Green -vs- Green: Eu Climate Exchange website hacked

So, lets look at the evidence. There’s seems to be a rash of bad schoolboy-error grammar errors in the hacker’s text, especially with an inability to correctly spell “its”, i.e. the possessive of it.
“* It’s main purpose is not to reduce emissions…”
…collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change and it’s fundamental root causes…”
Now let’s look at Anthony’s text introducing the hack:
“the European Climate Exchange (ECX), had it’s main page hacked”
Hummmmm. Watson, what do you make of it?
🙂

Maybe it was an inside job. Send in the East Anglian police. They’ll find the culprit.
Oh wait…

Mike says:
July 24, 2010 at 11:14 pm
I assume WUWT is appalled at such acts of cyber-vandalism. I would certainly denounce any effort to disrupt your website. But instead it appears you are encouraging it. You accuse climate scientists of being part of some crazy conspiracy, but hacking is a conspiracy.
So according to Mike, simply reporting on an event is to be seen as “encouraging it.” And to top off his comment, he ends with a completely fabricated accusation. Way to go Mike.
As for me, I am not quite so appalled as to lose any sleep over this hacking. In fact, to the contrary, I am delighted to see some whacko Greenies acknowledging the massive con that is carbon trading. OK, so they still insist that the climate is in “crisis” and needs to be tackled along with its “fundamental root causes” (isn’t it superfluous to say “fundamental” followed by “root”?) . I’m sure we can guess what this implies. What the Greenies (Reds) will never see, is that this con is indicative of the entire global warming con.

@Mike
“but hacking is a conspiracy.”
Oh please. Just one person needs to get lucky once with a script – and one they probably didn’t even write themselves.

With friends like this…..

It could be an insider that lost the faith. Climategate claims to be hacked but it also could have been a back slider warmista. an infidel.

Mike Jowsey says:
July 25, 2010 at 12:09 am
OK – so we are agreed then that this hacking was a bad thing (in the same vein as other bad things like robberies, embezzlement, vandalism, computer virus creation).
And fabricating Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming lies would fall into that category quite nicely too, right?

Truly amazing.
These eco-watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) have finally realised that their ideology has been stolen, repackaged, branded and sold back to them.
Maybe having begun to question the solutions presented to this mythic problem, some of them might even be smart enough to start questioning the “science” that arrived at these conclusions.
Or maybe not – these are crackers after all, NOT hackers as people insist on calling them. Hackers make things – Crackers break things. The ability to break computer security no more makes you a hacker than the ability to hotwire a car makes you an automotive engineer!!
But if ever they start that process of questioning there is so much evidence on-line as to the corruption of climate-“science” (ht/WUWT) that anyone not fully indoctrinated into the church of global-cooling the Population-bomb ban DDTthe green house effect nuclear winter global warming passive smoking climate change, must come away with a host of doubts.
I challenge any intellectually honest observer to actually read the CRUTape letters and then still claim that the “science” is deserving of the name. Which is why those recent investigations into climate “science” have avoided doing so.
And for the same reason Phil Jones was never asked if he deleted data – i.e. the inquiriers didn’t want to be burdened by knowing the answer.
But there is no surprise here – we already knew how climate “science” deals with investigation – their tactics are well documented in the – When the National Academies of the United States invited Keith Briffa to appear before its enquiry Mann wrote to him as follows:
I think you really should do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legitimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair. … Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all possible.
If one is wondering about Mann’s definition of “legitimate”, he quickly erases any doubt:
The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Christy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:
(link to list of members)
So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider!
One wonders if they even bothered to include a “token skeptic” in the recent “investigations”. The results would suggest not.

Jack Savage says:
July 25, 2010 at 12:15 am
At the risk of having “Godwin’s Law” invoked…hands up those who would have hacked into Hitler’s website?
All right, it was wrong, but a part of me has a tiny little smile,because I am convinced that carbon trading really is a scam and it distracts us from real environmental problems and causes needless expense to the common man.
Okay, Jack, I’m game: What ‘real environmental problems’ are you talking about?
Hint: If you even think about mentioning CO2, then you’ll be seen as insincere, inasmuch as that gas isn’t a problem.

I love it, it looks like the central committee has a major problem, non-civil war is erupting.