Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

There have been statements that the word “trick” could be used in other ways than fraud. However, at the end of the statement attributed are the words “to hide the decline”.
I think that putting the context here proves the dishonesty of this certain individual.

The last thing to say from my point of view is this: Flood every single person on Capital Hill: Congressmen, Judges, President, Vice President: Flood them all with paper faxes and do it with a click of the mouse. This is a FREE SITE. You may donate if you CHOOSE to. Personally, I have. http://www.americanvoice.com
I have sent 10,000 plus faxes since I joined the group. Believe me, these people have my opinion. Send your today.

Yes, an ed Milliband on C4 news tonight said that revenue raised from the UK (+ other “rich” nations) will be used to subsidize “development” in the poorer nations (e.g. Brazil). So there you have it. We are about to get yet another f***ing tax and we will not be the beneficiaries. This is global communism, Ed Milliband’s father was a marxist (look it up on wikipedia).

Heh, I’m kinda late, but however. You guys make this issue of “Russian hacking” too complicated. Just who do you think we are, anthropomorphic drunken bears working for KGB, or what?
It’s completely believable that the whole project was exercised by an enthusiastic group of Russian geeks. Yes we have geeks, and they play WoW like all the geeks in this world do, and Russian society is not some militaristic system where everyone acts because of a command from a higher-up. We have imageboards like 4chan, too. And the most shocking fact is, we are no imbeciles! We can learn English to speak fluently, it’s not hard at all compared to our native language. I learned it by reading online comics, for example. It’s also studied in schools, but screw schools.
You are using the same old stereotype of an Evil Empire (Empire of Evil? I forgot), fearsome leader and hordes of vodka-powered minions. Our president (I mean the real one, not mr. bearman) knows this well and exploits it. But actually there’s very little of what the government controls in our society. It has no credit, no one goves a damn about what they say, and their attempts to look respectable suck. There are very few people in Russia who support government while not being part of it – probably 15% or so. They fake elections because people are too bored to go and vote. They’re all either wealthy gangsters from 90s or ex-KGB service people (dunno how to say) or just party relics and they’re not even hiding that. Our government joins all that shitty unprofitable global organisations, proving to be plain incompetent. And the scene where it has especially little influence is Internet.
There is no secret plot to it. Only irritation and standard hacker’s bravado.

I live in Australia where there is a climate change battle going on. Penny Wong the climate chance minister, Kevin Rudd, Prime minister and all there minions are now running scared at the moment through this e.mail, but they wont make that public. It started out as a slow walk now they are sprinting to the finish line at warp speed. It was only gonna take time before something like this happened, and i am glad it has come out just before Copenhagen.
The left right paradigm is quickly falling apart. What we need to do now is shout from the roof tops ” WE KNOW WHAT YOUR TRYING TO DO AND WE WILL EXPOSE YOU AND YOUR LIES “.
Al Gore has been caught so many times lying about climate change i dont think he even knows the truth anymore. We all know that when this is all over no one will be held accountable for the biggest fraud in the past 2 centuries. Treason this is what it is …………….

Aaargh! Please fix the double typo on resposibility. Bloody keyboard.

I don’t think this could be the work of Russian hackers. Russians are not clever enough, or technologically advanced enough. No, I don’t think a Ruskie could have done this kind of thing. Maybe an Indian, or perhaps Chinese, but a Russian! Ha. You must be joking.

Cap and Trade is the Plan to install the New One World Government. This is just the beginning, the money plan to do this. Research Congressman Larry McDonald. He was about to expose the Plans of the Power elite and they made sure he died. Korean Flight 007…

December 5, 2009
In light of the recent Computer Hack at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK., the information now on the internet is quite interesting to say the least. It has served to call attention to the political involvement in science and the question remains, are we in fact having Global Warming?
At the heart of all this is the question, is global warming caused by humankind? Having studied the subject over the last two years, I can know that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. However, I realize that there are many that have not come to the same conclusion.
In 1859 oil was discovered her in my home state of Pennsylvania and for a long time gasoline was a waste product until the invention of the internal combustion engine and we humans found a use for it and we all know that it has become a major driver of our economy.
The problem is how do we deal with CO2 if in fact it is a contributor to climate change. I don’t think by adding a tax is the answer and the idea of a Carbon Tax at this point with are economy in the gutter is not a smart move by politicians.
First, I want you to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a environmentalist, but I am a advocate of alternative energy. I’m just a guy with a hight school education that is in love with science and technology. Two years ago, I did research on solar thermal energy and have since that time designed and build a solar water heating system that I have in operation here at my home. My motive was not the environmental issue of Global Warming, it was the high cost of energy. A Carbon tax increases the cost of energy!
I recently read an article Published by Steve Forbes, Forbes.com Special Report: Beyond Copenhagen, titled Eat my Carbon. What to do with the world’s fossial fuel pollution? Why not feed it to plants?
In my study and research on CO2, I do know that plants need CO2 to survive just as much as we humans and animals need oxygen to survive. Greenhouses growers increase CO2 to get better plant growth and it is known that plants grow better with a higher level of CO2 introduced in to the growing environment.
We just can’t switch off all our Coal Fired Electric Generating Plants or stop driving our automobiles. Well then what do we do? Just like in the early days when we found a use
for a waste produce, gasoline, through the invention of the internal combustion engine. We now can feed the CO2 to Green Growing Plants just like we have found a use in the timber business for waste wood, wood pellets, which by the way is carbon neutral. The rotting of wood in our forests produce CO2 and by using these products we contribute nothing to the natural environment.
The cost of pressurizing captured carbon dioxide and injecting it underground could be as much as much as $100 a ton. I can tell you that our farmers are paying way more than that for a ton of fertilize to get good crops.
Paul Woods, a chief executive officer of Algenol, a Florida start up that is developing an algae-to-ethanol technology. I know from my research three years ago on biofuels that that was a good possibility. I have some friends making there own fuel from used cooking oil. These guys are making enough biofuel to heat their homes and operate two trucks and two automobiles. Making fuel from what otherwise would be waste cooking oil makes a lot good sense. However, using virgin oil from food crops does not make good sense as has been demonstrated a few years back.
Their is all kinds of great technology out there, using algae is one of my favorites. Growing a non food crop for fuel while feed it CO2. We have just found a solution to the CO2 problem, if in fact it is a problem.
In light of the recent Computer Hack at the University of East Anglia,CRU, I seriously suggest that we back up and take a long look at the science, the research and the scientists that are called in to question . I want to hear more form both sides because of the cost involved in mitigating CO2 from out atmosphere. I think the american people deserve a closer look at the science and what went on at that university.
We are not as stupid as Al Gore thinks we are and it is because of his outrageous statements and his lack of science fact that motivates me to be a skeptic in this hole question on Global Warming.
John McClintock

TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS – why they are unreliable and falsely represented as ‘settled science’.
The forecasts of temperature gain over the century produced by modelling can be shown to have two components, one having a high degree of predictability and the other being highly problematic.
The Greenhouse Gas theory is responsible for the first component and may be reasonably regarded as ‘settled science’. It states that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will generate a ‘forcing rate’, the direct result of which may be expected to produce a sufficient increase in the energy retained by the earth to cause a rise in surface temperature over the course of a century that we may identify as GG degrees C. This is the direct outcome of the operation of the Greenhouse Gas principle and has been calculated to be 1.2 degree C
This is the primary consequence. There are however secondary consequences, none of which are explicable by the Greenhouse Theory as such, but are dealt with by other branches of scientific knowledge. These secondary factors, of which there are potentially many, may be identified as x1,x2, x3 etc and the net sum of them all identified as X.
Each of these factors may either be of the nature of a feedback or may be an independent variable. A positive feedback arises where the factor is itself directly related to the increase in heat generated as GG.
Examining the models used by the IPCC shows that the value of X derived from these models lie within a range where X is at the low end 50% of GG and at the high end 500% of GG. These therefore yield predictions of warming within the century of between 1.8 and 6 degrees C.
These models, being constructed to yield predictions of the consequences of CO2 increase, deal only in X factors that are of the nature of positive feedback. It is this that accounts for the wide range of prediction, even though the models are very similar and the parameters introduced into them reflect a very much less extreme variation in the assessments made by scientists.
This can be readily shown by considering a positive feedback incidence of an X factor where its initial value, that is the secondary effect taken in isolation, is 40% of GG. This will now generate a tertiary effect of 16%, and a further effect at 4 removes of 6.4%. At 5 removes this becomes 2.5% and at 6 it is a further 1%.
As a result a model into which is fed a parameter assuming a 40% primary positive feedback will generate a total temperature gain of approximately two thirds. This acceleration of the predicted gain gathers momentum very quickly. As the original assumption approaches 100%, that is a positive feedback just doubling the temperature gain at the first pass, it causes the model to yield a prediction approaching infinity. It is of course this characteristic, which is mathematical and owes nothing to any empirical observation, that gives rise to talk of ‘runaway’ tipping points.
We can therefore see that the relatively modest differences in the assessment of feedback components introduced by different scientists yields results that verge on the bizarre. Those familiar with the use of modelling for business forecasting will be painfully familiar with this phenomenon. A modest tweaking of the input can give you almost any result you want, but unless the inputs and their variation are derived from hard, observable fact you are simply not dealing with the real world at all.
That is not of course to say that the X factor is unimportant. Quite the converse it is crucially significant. The question that has to be addressed is not whether the 1.2 degree C as derived from the application of the Greenhouse Gas theory is correct (it is sensible to assume that it is) but what is the net effect of the multiplicity of X factors which must then be applied to yield any kind of usable forecast.
The first point to be made is that, if we are wanting a real forecast and are not just playing modelling games, then those X factors which are NOT feedback elements but are independent must be given equal weighting. The exclusive concentration on the Greenhouse Gas theory, implicit in such models, means that all the other potential X factors are discounted. It is significant however that they have had to be brought back into the equation by the IPCC in order to explain why the temperature outcome of the last decade is so far adrift from that predicted by the models.
The second point is that the operation of the feedback x factors must be validated by empirical observation, both in terms of their quantitative effect and the reality of the causal linkage with the primary GG factor assumed when assigning them feedback status.
To describe the science of these assessments as in any way ‘settled’ is absurd given the immense complexity and metrication difficulties entailed.
If there is one overall ‘law’ of nature that deserves to be observed when confronted with such an enigma it has to be the law of entropy. It is the operation of this law that causes so much of the natural world to be constantly moving towards a state of equilibrium, recovering over time from disturbances to that state. As a general statement it can be asserted that nature just doesn’t do tipping points. Given a perturbation amounting over a century to the injection of incremental energy capable of yielding a 1.2 degree C warming in the atmosphere, it is more likely that the secondary and further effects will be of the nature of negative rather than positive feedback. We are certainly not entitled to assume either without having collected and analysed empirical evidence.
The IPCC emphatically does not have that evidence. It has fallen back on the device of seeking to carry over the degree of certainly reasonably attributable to the Greenhouse Gas theory in yielding the 1.2 degree C number to the estimation of the X factors then applied to generate the scary, and very wobbly, prediction of warming. This is thoroughly bad science.
At the heart of this aberration lies a semantic trick, all the more effective because, like a good card trick, it is so difficult to spot.
The amount of additional energy added to the earth’s total complement as identified as necessarily occurring through the operation of the Greenhouse Gas principle, must of necessity add to global temperature, that being the mean temperature of the globe. The issue now becomes one of distribution, that is how that energy becomes dispersed across the 5.974 x 1024 kg mass of the globe, and most particularly how much of it is retained in the form of a temperature gain in the 5.148 x 1018 kg mass of the atmosphere.
To obfuscate this issue the IPCC has adopted the practice of using the SAME WORDS to identify the temperature of the latter as the former. In both cases the term ‘global mean temperature’ is applied. This is readily demonstrable by examining the 26 words of the IPCC conclusion that uses the term to identify mean surface temperature, and uses it in the same way 14 times in the preceding more detailed chapter. It is impossible to derive scientific truth from such a blatant misuse and distortion of terminology. We here see the term identifying the entity to whose variation in temperature we can assign a degree of certainty ‘flipped’ to designate an entity that merits no such attribution of scientific likelihood let alone certainty.
The reality is that, as a consequence of a rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, we must expect over a century a gain in energy which, if remaining resident in the atmosphere, would cause a temperature rise of 1.2 degrees C. There are however both other unrelated factors that may cause the temperature to be higher or lower, and factors arising as secondary consequences of any temperature rise that may again act either to increase or decrease the resultant net effect. We do not currently have nearly enough scientific knowledge nor evidence to be able to make any confident prediction of the outcome.
David Fairbairn

Incidentally, hacking servers and networks is a criminal offence, deemed a form of cyber-terrorisism, as the pending extradition to the US of the unfortunate Gary McKinnnon shows. It is odd that this parallel has not been drawn in the media, obvious as it is. The hack may have been done by an individual connected with climate-change denial or conspiracy-theory groups, yet the best equipped to selectively trawl specific individuals’ mail to order are the intelligence services, especially those of the UK, USA and Russia. The timing was perfect and the speed with which climate deniers used a few semantic
matters buried in thousands of documents in time for 10 days’ furore before Copenhagen remarkable.

Global Warming is a tool by by which the leftwingers everywhere can justify taxing everyone, including the the poor which they claim they are trying to help.