I received a lot of emails in response to Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam



Many were from religious zealots of global warming theory, and as you might surmise they were not printable.



A few common sense comments came my way suggesting that the hackers or insiders (I believe the latter) did not prove global warming was a scam, only that that there is proof scammers are involved in global warming.



I have to admit that is true. Apologies offered. That admission aside, even more damning data has surfaced in regards to data manipulation.



The site Watts Up With That? has this interview with Dr. Tim Ball







It seems Dr. Tim Ball was aware of the data manipulation but could not prove it. Here is a partial transcript but I assure you the video is worth listening to entirely.



"[The Emails] confirm suspicions that I have had in 30 years of working in climate science that I saw the hijacking of climate science particularly by computer modelers and then by a small group of people associated with the intergovernmental panel on climate change. The difficulty was that even though I sensed there was these thing going on, proving it is extremely difficult. But now with the exposure of these public files it is not only a smoking gun, it's a battery of machine guns. ... On A global scale it's frightening. This group of people not only controlled the Hadley Center which controls the global data on temperatures, so that the global temperature record is in their hands, they also control the IPCC. ... The IPCC is the basis in all governments for the Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord, and so on. ..... The problem they had is they kept saying the 20th century and the latter part of it is the warmest ever. And of course skeptics like myself [and several other names] were saying it was warmer 1000 years ago when the Vikings were in Iceland and Greenland and that's why they decided they had to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and they achieved that with the hockey stick. In other words they completely rewrote the history."



It Was Warmer 1000 Years Ago Than Now



There you have it. Reputable scientists think it was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today in spite of all the greenhouse gasses emitted. That does not disprove global warming now, but it sure makes mince meat of the theory that greenhouse gasses are to blame.



Al Gore on SNL skit: What Up With That?



Al Gore was on Saturday Night Live in a skit What Up With That?



Irony abounds. I wonder what Gore was thinking during all this?







The Harry_Read_Me File



Inquiring minds looking for more damning evidence of data manipulation and sheer incompetence can find it in the The Harry_Read_Me File



The hacked e-mails were damning, but the problems they had handling their own data at CRU are a dagger to the heart of the global warming “theory.” There is a large file of comments by a programmer at CRU called HARRY_READ_ME documenting that their data processing and modeling functions were completely out of control.



They fudged so much that NOTHING that came out of CRU can have ANY believability. If the word can be gotten out on this and understood it is the end of the global warming myth. This much bigger than the e-mails. For techie takes on this see:



http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13



CLIMATEGATE: My analysis of the CRU files, starting with "documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt"



To base a re-making of the global economy (i.e. cap-and-trade)on disastrously and hopelessly messed up data like this would be insanity.

Do People Select Causes or Do Causes Select People?

I do not think we should have entered this war but we can't leave now

We can't leave now

We can't leave now

We can't leave now

religious

Al Gore's Crusade

A Rational Thought Process

The Science study argues [the Cap-and-trade program] is a false economy, because it doesn't consider changes in land use. If mature forests are cleared to make room for biofuel-growing farms, then the carbon that would otherwise accumulate in those forests ought to be counted on ethanol's balance sheet as well.



Cap-and-trade programs exacerbate the problem because developed countries (where emissions are putatively capped) get credit for reductions from ethanol—despite the fact that their biofuels are generally grown in developing countries (where emissions aren't capped). So if Malaysians burn down a rain forest to grow palm oil that ends up in German biodiesel, Malaysia doesn't count the land-use emissions and Germany doesn't count the tail-pipe emissions.



By way of a solution, Mr. Searchinger and his coauthors modestly suggest doing away with the regulatory three-card monte and counting net ethanol emissions from where they are actually emitted. But this is political heresy on Rep. Henry Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee, which passed its own cap-and-tax program in July with the votes of farm-state Democrats, because the bill all but banned the Environmental Protection Agency from studying land-use changes. So much for letting "the science" guide public policy.