funding, who's going to actually study where the new ice is forming? And even after the study, who decides for it to be published? Who is allowed to come up with an alternative science theory that challenges the mainstream accepted global warming being caused by humans theory ?


There are indeed powerful forces at work, that has corrupted even science itself. We can move away from this climate topic and venture into financial fraud, food monopoly(codex alimentarius) and medical mafia but those areas have already smeared anyone questioning their accepted stance, as nothing more than conspiracy theorists, even if the conspiracy theory is true.


The mainstream information/science age is identical to the medieval ages of Vatican monopoly in suppressing dissenters, except they use their power with the media and credentials to humiliate, ridicule and discredit you, just like what was mentioned in the hadley hack emails, of what these prominent scientists plan to do to anyone else trying to challenge their theories.

Michael Mann is the leader of their group, and is a Nobel prize winner, and he's a scumbag according to what I've read from other scientists about the email contents.

Facts are not enough if you cannot get them disseminated (or funded to do the research). Science can be redirected and tampered to suit a political agenda, exactly as what's been exposed in the hadley hack.

Sorry, just thought up a way on how it would heat up the entire surface, which sounds quite plausible, just posted another direction exploring a way to make measurements of pole shifts above.

Take a look and perhaps we might be able to even devise an experiment to measure such a thing, if it exists.

Well, the Telegraph is pretty much mainstream media really, but I think they're electing to wait and see and get their facts right. Besides, quite a few tabloids in the UK are already going ahead with this.

It doesn't matter whether a scientist is a scumbag or not, it's the scientific output that matters. Newton wasn't the most friendly scientist around, but that doesn't distract from his achievements.

My reply still holds, who gets to disseminate the information even if it's true? I am sure the global warming political pushers probably know about the pole shift thing but decided to go ahead with their global warming theory instead, because who's going to challenge them?


As science is bended towards an agenda, those who control the resources, funding, power and equipment are the ones who decide, whether or not to tell you what information they know.

Nobody is obligated to tell you the truth. You'll either have to force it out of them or have money or get funds somewhere to do the research and find a way to disseminate the information publicly if the media doesn't want to be your voice.

Normal peasants like us just sit down and either choose to trust or not trust these intellectual terrorists.

But that's not really the point. Surely if there are enough people who believe in the pole shift theory, they can surely fund a paper for it, given that satellites are pretty much everywhere.

Another plausible explanation for why the scientists don't bother with pole shifts is because they don't think it's a viable theory. I don't think they're trying to suppress it in any way, it's more of them not being bothered enough to want to measure how valid the pole shift hypothesis is right now.

But really, why do you think man-made global warming is bunk, based on some scientific principles, if possible? I'd really be interested to know, because I can follow the scientific plausibility of CO2 emissions causing the Earth to warm up:

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forc...ages/image7.gif

That's the absorption bands of major greenhouse gases. I'm quite lazy to do the math now, but if you look at the lowest column, the total atmosphere one, you'll notice a low absorption in the regions 0.3 to 0.7 microns. If I remember my physics right, that's exactly the visible spectrum of light. The high absorption to the left corresponds to UV light - that's due to ozone. To the left we have infrared light, which is pretty much the radiated heat - which is the thing we're concerned about.

You'll notice that water vapour is quite a strong greenhouse gas (probably even stronger than CO2) (absorption peaks beyond 0.7 microns), but the nice thing about water vapour is that it gets cycled quickly into a liquid when it rains, and when they clump up into clouds, they have a reflective effect that reduces the amount of heat absorbed. It's believed that the amount of water vapour has been somewhat constant, since it's constantly recycled in the water cycle, and its effects have been somewhat accounted for, so its effects are quite stable.

Carbon dioxide however is a different kettle of fish; it never condenses, so whatever CO2 you pump into the air today will probably stay there for quite a while (there is a carbon cycle, but we're rapidly putting more carbon into the air than can be absorbed, hence the measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations increasing). It is this absorption of the infra red by CO2 that's the key to man-made global warming, which is what its advocates believe. I hope you find this perfectly scientifically plausible.


So yes, that's a short introduction on how plausible CO2 emissions cause global warming, which is real, measurable effect in labs. Now, the argument by sceptics is that this warming effect is swamped by other factors; e.g. the pole shift you used above. I've also seen claims that it's the solar flux that's the main driver of warming, i.e. CO2 emissions are not the main cause of warming, and any other effect swamps it so much that we don't need to bother with CO2 emissions, and that's where I've seen the debate rage, where man-made global warming advocates (the scientists above too, it seems) claim that CO2 is the main factor, while others claim that CO2 isn't the main factor, and thus we cannot control how the Earth will warm, if the main source of warming is say, from the changing flux of the Sun instead.

But CO2 has another effect; it helps acidify the oceans. We learn in chemistry that CO2 (and other 'acidic' gases), when absorbed by water produces a weak acid. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an acidification of the oceans, which is a dangerous thing because it has the potential to change/disrupt ecosystems in the oceans greatly, and will disrupt a great food source for many many people. This effect has nothing to do with global warming, but is very dangerous too.

I think the key point i want to make is that , it's NOT i do not believe the world/climate is changing. I just do not accept the global warming as the be all end all and blaming it on humans solely as the main cause.


I will repeat what I read elsewhere from some guy's summary on this whole global warming bunk.


When are you people going to get it?
1- There is climate change, yes, there is climate change in all planets of our solar system currently. Some of them are having dramatic changes one way or another.

2- Big money took over environmentalism some time ago, they are not looking to fix their "carbon problem" at all. many people have come up with ways to get rid of Co2 including using one type of algae in oceans. Or by simply... planting trees. But no, they couldn't care less about it, what they want is the carbon tax scam which is in fact taxing one of the six essential building blocks of life. It's the perfect scam, it's like charging for oxygen.

3- More co2 and higher overall temperatures is actually what makes nature thrive unlike what they are trying to make you believe. If you don't know the REAL science behind it just take a look at our planet. Where does nature thrive? It's in the Equator, giant tropical forests with millions of species known and millions yet to discover. And where in our planet exists less plant and animal life? It's in the coldest parts, if you go to the Poles it's almost non existent. Here's a little experience for you: Get some plants in two different locations, in one the locations feed them high co2, in the other location don't use anything. Your jaw will drop when you see the end results.

4- Pollution is bad, yes, I hate it, I love nature and I want to fight the real pollution but this enviro scam is all about taxes and pushing for globalization and political agendas. These guys have patents on this carbon credit scam for Christ sake. Guys like all Gore will get a percentage of every Pennie involved in the carbon scam, they will be trillionaries.

5- Hope these are enough good reasons for you.




And most importantly, the email hacks clearly shows the scientists's own data do not match up to their own global warming theory and so they tried to massage it and you get this hockey stick thing with Michael Mann the so called nobel laureate who really should be stripped of the title or just discredit the nobel prize altogether. (Even Obama can get this prize in less than a year, clear cut case of politically motivated move)



The earth is changing, yes, but global warming blamed on humanity and politically motivated carbon tax is bunk.

If you do not believe in a global conspiracy you better start reading up on the New World Order, it has been repeated to death even by the politicians themselves publicly.

You have to drive into the conspiracy theory area, yes, many hate it but that doesn't invalidate the theories, as even science/global warming itself is a theory.


We're being herded to a global governance in turbo mode, whether we like it or not, we will be squeezed in to accept this. Their initial creation is the United Nations long ago. This is not a theory, this is a fact. It's also known as globalization and it's a global power grab and anyone who dismisses this theory or not bother to read up on it is seriously doing him/herself injustice to connect the dots.

Global warming is also closely linked to population control theories. Go read up on population control, another taboo area.

---

Added on November 22, 2009, 4:11 amOh btw, when talking about the NWO, it is nothing like what the religious dumb dumbs have claimed to be.

Political leaders have admitted to wanting a global government but it has got absolutely nothing to do with Satanism or whatever. So when dwelling into this topic, don't waste time reading the point of view from religious nutjobs.

Anyone who starts associating NWO from their religious point of view, get out of this thread.

NWO is a valid topic but it has been tainted and polluted with low IQ religinuts in PHD forum. Yes i've read one of the NWO related threads and I think these people who're presenting it from their primitive religious point of view ought to be shot for being of inferior intellect.


We're headed towards a global government, that's a fact.

No, not everyone wants to be part of this global government because of questionable people being in charge.


There're infighting, and that's why you have this HADLEY hack scandal. It is linked to the copenhagen/lisbon treaty of climate/global warming contract where nations must sign.



Global government is inevitable as the future of planet earth. It is the only way we can avoid countries nuking the crap out of each other.


Global government is GOOD if done correctly by reputable leaders and openly without hidden agenda like some of the camps of global warming are perpetrating.



And please do not listen to any NWO/Global government theories from religious nutcases esp videos made by Christians/Muslims. These are the people who cannot keep up with the changes and are the ones making the topic bunk and disreputed.


World government is inevitable. But who will be leading it ? That's the question.

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 22 2009, 04:11 AM

yes, i get it...
1) changes happen all the time everywhere. but earth is the only place we live in now, we are concerned and worried about our future. thus, we try to understand what is around us.

2) possible.

3)i agree that forest do thrive in higher co2 and temperature, to a certain limit. but "forest of the sea" is extremely sensitive to temperature and concentration of co2. coral reefs at many places are bleaching and the growth of forest on land cannot compensate the loss of the "forest of the sea".

4) i want to know more about the carbon tax scam and how this system works.

would like to see more evidence that support your point 2 and 4

I know you do think that climate is changing, but what you seem to be claiming is that it's not man made.

1) Agreed
2) I've looked at papers about the algae bloom idea (by sprinkling iron into the oceans) but it seems that what happens is that it just attracts fish to the area which then cut the number of algae. Trees may act as carbon sinks but right now we're unfortunately going through deforestation instead of reforestation, if we are to have any hope of cutting down CO2 levels. The thing about carbon tax is that they wish to tax non-renewable carbon dioxide sources - fossil fuels. You won't get carbon neutral sources, e.g. trees for firewood being taxed because it's simply part of the carbon cycle

3) Not exactly. You have to account for the rate of change of the level of CO2. The rate of change of CO2 concentration/temperatures during the past periods have been much slower than what we have today. Having a 3-6c change in 1-2 centuries is a very disruptive change. E.g. see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png . Notice that the steep gradients occur over a few thousand years, which is much longer than the 1-2 centuries being mentioned here. Sure we might in the end see life thriving, but you'll see a lot of ecosystems wiped out, local climate changes for example causing droughts in places where you don't expect them to happen, i.e. local climate becomes unpredictable, we don't know which part's going to get a lot of rain, which part will become very dry. This has the potential of wiping out food sources from agriculture. Sure humans will probably survive, but if you get variations in local climate you will get a lot of deaths and ecosystems getting wiped out (new ones will come out once the survivors manage to settle in favourable places in the new climate)

4) That isn't true either, Al Gore doesn't have a patent on those things

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/usa/roll...t-scam-9501.htm

http://greenhellblog.com/2009/07/08/goldma...rbon-regulator/

http://cad-mastergraphics.com/global-warming-scam.htm


Financial topic is very longwinded deep. You should google for how global warming and taxation comes into play.


We're not against for cleaner/pollution free planet earth.

We're just against the way these fraudsters are capitalizing on green planet agendas to get RICH from it.

nice information.
Last time I read an article in Time magazine stated that global warming pace was exaggerated.

Anyway, a good topic to ponder upon..
thanks TS

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

The Death Blow to Climate Science

By Dr. Tim Ball Saturday, November 21, 2009


Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.
Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.
Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”

You can download the climate change fraud documents from the link below:
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009 or http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94

No conspiracy theories as a crutch please. If you want your thread to continue, please argue based on findings.

New world order is not a conspiracy theory. Don't simply slam label around when you have not done your reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(political_system)


And even if there's conspiracy theory discussed, it is as much applicable as other unproven scientific theories, which are simply theories.


As long as the conspiracy theory has valid grounds it can be discussed, but if stuff like satanism and religion comes in, then you know it's bunk.


Human behaviour/greed is a major part of political policies and it has demonstrated how it is a part of corruption in the scientific process. The evident of conspiracies in the email has shown that conspiracies are not theories.


If you have a cognitive dissonance problem, that is YOUR problem but that doesn't mean human factor should not be discussed and that you simply dismiss things you cannot understand as conspiracy theory to shut people up.

That is the classic case of failure to take human behaviour into question when formulating a theory why certain policies come to the way they are. You do not simply label things you do not understand or don't want to understand as conspiracy theories to discredit an argument or opponent. It fully reflects on a person's immaturity and cognitive dissonance and inability to discuss conceptual potentials.

Looking at facts alone without regard for character/quality of people potentially influencing the facts, like what the scientists did to massage data, is a sign of a failed scientist.

Since master root of information can be doctored, it is imperative that a person's character and his facts/source be discussed and not simply dismiss things you do not understand as conspiracy theories, it makes you no different from the scientists who've committed fraud and who's decided to use the very same conspiracy theory weapon on dissenters.

That's why most scientists are laughable to me, they never take the human factors into consideration when studying so called 'facts' of science.

The science of science itself is neutral but when you have human equation in, you cannot dismiss the human behaviour influence by labeling any discussion of character/intent of a person or group of persons as conspiracy theories. That is the classic case of how intellectual terrorism is used by those in power to dismiss people from questioning their policies.

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 22 2009, 02:15 PM

I'll say it again no conspiracy theories if you want this thread to live.

You don't even understand what's being discussed here, and start throwing that threat and label around. You have a cognitive dissonance problem.

Closed. A pity really since I thought there were some interesting things to talk about here. NWO huh....sure. Again try Kopitiam section please.