Skeptics claim stolen emails prove global warming a hoax

By Muriel Kane
Friday, November 20th, 2009 -- 8:56 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

greenlandicemeltwarming Skeptics claim stolen emails prove global warming a hoaxAlthough arguments continue as to how much of recent climate change is natural and how much is man-made, only a few diehard skeptics doubt that the warming of the last few decades is real. Now, however, those skeptics can barely contain their glee at the release of a cache of stolen emails that they believe prove global warming is nothing but a colossal hoax.

"If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW," one of these skeptics blogged on Friday. "The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. ... This scandal could well be 'the greatest in modern science'."

According to a more sober account of the theft offered by the Guardian, the stolen files "were first uploaded on to a Russian server, before being widely mirrored across the internet. The emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.'"

The University of East Anglia has confirmed that files were stolen from its server but has not verified the genuineness of the allegedly random selection of material that has been released. The scientists involved have also refused to comment on the record, although they insist privately that "the e-mails are being taken out of context and ... are part of the normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists working on some of the most complicated questions of our times."

Those gloating over the emails have seized in particular on expressions of hostility towards climate change skeptics and dismissals of their papers as not representing legitimate science to elaborate theories of a conspiracy to suppress debate. They are also pointing to certain brief quotations that might be taken as boasts of manipulating data or as private acknowledgments of a lack of data to support the conclusion of global warming.

Story continues below...

One email from 1999, for example, says "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Another complains, "The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

In the face of current warnings of "catastrophic fire danger" as New South Wales, Australia experiences its "hottest November on record," as well as stories about "the heaviest rainfall ever recorded in Britain," attempts to use a few out-of-context quotes to paint climate change as a colossal fraud may meet with some degree of skepticism themselves.

Scientists are also weighing in on the controversy. Brian Angliss at Scholars & Rogues, for example, finds the claims of fraud "highly unlikely."

"I work in electrical engineering where I use words and phrases that, taken out of context, could be misinterpreted as nefarious by people who are ignorant of the context or who have an axe to grind," he explains. "For example, I regularly talk about 'fiddling with' or 'twiddling' the data, 'faking out' something, 'messing around with' testing, and so on. ... No matter how much the deniers scream, these emails aren’t likely to reveal any evidence of scientific malfeasance. And even if they do, there’s an entire globe of researchers whose independent research has bolstered the case that climate disruption is real and that it’s predominantly caused by human civilization."

The blog at RealClimate.org has also had a look at the emails and points out, "More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."

But meanwhile, figures on the right are having a field day. The blogger quoted above, James Delingpole, is particularly scathing, claiming that "In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists. ... The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory."

Perhaps the final word on the matter has already been offered by a spokesperson for Greenpeace, who told the Guardian, "If you looked through any organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke."

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Tags: , ,
Story comments are below...

  • wial
    why is it so important to deny the fact we have to save the planet from near total extinction, possibly in our lifetimes if enough tipping points are crossed?

    is it cowardice? human evil? arrogance? sheer stupidity?

    something like that, anyway. go look at the arctic icecap extent graphs for crying out loud. we're in very serious trouble, it's the great cause of our times, and people still have the temerity to doubt it? there comes a point when it's beyond morally wrong and blitheringly ignorant, it's completely unacceptable, a true casus bellum, unlike all the idiotic little oil wars the powers of greed and hate have supported with the witless consent of masses of pigs at their horrid little troughs.

    shudder shudder. wake up to your humanity, your reason, your responsibility to face facts and deal with emergencies. please.
  • davewtf
    Very simply, if global warming IS real - and I am not a scientist, nor in that field - then the deniers will stay that way until it is literally too late. There should have been a new American revolution back when Bush was president. The fact that there was not tells me that American's have become too fat, lazy, and comfortable in their own lives to accept the fact that something really needs to be done. Don't expect the average American to care about these things until mother nature has taken everything from them. Of course, at that point they will just say it is God's or the Devil's work, and go to their makeshift church and do a whole lot of praying and then come out and blame the gays/liberals/feminists and whomever else they can think of other than their fat/lazy selves.
  • davidrvelasquez
    Funny, usually those that pick at anthropogenic climate change theories latch on to the generalized world of 'NWO collectivist' conspiracy theories... and one of the big things they harp on about, that I don't necessarily disagree with, is about the right to personal privacy and invasion of privacy issues. Except that here, we have a case of somepeople from their side of the debate violating the privacy of the discussions of others and exploiting them to further their own cause.
    Which makes them disingenuous -for taking the comments out of context, and hypocrits -for using private communication obtained by violating the rights of others.
  • ken
    could we at least try to conceal our bias when writing a "NEWS" article
  • Alex
    it's not just republicans and conservatives who don't believe the global warming hoax. don't be such a stupid partisan sheep, think on your own for once.
  • Stephen52
    There seem to be a lot of scientists here who aren't convinced of AGW:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/
  • dotmafia
    i thought conservatives didn't believe in conspiracy theories?
  • rawstorysuspect
    hahahahahahaha
  • Cabsarefab
    This sounds rather contrived. I smell a frame-up. I bet this material is made up or taken out of context. Those don't exactly look like things to gloat over. BTW, it is easy to fake these sort of things.
  • lorn
    Actually what looks contrive to me is this damage control article we are commenting on.

    The label 'skeptics' and the term 'stolen' are prominently featured in the headline...........exactly the same terms being used by CNN et al.

    People who operate within the simplistic and entirely fake two party democracy paradigm hate Gore or love him.
    Several years ago I looked up to Gore, loved his movie and was totally on the GW bandwagon. Not because I researched it, but because I am a green hippie type who naturally gravitated to that stuff.

    Critical thinking led me to understand how the Clintons and Bushes are the same. The 911 crime was a giant lie and is now being covered up by Democrats.
    Gore is part of the same class of dirty liars and criminals who are destroying the US and on board with the new world government.
    The cap and trade does NOTHING concrete or immediate for the environment and is just one more world tax, world authority that will erode the power of nation states.

    Do your own homework on GW and it will blow your mind how the cap and trade is doing nothing for the environment, nothing.

    Gore is as fake as Bush or Obama or Clinton or Pelosi or McCain.

    Wake up people, please!
  • therealjoeschmoe
    Cap and trade is a joke, I agree, but they're not doing it just to do it. It's their version of "trying something" but of course the angle is to benefit - big biz corporations. What a shocker. That doesn't equate to there not being a very bad problem. It's the solution bought and paid for by corporations. And it's not the answer. If GW is true, and as bad or even worse(likely) than the general public knows about, can anything be done? Or is it too late? Would the answer really matter? Would it matter to you in how you do things? Would there be any point in the "leaders" laying it out there and saying "you know, by 2100 we're fucked. Nothing can be done." Of course they wouldn't do that. But what is answer? I'm going with science and not with lobbyists. You can give them the power if you like.
  • lorn
    During the 90's there were great movements to protect rain forest in BC Canada, and the northwestern US...........also lots of tangible action on south American rain forests.

    All over the world, regional environmental movements helped accomplish tangible results. I was on the front lines.

    The Al Gore BS has been a perfect way to reel in all of that money, goodwill, MEDIA ATTENTION, energy and focus........and to direct it all at a sick power grab by one world government scum.
    One small part of the Al Gore cap and trade scam is a rule that permits countries to slash and burn rain forest in unlimited quantities and re plant bananas. Those banana plantations are classified identical to the rain forest in cap and trade rules. This is one small example of corporate benefits accruing while virgin rain forests are slashed.

    This is the tip of the GW iceberg of lies. Do some research and try to at least allow for the idea that evil corporate swine would be quite prepared to float a false messiah of the environment to lead the masses of well meaning people into bending over once again on issues of the environment.

    The Gore doctrine and rigid demands to fall in line reminds me of the false choice game the neocon swine always play...you know the one.....

    Do you support evil doers throwing acid in the face of school girls OR do you support the Afghan war?
    Do you want to destroy the American economy OR do you support the bank bailout?
    See how this works?
    Do you support Al Gore and his cap and trade, OR do you want to destroy planet earth?

    I reject false choices.
  • Savantster
    .
    Again, "cap and trade" is a poor "policy" to address GW.. so? Are you rejecting GW? Are you rejecting facts and evidence solely because con-men are involved with pretending to make a solution?

    I've rejected "cap and trade" a long time ago.. we need "cap", period. We need "reduction in GWGs (global warming gasses)", period. We need alternative, sustainable energy solutions, period. But there's precious few ways for the ruling elite to make a buck off that.

    Do you reject a need to fix the costs (and waste and abuses) of our health care system? Do you reject it on the current solution of "force insurance on everyone"? .. I reject that clause of the bill, but I still see a need to fix healthcare. One is not the other.
    .
  • lorn
    I see first and foremost a need for the Democratic party to end the two illegal immoral criminal wars started by Bush. I see a need for Obama to end HIS new war in Pakistan.
    All of that could end tomorrow.
    With the money we save, we could fund healthcare easily. EASILY.

    But of course the dirty disgusting lying scum in the Democratic party will NOT even consider ending these wars. But they will create at tax to further fund them...........did they even consider a health care tax?

    You seem to be bending over backwards to ask me a bunch of harsh negative questions trying to put me on the defensive. I don't reject the idea that we are destroying planet earth from trees to rivers to the air to the food we eat. GW does not even come close to defining or framing this problem. I told you what I think of GW and the snakes and liars who try to distract us with it.

    In any case you have completely ignored my entire comment, particularly the last three false questions and how right wing scum use tactics like that to confuse people.

    I have no choice but to conclude you are insincere, and doing nothing but playing word games to protect your heros in the disgraced criminal enterprise that is the Democratic party.

    I also firmly believe you would be one of 'those' Democrats who would advocate the war lovers talking points about withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan...........go slow, not right now, they will tear each other to shreds if we leave..........etc.
    Without lies like that we could fund health care. But YOU already know that right?
  • Savantster
    .
    "I have no choice but to conclude you are insincere, and doing nothing but playing word games to protect your heros in the disgraced criminal enterprise that is the Democratic party."

    Then you have failed to understand my position. I don't defend the party, not one bit. I'm not in the party, nor will I join it because it is not the party it claims to be (i.e. it is not a "left leaning" party).

    RE: wars.. you're also making assumptions without asking any questions so you are quite mistakenly presuming I would support the illegal invasion of Iraq and/or Afghanistan. I do not. I fully support a "load them on planes and bring them home today" approach, and no funding for anything other than that goal should come from Congress. I don't care if they tear each other to shreds, we have our OWN problems we need to address first (like health care and unemployment).

    I asked for clarification on your position of health care in general while agreeing that the provision for mandated insurance is complete crap (and I do not support it), and you took that to mean I was attacking you and trying to confuse? .. not even close. I was asking to know your "general" position.

    And since this is a GW thread, most of the rest of this is sidebar. You don't seem to think all the pollution we're putting in the air could possibly effect overall climate, but your _reasoning_ for that seems only tied to your belief that "dirty liars said it!", while ignoring, seemingly, all the science behind it that has nothing to do with the "liars in power".

    My point was that you can't dismiss fact just because some dirtball pointed to it, and might use to to nefarious ends. What we must do is fix the problem while NOT letting the dirtballs and liars twist it up into something that benefits them while not fixing the problem. In fact, the health care issue is the exact same thing.. it is a problem we need to fix, but the abusers are making sure they profit from it while putting undo burden on the masses. We're agreed on that, I think.
    .
  • Savantster
    .
    Interestingly, what you're showing here is that we should not trust "those who seek to profit from _everything_" to solve the real problems of the world, but you do nothing to support any idea that AGW might not be real. If you chose to disbelieve AGW because there are some "corrupt individuals" connected to it, or because of the ridiculous plans they want to put in place (pretending it will help when it will just make more money for the few off the backs of the masses), then you are denying science because of a few bad apples.. you might as well never go to a doctor because some times they request tests that aren't needed (to increase profits) or preform operations that aren't needed (same reasoning), so you can't believe that any medical processes are ever valid.

    Logic is all that's required, and without it, we go back to being cavemen.
    .
  • lorn
    No clever wordsmith, no.
    There are not a few corrupt individuals associated with it. It is entirely run and contrived from the top by criminals like Gore who is the same as Clinton Bush and Obama.

    See above where I wrote about the dirty sneaky false choice game played by neocon scum? Read it...........I'm clearly talking about people like you. I mean that IS what you are doing right?
  • Savantster
    .
    No, that's what you're doing.. actually.. your "false choice" is "either it's real, or only fabricated by lying abusers like Bush/Gore/etc.". There is another possible answer, and that is "it is real, and abusers like Gore/Bush/Clinton etc. will take advantage of us while trying to fix the problem"... to that, I could concede.. but to pretend all of the science behind GW is being faked, to imply that it's a HUGE conspiracy covering 10s of thousands of people, it laughable.

    From your posts, it seems you would deny it is 10:00am if a rapist told you the time because the rapist is a bad person, so you must ignore all facts that come from that person. I don't get that.

    And it has nothing to do with "wordsmithing", it has to do with the premise that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
    .
  • Big_dawg
    I live in Rockford Illinois, last year (2008) was the first year on record where the high temperature NEVER rose above 90 degrees!!! This year 2009 we went over 90 only 3 days!! Liars figure and figures lie. I can only trust local data, can you?
  • therealjoeschmoe
    Well I'm glad you're not a scientist. And if you are please retire. Most people I know from Rockford rarely leave Rockford. Which is how l like it. Stay in your paradise.

    I live in the real WORLD. Science is studying the WORLD climate, not Rockford's, and OVER TIME, not this year and last. Sure, it was a mild summer this year in IL so it must Global Cooling. Brrrr.
blog comments powered by Disqus