[Yes, the site is kept up to date. Several times a day in fact. Thank you for your comments, but our policies require we remove extraneous links. Robt]

Who are you trying to kid? Factcheck is not credible.

Aside from a couple of skeptical sources, who play no part in their conclusions, they swallow the globaloney from these biased sources, among others: NPR, ABC News, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Peter Frumhoff, East Anglia University, The Times of London, Keith Briffa, the UN/IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, the Associated Press, Keith Seitter, Time magazine, the Michael Mann controlled Journal of Climate, etc.

The Factcheck article repeatedly refers to the disseminated emails as “hacked” and “stolen,” with zero corroborating evidence. How impartial is that? Factcheck can spoon feed its biases to the general public, but readers here are up to speed on the issue and know better.

You’re new here. Stick around, follow the discussion – and if cognitive dissonance hasn’t taken over your belief system, the scales will soon fall from your eyes. You can start by thinking about the fact that Phil Jones, at the center of the leaked email controversy, is currently out of a job. That happened as a direct result of the emails. And he’s not unemployed because he was too honest.

I find it sad that educated people fall victim to all of these conspirancy and data manipulation theories.

The facts are overwhelming folks….the climate is warming due to increase in hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, and humans are largely responsible.

Factcheck.org Summary:

“In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.

Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.”

“leading scientists” – WHO? Ones paid with our tax dollars who know they’re employment is secure as long as they can keep everyone believing that there’s actually a ‘problem’ with the climate? It’s a huge HOAX and it’s over. There remains ZERO proof that human CO2 has any measurable affect on climate.. zero! The money flowing to these criminals must stop now – especially to the ones at the UN who are simply perpetuating the marxist/Gaia ideas of Al gore’s buddy Maurice Strong to de-industrialize the free world making the USA his prime target.

Maurice Strong said: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?”

That is the most LUNATIC thing I’ve ever heard and it’s from the very person who began the UN ‘s original Environmental Program as it’s director. He actually thinks that humans are some sort of ‘disease’ on this planet and it is up to HIM to decide who has a ‘right’ to be here. “Man Made Global Warming” fell into his lap as the perfect hoax to foist his agenda upon us. Thus began the AGW snow job with a whole gaggle of useful idiots all funded with MY and YOUR tax money via government programs kowtowing to the whim of the UN.

The UN’s “Oil for Food” scandal was not just a sign of a little corruption at the UN, it was just the tip of the iceberg.

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

I find it amazing that the naysayers of global warming take one example of bad science, and use it to make their cause.

Climategate”

Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don’t change scientific consensus on global warming.

December 10, 2009
Corrected: Dec. 22, 2009

Summary…

[Reply: Posting of the link is sufficient. ~dbs, mod.]

“Confidential”? So you are saying the meat and potatoes of all research that we PAY for should be kept a secret? If they want to chit chat off the clock they can use gmail. In the private sector, almost all corporations tell their employees that everything they write, every email, everything they post on Internet via the company server – is OPEN for inspection.

Give us ONE reason why government employees should not be treated the same especially given that they are supposed to be serving US – not the other way around?

And you do not think that signing away our right to use energy anyway we want to, cutting our fossil fuel use in half, (that is GUARANTEED to do what for the climate, exactly?), will not impact our economy? That is won’t shackle our destiny to the whim of the UN that is run by a bunch of leftist clowns? Get outta here! Let’s see YOU cut YOUR energy consumption in half first? Better still, you and that stinking lying elitist hypocrite AL GORE.

“The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:”
His crime was he illegally broke into the university and distributed confidential information. Hellooooo!!! That is a crime.

[REPLY - Yes, actually I do think they have been snowed under. And not for the first time; this is just the deepest so far. And it's not just one paper. And the current slow rate of warming per century is no threat at all -- Positive feedback theory must also turn out to be true, and so far there's a lot of observational evidence against it. (For that matter, temperature trend has been negative since 1998 while CO2 has increased.) We must keep an open mind and see where the science takes us. ~ Evan]