From Conservapedia

The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.[1] The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists.[2] The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU's apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg.[3] Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation.[4][5]

The Climategate emails and climate data became the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. The legitimacy of climate science, and the charges leveled by the CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claim humans cause climate change, was severely shaken by Climategate. Evidence revealed told the truth about man-made global warming: it's a fraud.[6][7][8][9][10]

Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on the theory suggesting humans cause climate change, in a profoundly bizarre situation the Mainstream media attempted to bury the Climategate story.[11] At the same time, liberal Wikipedia quickly censored Climategate and referred to it as an illegal "incident," as the work of computer hackers stealing data — contrary to Freedom of Information Act requests. In spite of the liberal media's bias attempt to hide the scandal, news of Climategate quickly spread because many other more notable sources of media covered the story. Commentators and others in the media covered news on Climategate, many of which outlined important takeaways about specific information valuable to the public.[12]

Climategate Scandal

An example of a poorly-placed, poorly-maintained satellite temperature sensor and MMTS unit, placed next to a private home's air conditioning unit, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. The placement of thousands of these units near man-made heat sources had the effect of skewing temperature readings.

o; the sun can and does heat the pavement at considerably higher temperatures. Example of an MMTS unit, placed directly above road pavement at the University of Arizona, Tucson. A desert environment, summer temperatures in Tucson are in excess of 100; the sun can and does heat the pavement at considerably higher temperatures.

Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.[13] The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question. On November 29, with the publication of a report by The Sunday Times of London, it was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.[14] The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. Michelle Malkin detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss at the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She reported, "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."[15]

The Climategate scandal revealed that corruption of climate science is a worldwide problem and is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. For instance, it was discovered that the reported warming trend in New Zealand over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature data.[16] The centerpiece of New Zealand's National Institute of Water & Atmospheric research temperature claims were proven false.[17] This data contributes to global temperature statistics and the climate science reports by the IPCC. The false data was used by the Obama administration as a reason for remaining insistently stubborn on participating in the climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009-10.

The CRU scientists deliberately falsified data, and then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. This is criminal fraud under English Law. Because of the worldwide fraud revealed from Climategate and the burden it caused to the global scientific community, on December 1, 2009, Phil Jones, the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom stepped down pending investigations into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.[18] On January 28, 2010, from the London Times, inquiry over the Climategate emails found Phil Jones broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.[19] Michael Mann was investigated by Pennsylvania State University.[20]

Climategate fraud also extended to the United States, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for over three years.[21] The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.[22] NASA's two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations."[23]

The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today.

The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

Stations in places such as the Andes and Bolivia were revealed to have virtually vanished, and temperatures from these areas became "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon." Average temperatures were extrapolated from readings in other cities across the world. This selectivity of locations made NASA's data and climate change conclusions skewed to advance the global warming agenda rather than create data based on scientific facts. The Climategate emails showed that climatologists had conspired to suppress research that challenged the global warming orthodoxy.[24]

The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a criminal intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a cap and trade scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOIA request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university.

The CBC’s Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 3, 2009.

“ ...Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: 'the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleanse scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore's, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you'll never think of climate science quite the same way again.[25][26] ”

Iain Murray at Pajamas Media pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.[2]

First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades. Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned). Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.[27][28]

Data Manipulation

The primary issue from Climategate is the data manipulation. Science requires data, and inadequacy of the climate record was always a problem even before Climategate became known to the public. Dr. Tim Ball wrote in the Canada Free Press on the primary issue from Climategate:

“ Climatology recognizes three distinct periods: The very recent instrumental period; the historical period to 3000 years, and the geologic [and] biologic for the rest. The [Climatic Research Unit scientists] manipulated data in all three but the first is critical because it is the source of material for the computer models, the vehicle of their deception. [...] They claim [the emails] are taken out of context. In context the fullness of their criminality is exposed. They claim there’s nothing of consequence in the emails, but [the emails show] a litany of manipulation of, the data, the process, publications, peer review, and personal attacks.[29] ”

Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.[30][31][32] From Cube Antics, by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU scientists, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the Climategate emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the Climategate emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a felony using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs revealed from Climategate, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.[33] Analysis of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:

“ First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce. This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing. If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.[33] ”

On December 5, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU's source code uncovered from Climategate:[34]

1. The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof. 2. No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results. 3. Interpolation is a normal part of dealing with large data sets, this is no different. 4. You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.

After further analysis, his first concern pointed out that the source code that printed the graph was commented out and thus is not valid proof. On the second concern, Greiner clarified that, "Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period." The third concern as pointed out by Greiner is not about the fact that the CRU researchers used interpolation; the issue is the weight of the "valadj" array with respect to the raw data. Greiner said, "valadj simply introduces too large of an influence to the original data to do anything productive with it." Fourthly, Greiner said that raw climate data is needed to prove that foul play has actually occurred. He said, "It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data. So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data."[34]

Integrity of Data

Climategate has jeopardized the integrity of worldwide scientific data on climate change.[35][36] There are two objections that question the validity of temperature data from the IPCC report released in 2007, one of which Climategate does not effect. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around AD 1650 (Akasofu, 2007).[37] The second objection has questioned the integrity of the data, as pointed out from Watts Up With That? in an article written by Willis Eschenbach. There are three main global temperature datasets, as clarified by Eschenbach.

One is at the CRU, Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

Another one is at NOAA (GHCN), the Global Historical Climate Network.

The final one is at NASA (GISS), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The three groups take raw data, and they "homogenize" it to remove temperature discrepancies that occur when a station is moved to a warmer or colder location. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data.[38] This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS uses the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis. Both GISS and CRU get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. But the IPCC uses the "adjusted" data; GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls "inhomogeneities."

At Darwin Airport there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record.[39] In 1941, a station was moved to Darwin Airport. The GHCN then removed the inhomogeneities to adjust the data. Of the five raw datasets at Darwin, the GHCN discarded two. The three remaining records were first homogenized and then averaged to give the "GHCN Adjusted" temperature record for Darwin. Before the GHCN homogenized the data, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century. After the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century.

Willis Eschenbach investigated it and started with the earliest record, "Station Zero" at Darwin. The five different station records (raw data) covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that there is "indisputable evidence that the 'homogenized' data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming." The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station shows that at least one part of the data is bad at Darwin Zero.

“ They’ve just added a huge, artificial, totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! A six degree per century trend? What’s up with that? [...] The GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them. That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it 'hides the decline.' [...] Care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? They only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. Every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling.[35] ”

Separate from GHCN, GISS takes the raw temperature data and does their own adjustments. However, GISS verified that their adjusted, homogenized data is the same as GHCN.[40] The data is questionable because the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) manipulates the data prior to its use by others; this process was described as homogenizing. The CRU apparently "lost" their data. Scientists at the CRU, who produce global annual average temperatures, select stations that create the results they want, and then adjust the data again for fraudulent purposes.[29] Climategate revealed a fact that, until all of the station "adjustments" are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS cannot be trusted if using homogenized numbers.

8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps. Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his This continued downtrend started after 2001, and is another indicator Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists: Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase http://www.climatedepot.com/ Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his blog that June's anomaly globally using the Aqua satellite dropped to 0.001C., and is another indicator Global Warming alarmists have certainly embodied a hoax. It was also reported:Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase Big Government power and control, including Socialist Income redistribution ideologies. Canada Free Press

Hockey Stick Graph

In one Climategate e-mail dated November 1999, CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:

“ I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.[41] ”

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph hid the real declining temperatures and instead showed a warming trend.[42] Mann's graph portrayed temperatures as steadily declining since medieval times and then sharply rising in the last century and a half. Notably, his reconstruction fueled claims that 1998 and following years had the highest temperatures in 1,000 years. Once it became publicly known that man-made global warming is a hoax, as a direct result of the e-mail discussing a "trick" for adding data to each temperature series for the last 20 years, Climategate motivated the making of a video called, "Hide The Decline."[43]

Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction

Videos on Hockey Stick Graph

Climategate Fraud

Al Gore's "schlockumentary," An Inconvenient Truth, is perhaps the earliest known Climategate fraud and most widely known global warming hoax. The film was designed to promote fear of global warming with false claims, junk science and digitally enhanced lies, proclaiming the end of the world. During Al Gore's promotional efforts for his film and to raise alarm on the effects of global warming, he boldly predicted we have ten years to doom.[44] At the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, Larry David commented on Gore's promotional efforts to raise awareness about his schlockumentary and said, "You know, Al is a funny guy, but he's also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan."

An Inconvenient Truth inspired fear using junk science; Gore spread alarmist propaganda and claimed burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil have dramatically increased the Earth's temperatures. Scientific inaccuracies in the film were enhanced with Hollywood special effects, as a deceptive tactic, to spread fear of doom on his one-sided account of the anthropogenic global warming theory. Most notably, Al Gore created a scene in his movie that shows the Antarctic ice shelf breaking up and virtually disintegrating, supposedly providing visual evidence to back up his claim that glaciers are melting. The problem is that it wasn't real ice melting. It was styrofoam.[45] ABC News reported Al Gore also took footage of digitally enhanced melting ice from the fictional movie, The Day After Tomorrow, and then used it in his schlockumentary. The real truth behind this hoax is ideology, motivated by money and power.[46][47]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rain forest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland. However, the aftermath of Climategate forced the United Nations climate watchdog to admit to intentionally publishing false claims; the IPCC claims about melting ice in the Alps, the Andes, and in Africa did not come from peer reviewed scientific literature—but from Climbing Magazine, and from a student dissertation—written by a climate change activist who was studying for a degree in Geography.[48] The IPCC claims that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.[49][50]

Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold admitted that his organization issued misleading statements about man-made global warming, and he said the organization exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030.[51] Despite the admission that a panel report warning Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off, and regardless of the fraud, deceit and lies the Greenpeace organization spread about global warming, Gerd Leipold said he would not resign.[52]

In 2010, as the East Coast of the United States was hammered by strong winter storms of snow and ice, President Obama claimed this as further evidence of global warming. The president of the United States ignored facts to push a political agenda. Obama lied about global warming when he said it will cause some places to "end up being a little bit cooler," due to man-made climate change.

“ We just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like, a lot of people who are opponents of climate change, they say, 'See, look at that, there's all that snow on the ground, you know, this doesn't mean anything.' I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn't mean that every place is getting warmer. It means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. As the planet as a whole gets warmer you start seeing changing weather patterns. And that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather, so any single place might end up being warmer. Another place might end up being a little bit cooler, there might end up being more precipitation in the air, more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes.[53] ”

Global Warming Facts

For a more detailed treatment, see Global warming.



Scientists have cast doubt on the IPCC's claim that global temperatures are rising because of human pollution.[54]

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but not due to man-made changes

Professor Phil Jones admitted during an interview with the BBC his record keeping is "not as good as it should be," and that he "did not do a thorough job" of keeping track of his own records. Colleagues say that the reason Phil Jones refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. The data is crucial to the famous hockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.[55][56] Professor Jones also said that there is little difference between global warming rates in the 1990s and in two previous periods since 1860, leaving open the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – that the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 AD was warmer than the present period, and it could have encompassed the entire globe. Phil Jones also accepted a fact that from 1995 to 2010, for the past 15 years, there has been no statistically significant warming. He conceded the possibility suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

Climategate Emails

For a more detailed treatment, see ClimateGate emails.

The Climategate emails discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure dissenting papers had no access to publication. An email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said, "... And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites — you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone."[1] The Climategate emails show that climate scientists may have committed a felony using government funded money, deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. The collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.[57] Another email, in which Michael Mann wrote of his "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series […] to hide the decline," correlated with evidence of intent to skew climate data.

IPCC and the CRU's 'Trick'

Further analysis of the word "trick" and how it was used in the Climategate emails from the CRU provided interesting feedback. It showed that CRU did indeed truncate tree ring data, so that the real decline in global temperature is not shown in the IPCC report, as referenced by Steve McIntyre.[58] McIntyre brought this to attention as an expert reviewer in the IPCC process in 2005, but at the time of inquiry his dissent was stifled and the discussion was never presented to external peer reviewers.

The explanation for the use of the word "trick" came quickly from CRU director Dr. Phil Jones in his official announcement on November 23. He claimed, "The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." If Dr. Jones used such colloquialisms regularly, it stood to reason that further analysis should find a number of similar instances of the word "trick" in the CRU Climategate emails over the decade that the emails spanned. A file search program with a simple mission to scan the email folders for all file content with instances of the word "trick" used by itself (excluding other words like "Patrick" that would have "trick" embedded in it) returned eight files with that condition:[59]

After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the FOIA2009.zip file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (e.g. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there's no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.[59]

Themes

On the climate science environmental agenda and the scandal that Climategate revealed all together, Glenn Beck commented on the emails:

“ [The scientists] were asking each other to delete messages to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. That doesn't sound legal. Scientists are working together to try and change the definition of peer review journals so that anybody who said global warming wasn't real couldn't get their papers published. ... [And then with] these thousands of E-mails ... Shouldn't this be - oh, I don't know - everywhere now? All of them are, to varying degrees, important. But how much could any of those actually cost you? This scandal will literally cost you trillions of dollars. That's what's at stake worldwide. It's on how we deal with the climate.[60] ”

According to Rush Limbaugh, another theme of the e-mails that have been released is how people at the Climatic Research Unit were constantly trying to "shake down" the oil companies (i.e. Exxon, Shell) for money and for partnerships.[61] On this reoccurring theme, Limbaugh mentioned the following:

“ They talk about it openly, how they're constantly trying to shake down the oil companies. The only thing man-made about global warming is the theory behind it. What you are going to do with people who are even willing to lie about the weather?[62] ”

Wikipedia

Lawrence Solomon from the National Post discovered from the Climategate emails how a small band of climatologists plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period.[63] The Climategate emails revealed the enlistment of Wikipedia in their attempt at rewriting history. It was revealed how Wikipedia's "green doctor," a U.K. scientist and Green Party activist, rewrote 5,428 climate articles. The recruited Wikipedia administrator, William Connolley, literally rewrote history and then abused his administrative privileges to stifle criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.[64] Lawrence Solomon wrote on this revelation and on Wikipedia's loss of integrity as a source of factual information, and on the clear abuse of power from administrative authorities within Wikipedia:

“ Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.[65] ”

Global Reactions to Climategate

Copenhagen

Sarah Palin called for President Obama to skip Copenhagen, the climate summit in Denmark, because of the information Climategate exposed. She commented on Facebook that the president should reconsider his trip until the e-mails can be investigated, "Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices."[66] Instead, the White House attempted to downplay the controversial leaked e-mails of climate scientists. President Obama announced that he was "doubling down" on his commitment to the worldwide environmental agenda, pushing forward with a cap and trade scheme that is based on flawed science, and hoping to secure a "meaningful" agreement. The President made it clear that he will invest more energy and taxpayer dollars to help advance the global warming hoax.

Originally, the President was supposed to attend the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen for the beginning of the conference, "bless the occasion and leave," said Roger Simon of Pajamas Media. After Climategate became known, Pajamas Media reported that President Obama, "[S]witched his itinerary to be there at the end of the two weeks in order to give his blessing and impetus to the decision itself."[67]

The ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, Congressman James Sensenbrenner, attended the Copenhagen conference on climate change to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the "scientific fascism" ends. Sensenbrenner demanded that researchers who authored the Climategate e-mails and documents that demonstrate climate change data were manipulated should not be allowed to participate in the U.N. panel on climate change. Sensenbrenner spoke during a press conference after learning of the Climategate scandal.

“ I call it 'scientific fascism.' The U.N. should throw a red flag. [...] They relied on these scientists unjustifiably in my opinion. Their behavior has caused grave damage to the public trust in climate science in general, and to the IPCC, in particular. They should not be allowed to do so in the future. I therefore request that you and the co-chairs of each of the three IPCC working groups ensure that none of the individuals involved in these nefarious e-mail exchanges participate as contributors, reviewers, or in any other capacity in the preparation of the next IPCC report.[68] ”

Obama Administration

In a case of see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, the Obama administration showed commitment to climate change legislation and at the same time dismissive of Climategate. Though evidence revealed from the e-mail messages from the CRU shows that researchers manipulated data, suppressed data and stifled dissent, John Holdren, Obama's science czar who is directly involved in the Climategate scandal stated boldly, "The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue."[69][70][71] The reality is that this small 'fraction of research' — the theory which is the foundation of anthropogenic global warming — the data used by CRU scientists, it is proven fraudulent. The theory which used to hold human beings responsible: it is nothing more than a Global warming scam, according to Jim O'Neill from the Canada Free Press.[72] The scientists at the CRU, from the evidence found in their e-mails and documents, show a criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, and at the same time advance an ideological Leftist agenda.[73]

When House Republicans asked for a hearing or investigation into the Climategate scandal, independent from the Penn State University which is looking into the Climategate emails by its own researcher, Michael Mann, calls for further investigation were criticized and then rejected by Democrats. U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) said, "These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit."[74] Democrats harbored ill will against the facts and continued to theorize that the earth is warming, insisting that the fraudulent data "[does] nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus," which showed a warming trend and claimed it is largely a result of human activity. The top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer, a global warming alarmist, said of the scandal, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate." Rather than investigate the fraud and manipulation of scientific data that was used by climate science researchers, Boxer hoped to get her hands on the so-called 'real' criminals, those who released e-mails and data to the public.[75]

Other Countries Take Notice

While U.S. Democratic politicians downplayed the Climategate controversy, and despite the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scoffing at Climategate by suggesting it provided no basis for questioning the science behind global warming, global reactions from other countries around the world took notice of the scandal. Saudi Arabia called for an independent investigation into Climategate, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations. "The level of confidence is certainty shaken," said the Saudi Arabian negotiator. "We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the ‘Climategate’ scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations."[76]

Australia had planned on setting an example to lead in the fight on climate change, to become one of the first countries to install a cap and trade system. However, Liberal Party members within Australia’s parliament realized that cap and trade is based on flawed science, and resigned their portfolios rather than voting for an "emissions trading scheme".[77] According to a report from the Hindustan Times, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh believes his country cannot depend solely on reports from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). India plans to create its own panel to do an independent analysis of climate change science.[78]

Climategate Media Coverage

The Climategate media coverage refers to the journalistic methods used by the Mainstream media to deceive the public from learning more specific details about the fraudulent climate data. Climategate media coverage of the scandal is a media-focused overview from the most notable discussions covering Climategate: the revealed data, e-mails and manipulated code sets. As details emerged from the Climategate scandal, Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia were exposed. Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on climate science, the leftist media ignored it, and then focused on pushing forward with the global warming hoax.[79] Coverage of Climategate showed just how bias the liberal media has become in order to advance an environmental agenda.

In the wake of the Climategate scandal, a truly bizarre situation happened; the mainstream media stories about global warming pretended the uncovered documents never happened. This worldwide Climategate cover-up also occurred before the public had learned about Climategate, too. The U.K. Daily Mail pointed out that, a month prior to November 19, 2009, "The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud."[80] It was later revealed that the BBC had previously invested a lot of money in carbon offset programs, so the media organization was dependent on the global warming hoax being perceived as truth.[81] Ongoing coverage of the Climategate scandal also verified NASA and the state-run media knew about temperature data issues nearly three years ago; for example, USA Today received information about these issues but refused to report on it. USA Today and BBC News shirked their journalistic duties to push global warming in spite of evidence that the earth has not been significantly warming since 1995.

“ Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database. These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data. Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007. The reporter never published it.[82] ”

As Climategate was totally ignored by most TV news outlets, Fox News appeared to be the only national news media in America interested in the growing scandal.[11][83] Perhaps the MSM felt that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it would have just gone away. However, just as the case was during the Tea Party Movement, notably during the 2009 Tax Day Tea Party, bloggers and the readers of the global warming stories kept bringing up the inconvenient truth of Climategate by mentioning the scandal "over and over and over again."[84]

Ten years after the scandal, the media continued to downplay it.[85]

(Image from Newsbusters)

Global Warming Hoax

On December 8, 2009, the second day of Copenhagen, news from the UK Telegraph headlined a Global warming hoax, "Starving Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism."

“ New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalize each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds. The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food. Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea.[86] ”

Rush Limbaugh blasted the Global Warming hoax and commented, "None of this is true" (Dyck, M.G., 2007).[87] He rebuked the false claims about polar bears and at the same time pointed out the continuation of fraudulent stories from the media despite Climategate; Limbaugh revealed another hoax blaming a natural event on global warming.

“ If you know anything about polar bears, you know that there are any number of reasons why polar bears attack each other. But did you know that polar bear males are well known for eating their young if given half a chance? They do. The mother, the female polar bear has to protect the cubs from the father and other males. Polar bears are a vicious species. They're not this cuddly little old English sheepdog type thing. People go out on ice floes to study these things, and if they attack they have to shoot them. They're not at all in any way tame, and they're huge. They can rip you to shreds inside of five seconds, they wouldn't care, and Reuters would run a picture and blame it all on global warming, not the fact that a polar bear is a polar bear. Polar bears eat their young, if given half the chance, males do. So another hoax, 100% total fraud on the second day of Copenhagen.[79] ”

Climategate Unreported and Censored

Fourteen days after the story broke worldwide, the Climategate scandal had been mentioned by ABC, CBS and NBC a total of zero times. Because the story affected Cap and trade legislation, the White House, in their daily collusion with liberal media sources, may have told news channels to bury the story.[88] The Mainstream media began to show consistency in their censorship practices, so much so that Glenn Beck cited NewsBusters to "Demonstrate that much as in [the mainstream media's] boycott of the ACORN scandal and green jobs czar Van Jones's peculiar associations, the television press are once again hiding important information from the public hoping it will all just go away."[60]

ClimateGate... What??, Glenn Beck on ClimateGate censorship.

ClimateGate, Glenn Beck on ClimateGate scandal.

The liberal Wikipedia has cited various references to contend against the facts uncovered with Climategate and has claimed that the e-mail files were illegally stolen by computer hackers, despite repeated requests for the data files under the FOIA. Though unreported by the MSM and at the same time censored by liberal Wikipedia, there is strong evidence to suggest the data was released by a fellow employee, a "whistle blower" within the Climatic Research Unit.[89]

There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files

The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers

The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff

Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s)

The U.K. Daily Mail pointed out the following:

“ The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.[80] ”

Liberal Media Missed the Mark

The first liberal media source to openly discuss Climategate on American television was during a segment on Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a slapstick entertainment news program. After more than two weeks had passed since Climategate went public, CBS News eventually reported on the scandal.[90][91] CBS News aired a short video of an interview with Kevin Trenberth. Dr. Trenberth in the past has said this in one of the Climategate e-mails:

“ The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.[92] ”

Googlegate

Al Gore demonstrating his ability to spout fire is a parody of his fraudulent attempts to "prove" that 'global warming is man-made'

It was reported that, despite Climategate related pages being the most-read articles of the UK's Telegraph entire online operation, mysteriously when attempting to search using Google – it didn't feature links related to Climategate.[93] James Delingpole from the Telegraph noted, "Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me."[94] Google.com has been accused before of interfering with its own search algorithms in order to interfere with searches for material deemed "not politically correct."[95][96]

Al Gore is on the Google advisory board; Gore's position on Google's senior advisory board is likely bearing responsibility. On Al Gore's Web page in his biography he says:

“ A member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. Gore is also Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.[97] ”

According to NewsBusters, Al Gore has done some "advising" of Google's search quality in the past.[98] There is some history between Google and Al Gore that has some bearing on the current situation.[99] In the case of "Climategate," Mr. Gore's ability to continue his current speaking engagements might be hampered. Thus, there could well be a motive for him doing some "advising" in this case. A phone call might be all it took.

Climategate 2.0

In 2011, Forbes declared in an article entitled Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate:

“ A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal. Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.[100] ”

Tidalgate

Alarmist scientists were caught tampering with raw (unadjusted) data to fake a rise in sea level, according to two Australian scientists.[101] The scientists exposed how record gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL), at the National Oceanography Centre in Liverpool, England, "adjusted" the sea level records from three gauges in the Indian Ocean to fabricate a nonexistent "sharp and dramatic" rise.[102] The authors described the measurements from three gauges in the Indian Ocean as "highly questionable" and "suspicious."[102] They revealed how, according to No Tricks Zone, "PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels [...] look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace."[103]

Videos

References

Further reading