Reader JoeFromBrazil writes
Greetings,
Sorry, but is this just a coincidence ?
Nov, 15-18, 2009 US presidente BO visits China
Nov, 19, 2009 Climategate I
Dec, COP-15
Nov, 19, 2011 US president BO visits China
Nov, 22, 2011 Climategate II
Dec, COP-17
I think that we need know when BO will be in China again…
It may very well be, but I’ve had a theory that I’ve floated with a couple people about this related to a curious comment coming from an IP address in China I found on WUWT months ago, but it reached a dead end due to lack of information. Perhaps it is time to have another look at that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On (presumptuously) behalf of the American readers, thank you to those of you who wished the American contingent a Happy Thanksgiving.
Ours was very nice. Met family from three states near State College, PA. Coincidentally, we did the same thing in 2009. Go figure.
Just saw this article which sort of agrees with some comments regarding the Chinese connection.
http://news.yahoo.com/china-factory-unrest-flares-global-economy-slows-051211893.html
“I’ve read elsewhere (uh, from comments over at Jo Nova I think) that “Ren” is what you can get when “Mann” is translated into Chinese characters then back to English.”
I doubt it, Chinese characters are pictorial representations, so if you wanted to say “mann” in chinese you would pick a character that said “mann” to the reader.
geronimo says: November 25, 2011 at 12:39 am
Sorry, Gerry, but that is NOT how Chinese works. There are two ways the Chinese will ascribe names: the first is by translation, e.g. if your name is “King” the Chinese will call you “Wang” (the Chinese word for “King”, which is also a surname); the second is by transliteration: if your name sounds like a Chinese word they may use that if it is suffuciently respectful enough – but there are exceptions. My name, Phelan, pronounced “Fey-lin” when transliterated came out to mean something like “Waste money like a forest” – I never decided if I’d been “had” or not so continue to use the characters…. There is no “Mann” in Chinese, but there is a similar sounding word meaning “slow”, which the Chinese will NOT use as a surname. It is much more likely they would take “Mann” to be the same as “Man” and use the translation and not the transliteration…. and believe this: someone named “Longstaff” in English would represent too great an opportunity for a Chinese to resist – the translation would not be suitable for a family blog like this.
Given that the Chinese have many students in British universities (especially 2nd rate ones like UEA) and given the Chinese propensity for spying on every aspect of British life I find it implausible that the Chinese have hacked into these emails simply because the Chinese would have far more information than this to give away.
I think it is a disgruntled research post-grad unhappy with the kind of things going on in Team AGW. Lets face it, the UEA can hardly ensure that everybody in UEA is “on-message” and given that 50% of the population aren’t, there’s a very good chance that an insider would take offence on the shenanigans in Phil Jones department and spill the beans. My guess someone that got his doctorate in 2010 from the UEA then decided to do the dirty on his old department once he was well clear.
The Chinese pay lip service to any agreement then carry on as before knowing that nobody can do a thing about it.
Luther Bl’t says:
November 24, 2011 at 10:35 am
Yoy mean Maurice Strong could be the Climategate leaker FOIA?
Not in a million! He’s a Socialist & started this whole song ‘n dance routine off for the UN in 1992! He’s also the worst example of a Socialist, he’s a millionaire several times over making his primary fortune in the oil industry (maloderous icthyoid that he is) & making a secondary fortune selling Papal Indulgencies sorry Carbon Credits to the Chinese! What is it with these people, they make their millions, then for some reason go on a guilt trip, & everyone else has to pay to make them feel good about themselves. Why not just give it all away in that case, but of course they then couldn’t control others without the money, could they?
But it was China that blocked the deal at Copenhagen. When it came down to brass tacks, they showed their hand. As Jud says:
I’ve always thought (and posted here) of China as a leading candidate for being behind the hacking/leaking of Climategate, Reasons include their well-known habit of cyber attacks against other countries–and their expertise at it; the fact that (as documented on one past thread here that backtracking the trail of of URLs from the Russian server led to one associated with and nearby China; the reluctance of the UK police to point a finger at a suspect (which they’d be reluctant to do if it were China, for fear of creating an international incident); and the concurrent trial balloon by a UK bigshot with intelligence community connections, Sir David, that foreign intelligence services were behind the attack (he suggested Russia in conjunction with Big oil, but that’s so absurd it must have been a smokescreen).
Oops, make “Sir David” into “Sir Dvid King.”
Robert E. Phelan says: “…someone named “Longstaff” in English…”
Yeah, I picked that up from reading “Tai Pan”. 😉
“I doubt it, Chinese characters are pictorial representations, so if you wanted to say “mann” in chinese you would pick a character that said “mann” to the reader.”
My mistake and apologies, it wasn’t at Jo Nova I read about the “Ren” / “Mann” thing, it was here. As per:
“Gail Combs says:
November 22, 2011 at 4:03 pm
My hubby, who knows a bit about the Chinese language, noted that in the top Climategate 2 e-mail quoted here on WUWT, from someone named Qingxiang, there is a reference to “Prof. Ren.” He says it is possible that “Prof. Ren” is a mistranslation of Prof. Mann’s name into Chinese (where the character 人 means man and is pronounced ren) and then back into English.
It’s not easy to understand things out of context, but it is possible.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-51549
regarDS
Gail Combs says:
November 24, 2011 at 11:33 am (Where the years were redacted) The years in question are:
according to email #0044–
From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your
list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt
discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only
been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation
during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations.
Obama will be the last President of the USA. That is all.
Some of the MSM is mentioning Climategate 2.0 now;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html
I cannot understand why top management in US Government would help with the leaks.
To me the US Government is on the warmista side. They are the cause of all this.
How otherwise can all these scientists either work for government institutions or government grants?
Which is under political control ?
And the reason?
They are afraid of the chaos they firmly believe will come from a “peak oil” situation.
So they rather increase taxes on fossil fuels. To force people paying more from alternative sources.
They have been doing this in Norway for many,many,many years already. They also believe they are doing a good thing for us all.
But remember the lesson learned from DDR ; The road to hell is paved with good intensions.
Anyone who believes that China does not have an interest in promoting the global warming agenda has bee listening to the chinaphiles in cia and state for too long. china is playing the long game and the short term economic loss resulting from not being able to sell us things is of far less concern than the long term gain of allowing us to economically dismantle our nation by allowing the liberal half-wits block development of manufacturing, mining, energy production an the like. you cannot maintain a military if you do not have the means to manufacture the required equipment and supplies.