"Climategate" surpasses "Global Warming" on Google

Sorry if repost: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Climate change data dumped
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
see link for rest

Kathyryn….The internet is all that stands between us and totalitarianism.
Bingo… you have exactly defined where we are at. I have no idea what country you are located in but it doesn’t mater, your statement is true no matter where you are.”
———–
My greatest fear is that we need to add “… at present” to that statement. When are we going to need to find another route?
______
Hmmm… I agree, the encroaching nature of totalitarianism is such that the current liberating state of the internet is just a ‘loophole’ to these thugs that is screaming to be closed. In answer to your question…. well, in the regime of Mao the guvmint would daily post newspapers of the ‘official story’ on bulletin boards throughout neighbourhoods. By the next morning, the papers would have ‘reinterpretations’ penned all along the margins, between the stories and anywhere else there was available space. Gives a precise visual of ‘reading between the lines’.
On one of my other posts here, I suggested that the only way the truth will ever get out there is for each of us (who understand this story) to commit to explaining it is as well and giving it as far flung exposure as we personally can go with it. I am personally working on this with everyone in my family, the circle of friends, neighbours, business associates and so on. The media is hopeless when an issue like climediagate is upon us…. because they are in on the fix.
If anything is to be learned from this saga, it is the realization as to how close totalitarianism is to being upon us.

Hey, there was even an almost-unbiased article about Climategate in the leftist Montreal Gazette today.
But meanwhile, it’s business-as-usual for enviro lobby groups and eco-journalists who continue to pressure governments to reach a deal at Copenhagen.
Even the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Queen Elizabeth have gone overboard about global warming at the current Commonwealth Summit:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091127/wl_afp/commonwealthsummitunclimate

Climate Gate is YOUR fight from http://www.repubx.com/
by DefendUSx November 27, 2009 12:54
Most Americans don’t even know about the carbon tax, and many of them, even if they’re skeptical that man is behind global warming, are unaware that if there ever was global warming, it ended at least 10 years ago and the Earth has been cooling for several years, driven by a startling lack of solar activity. They must be made aware, and they must have a fire lit under the backsides, to understand that they cannot sit around unaware and uncaring of current events. The carbon tax is a pretext to global government, which is a pretext to depopulation – genocide. This is no longer about being “into politics”. It’s survival. Push for an aggressive congressional investigation. Write to your local newspaper. Call in to talk radio. Motivate others to do the same. The media will not drive this story. In fact they will do everything in their power to suppress it. Despite their deteriorating credibility, they still wield incredible influence over the masses – in this case simply by refusing to inform the public of a scandal related to an issue that affects us all. This is our fight. Squad up.

By 1980 I had reached a point in my career as an ME where I could finally afford a “nice” car, so I bought a new Chrysler Cordoba “with fine Corinthian Leather.” It turned out to be the worst car I’ve ever owned. Things broke on that car that I didn’t believe could break. As a result I have not purchased another Chrysler since. I’ve since owned Fords, Lexus and MB’s (I currently drive a BMW 5).
I’ve used Webcrawler, AltaVista, Mooter, Yahoo, Google, and Bing and some other bizarre search engines. They’re tools … just tools. Some worked for a while and then they broke. Google was great and now it may … or may not … be broke.
Don’t depend on one form of transportation. If the injector nozzles fall into the intake manifold, Chrysler wasn’t doing it to get you … stop driving it and use the BMW!

Of course climate change is way out in front at 20mill +++

I posted a comment in the Australian Weather Forum where the Head of the National Climate Centre, BoM in Australia often posts… My comment questioned his belief system… the next day my post was deleted and the thread locked..
Heres the link – http://planetweather.forumotion.net/climatology-f4/integrity-a-reminder-of-a-near-extinct-human-quality-t163.htm#10392
Censorship is alive and well.. So I thought i’d post my comments here with the detaisl on what happened…
[i][b]Integrity:[/b]
Main Entry: in•teg•ri•ty
Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-grə-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
Date: 14th century
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness
synonyms see: honesty[/i]
Some of you may ask, what ahs this to do with the climate? A fair question indeed. Well, too often do people consider themselves to be a person of character, or integrity, but sadly, actions speak louder than words. And I decided to use this example, which I will do into detail below, as a demonstration of what is now common place amongst those that “believe” in the AGW theory. I use quote marks because, whilst I am not a scientist, I used to think that science was about seeking out the truth through debate, research and fallibility. The word ‘belief’ is defined as:
[i]Main Entry: be•lief
Pronunciation: \bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
Date: 12th century
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms belief, [b]faith[/b], credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer . faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof . credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent . credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof .
synonyms see in addition opinion
If faced with evidence that challenges our belief, yet we still continue to hold our view regardless, we then start to hold a faith, not a belief.[/i]
Yesterday, I posted a comment questioning the AGW theory in this forum. I particularly questioned the professionalism and the integrity of David Jones – The Head of the National Climate Centre at the BOM. A government job, his salary paid by my taxes. It is within reason to expect that we, as the tax payer, have a right to question such a person.
It was not abusive, there was o personal attack – except direct questions regarding the specific comments David made. I even said that he had a right, as we all do, to his view.
Thankfully I kept a copy of my post, as it was (unsurprisingly) deleted with the following statement from David Jones:
[b]This forum is for those who enjoy the weather. Many of us moved here because we tired of arguing with “skeptics” who have no interest in the weather, but rather use forums to promote political views. I’ve locked this topic.[/b]
and…
This from the forum owner, Karl Jijnders (excerpts):
[b]I am in no way affiliated with the BoM or any other organization, I am speak for no one but me. But seeing as I have put this place together with a group of enthusiasts to discuss weather and yes climate without the verbal bashings and lashings from the underground right and left parties.[/b]
And this from the same post:
[b]I personally will not tolerate things on this forum being taken out of context for personal gain, people made to stand trial over and over again for they’re occupation, and will not tolerate any form of abuse. Go elsewhere to behave that way.[/b]
So it is quite clear from your actions that whilst you like ‘discussion’, you will only allow your discussion on the basis that all agree with you.
And therein lies the problem. David Jones locks the thread that I posted so that no one could comment further. Karl makes a statement about personal gain, abuse, standing trail… Well – where in my post, did I commit such atrocities?
I thought the standing trail bit was priceless! He is in a public position after all. One wonders whether their stance on this would be more welcome in a country with somewhat less liberties?
So in the name of free speech I am cross posting this comment to the following blogs:
Andrew Bolt – currently rated in the top 100 largest blogs in the world.
Joanne Nova
Watts Up With That
I may decide to publish in the national press blogs too.
Luckily for free speech, another blogger has already posted about my deleted comment in Andrew’s blog – http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_betrayal_of_science_and_of_you/
So I thought it important to post my original comment which this forum deleted, in Andrews comments section… that can be found here under the name.. David of St Kilda. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tips_for_sunday_november_29/desc/#commentsmore
And, here’s my original post:
[i]David, I’d like to comment on a post you’ve made on this site that bothers me in a few ways especially given you are the current Head of the National Climate Centre over at the BOM.
I have huge respect for the BOM in general. I am a pilot and a yachty and rely on accurate short range forcasts provided by your organisation. Most of the time you’re bang on! No one expects perfection, the future, is the future after all.
Having said that, in your post you say that you cannot comment on Andrew Bolt’s work for professional reasons… then in the next sentence you say his work is rubbish? How is that not commenting? And, on what basis do you call it rubbish? Is it that you don’t agree with him? or do you have contradicting data?
I’m confused, because this is an issue of great interest to me, so I check up on his work and to date, have not found any errors.
You mention that the climate will decide for itself whether the science is right – a refreshing comment! But isn’t 15 years of no warming, and 7 years of cooling a reasonable start? Some might say, perhaps you too, that the past 10 years has been the hottest on record – that may be true, our records started 100 years ago (approx), so i’m not sure what that point is meant to prove except for a trivial tool to persuade the stupid..
You comment that this November was the hottest on record.. OK? Was it? So what? What record are you referring to? Empirical or Proxy records? Last week I was looking at BOM temperature records from 1890 for Australia broken down by state, and with all of them, the mean temperatures where horizontal. No increase, no decrease. How is that possible if this November was the all time warmest? How also, when other parts of the world and indeed, here in Australia we have had unusual cold spells which get described as isolated weather events, yet the warm days are evidence of climate change?
I remember when, in the late 70’s, warm days were weather events and cold days were further proof of global cooling..!?
So we can refer to some IPCC graphs that indicate we are the hottest century on record, yet those graphs produced by the IPCC are now falling over like domino’s – as soon as you look at the raw data, all of a sudden the crisis disappears! How could that be? I suppose the data hasn’t been ‘adjusted’ – I’ll give you that, but adjustments are based on theories, not facts. So the corrected data differs depending on who adjusts the numbers.. surely that isn’t a finite way to conduct business, especially if nations are moving to change their way of life and economies over the results?
Now, apparently the satellites are telling us the November temps were high.. But only if Spencer doesn’t adjust the numbers? For goodness sake. Raw data, is raw data. If two scientists cannot replicate a theory with the same data, then in my book its rubbish.
With all that said.. aren’t you stating the obvious telling is the climate changes? Whether November was hottest on record or not is not important, what are you trying to prove? We know the climate changes.. And nowhere has Andrew Bolt said otherwise. I thought showing correlation to prove causation was forgotten about? I mean haven’t we moved on?
I watched a guy fall over board in today’s yacht race, I was on a different boat, but perhaps I should feel responsible simple because i was crewing on a different boat.. on the same race?
And, what of the more recent research that seems to totally debunk the theory (Linzden 2009 to name one), the emails, the released code (with comments included)?
In a field that has yet to find a direct link to Emissions and Temperature, yet seems to have plenty of evidence proving there is no link, you would think that it’s specialists would be more balanced and open minded? A good friend of mine is a Micro Biologist.. I couldn’t imagine her saying “Perhaps a special bacteria message from the medical gods to Andrew” coming out of her mouth – if she disagree;s with a colleague or anyone for that matter, she discusses.. asks questions.. probes.Yest in this field, those that believe want to silence those that don’t…
In private enterprise, if you were a head of a department, you’d be expected to be balanced, fair and open minded.. It seems the Government has far less expectations from their Heads.
You have a very one eyed opinion, which you have a right to have! I suspect that no matter what new evidence comes to light, you will still believe in the AGW as you always have, your faith and your income rely on it. Is that a healthy attitude to have as Head of the National Climate Centre? With people like you, M.Mann, P.Jones, Rudd, Biffa, Gore, Obama and Flannery (shaking head) preaching the evils of man.. what hope do we have in finding the truth? You know.. the truth? That handy little thing that goes a long way to helping us find the real answers to the climate, so we can best deal with it and adapt.. Waging a war on Co2 (NOT CARBON) will not save the plight of the northward march of the south Siberian pine ant, to name one ridiculous (invented) claim. I wonder if instead we focused on real pollution, what difference would that make to our planet? I know there”s not much money in that though.
Its like declaring war on Tasmania for human rights abuse in China.
We should expect better.[/i]
I didn’t post for political reasons. I posted because David Jones, a man that holds a senior position in government made a baseless statement about Andrew Bolt – who is known for allowing all views to be posted on his blog and whats more, does not make the science, reports what other scientists are doing, but are mostly experiencing the same treatment as me.. censorship.
So why would we need to censor something? Surely not because it hurts your feelings? That’s school yard stuff.
But some ideas would be:
1. Because you want to hide something
2. Their view opposes a set agenda
3. To hide your incompetence
Well, there’d be more I’m sure.
[b]So I ask – What are your frightened of?[/b]
Integrity today is a rare quality indeed.
Yours,
David Hewison.

Bing : brad jennifer back together
1,950,000 results
Bing : ClimateGate
50,900,000 results

That is amazing.
I checked Klima Skandal for German – got a modest 700,000.

Note this is not a Hitler video.
I was only reflecting on how Goebbels, the pioneer of mass propaganda, would have controlled the internet. Well I guess for a start we would have Goble and not Google and he certainly would have had to change his techniques.
Goebbels once said that the most primitive arguments are the most effective and he did not seem to worry too much about the intellectual minority. To-day I feel he may have had to rethink that but I am sure he would have had a ball with literally the world at his feet.
One of the methods I have noticed is repackaging the message in different guises on different websites. The other day I was looking for some outdoor blinds and after googling, I kept being directed to no less than 20 websites all being controlled by the one parent company.
The main method I feel however that Goebbels would have used is information saturation and you can see this vividly by the AGW lobby for example in all the things that global warming is supposed to cause.
I am sure that there are dozens of other techniques that can be used by any side of an argument including the minorities. And I often see on this forum the statement “Thank God for the internet.” True, but don’t think it is always going to be fair. Politicians and the MSM are quickly learning that cyberspace is where all the battles for hearts and minds are going to be fought. I trust that WUWT has a battle plan to keep up with the art of cyber war.

i started using Bing a few weeks ago, and i find it more useful than google in many ways… and i won’t say anything else ;]

In the long run, it won’t matter because the politicians and greenies already have the momentum they need. The climate lies were just their booster rocket to get their tax and control scam off the ground. They may not need it anymore, as I posted on another thread (Obama says going to go ahead with Copenhagen anyway).
Now here’s another one who sees that.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/26/11929676-sun.html
The only way we can stop the political madness is if there are enough principled politicians to say “NO!” Some more like these guys would be good.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/