The Great Global Warming Scam

Many people wiser than I have made the statement "follow the money". Given the undisputable fact that Al Gore has banked about a billion dollars shilling this cause and so many VCs have huge investments in companies which have been started in response to the "Global Warming Problem" a wise person would start looking with some scepticism towards much of the arguments being presented for Global Warming based on the fact that Global temperatures have NOT increased over the last ten years. We also must take into account how many scientists are feeding at the pig trough of scientific funding based on the existence of Global Warming due to the "scare factor" being presented of Global Doom. Well now the Scam has been blown wide open.

Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/

The e-mails uploaded suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:
"Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip."
"I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this."
"It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"."
This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the "science" up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.
Left-wing politics is a common theme of the emails. Thus, Michael Mann, author of the notorious "hockey stick" hoax, attacked those who don't buy the man-made global warming (AGW) theory on September 30, 2009:
"Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama's health plan, we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed congress this summer. "
This sort of paranoid thinking is odd, since the vast majority of the money in climate science is on the pro-global warming side. Among themselves, the pro-AGW scientists make no bones about their desire to get their hands on some of that cash. Thus, a British scientist wrote last month:
"How should I respond to the below? [an article questioning AGW theory] (I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK - looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases--"

No wonder pro-global warming scientists are dogmatically committed to their theory, no matter what the data say: their livelihoods, as well as their professional reputations, depend on it. As a result, they conduct themselves like a secret cabal. Outsiders--that is to say, independent thinkers--are viewed with suspicion. One of the most striking emails is from Michael Mann to Phil Jones. It replies to an email from Jones that was copied to another scientist named Andy, relating to a recent fiasco in which tree ring research that was a basis for the U.N.'s IPCC report on global warming proved to be inaccurate if not fraudulent. Mann included this postscript in his reply:
"p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He's not as predictable as we'd like"
A world in which those who are "not as predictable as we'd like" are viewed with suspicion is a world of politics, not science.

So why should a country in the midst of a terrible economic crisis with unemploymeny over 10% want to get involved with "Cap and Trade policies" which would more than likely have a large negative impact on the US economy even entertain thoughts about this given the fact that the whole AGW theory is mostly backed up by bogus scientific articles like the afore mentioned "Hockey Stick Temperature Graph" or the equally bogus cherry picked data about Tree rings.

You liberals out there continually harangue about Wall Street and bonuses yet you blindly gulp down the Kool Aid of those who seek to get wealthy using bogus data that would more than likely cause more damage to the already anemic US economy. It will be very interesting to watch how the main stream media keeps a lid on this news and how liberals attempt to move the focus away from the actual fact that AGW theory scientists are bending the data in scientific publications and to the people who hacked this gold vein of information.