G-Warming Promoter 'Dismayed and Deeply Shaken' by ClimateGate

monbiotBy Noel Sheppard

One of the world’s leading promoters of the anthropogenic global warming myth claimed Monday he is convinced the e-mail messages involved in the growing international scandal ClimateGate “are genuine,” and he’s “dismayed and deeply shaken by them.”

So said George Monbiot, a writer and environmental activist many consider to be Great Britain’s Al Gore.

Contrary to what newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post are telling their readers, Monbiot accurately said there’s “no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging” (h/t Andrew Bolt via Marc Morano):

There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

In fairness, this has not changed Monbiot’s view of the bogeyman: “The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.”

Read the rest of this article at Newsbusters.

51 Responses to G-Warming Promoter 'Dismayed and Deeply Shaken' by ClimateGate

  1. W Howard Baker November 25, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    The release of this information shows that the scientists involved at even the highest levels were totally unethical and even downright liars. Being an engineer, I realize the damage that can be done by falsifying even one test much less the amount of data that was either falsified or omitted to fit an agenda in this case.
    To say that this is a blow but that the hypothesis is still correct shows that “man-made” global warming caused by CO2 emissions is not a science but a religion like Jim Jones and his kool-aid drinkers. It is time for all true scientists to stand up and denounce what has been done to save the scientific community from having the same level of credibility as politicians, which is what these people in the “man-made” global warming crowd have become.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 26, 2009 at 11:28 am #

      That’s right! I said it before, and I’ll say it again. All ethical scientists should be outraged by this. This doesn’t just make the scientists involved with this look bad. It makes ALL scientists look bad.

    • Michelle Nye November 29, 2009 at 2:14 am #

      In the last week, the Australian Parliament has been inundated with emails, so much so half of the parliament resigned over the Copenhagen treaty, however what caused their sudden surge against the government was thousands of emails and youtube videos revealing the most amazing expose’ ever to break through the media boycott. this man has exposed the fraud of the health system and in less than a year has cured 16,000 people of AIDS in New Guinea. It seems very likely this will cause the government of Australia to collapse.

      19 Revelation to Australian and New Zealand Politicians
      20 Revelation to Australian and New Zealand Politicians

    • Donna December 5, 2009 at 8:51 pm #

      The bottom line is that if the government are to force their preplanned agenda hidden agenda upon the unsuspecting public, there has to be a “convincing” reason why. It is an attack upon development that leads to independence. The reality is that they are peddling the sustainable development agenda which is summarised on the Georgia Guidestones. They want people to be bunched together in compact housing, so that they can “leave room for nature!!” And they are placing heavy sanctions upon development under the pretense that it is harming the planet. But who is speaking out about how these restrictions on development is causing many poorer nations to continue to suffer and die??????? Just like the lie they told about the Twin Towers and The London bombings, this is yet another BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO ENFORCE THEIR GLOBAL DICTATORSHIP GOVERNMENT, and they can only do that through disempowering and disarming the people and keeping them in a state of panic and frenzy. But WE WILL NOT BE FOOLED!!!

    • Donna December 5, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

      Everything that the government does is to further their hidden agenda to create a one world global dictatorship government. Why does yet another government scam need a global solution, in the form of a global government? They have already told us what their agenda is on four big tablets inscribed with eight different languages – the Georgia Guidestones. It is time that we realise – the news is not generated to inform us of objective facts, but to influence our thinking, to create consensus and shape our perspective on reality. And that is mainly done through lies and omission. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOVERNMENT AGENDA – ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT/ A NEW WORLD ORDER. Our safety and our very lives are in danger, but many still cannot see it, because they fail to do their research and join the dots together. John F Kennedy warned of a monolithic worldwide conspiracy that is operating behind a heavy veil of secrecy and of increased government surveillance….. and he was murdered as a result! If you want to know the truth, follow the body count. The trend is that the truth tellers are eventually murdered!!!

  2. Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 26, 2009 at 2:54 am #

    So he’s shaken, but not stirred? This was NEVER about science!!!!!! This has always been about socio-politco-economic transformation. Of course it will not change their view. It doesn’t matter that the science is bunk. What’s it going to take? A decade of cooling? Oh, wait……… I guess more study is needed!

  3. Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 26, 2009 at 11:52 pm #

    Heres an article from Tim Ball. I thought it interesting because he is one of the climate scientists who have been speaking out against the AGW theory from day one.

  4. Rob N. Hood November 28, 2009 at 9:36 am #

    It’s all about oil (and the power and money it provides). The United States is no longer even close to being a democracy, but is now securely in the hands of its wonderful corporate rulers. It’s called oligarchy (or fascism, whichever). We cannot help but be in awe of the single-minded pursuit of money and power. And the best part is that your oligarchy is self-perpetuating, because the people will keep on electing the candidates to whom you give the most money. We the people can’t possibly compete with your resources, and it’s hard to find candidates with the sterling character to resist your temptations.

    Actually, admitting that democracy is gone and that you, Corporate Cheer Leaders, have become our oligarchs clarifies many of our current problems. Once we get over the old idea of government ‘of and for the people,’ our national life is easier to understand. We gladly accept the Pentagon budget of $680 billion and hundreds of military bases around the world that starve other national needs and drain away our national treasure. After all, they are necessary to feed the military-industrial complex at home and protect your ‘interests’ around the world.

    New areas for oil exploration are opening up in Greenland (and elsewhere) due to melting ice. Nice how that worked out, isn’t it?

    Regardless of whom we elect, our government will continue to fight wars for access to the fuels and other resources you need. And our military bases around the world make possible the transfer of jobs to nations without labor or environmental laws that could reduce your profits. The people may be tired of Afghanistan, but lets face it, this endless warfare pays off, even the reluctant and stubborn Iraq is finally contracting with Exxon Mobil to develop some of its oil fields.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 28, 2009 at 12:15 pm #

      So what you’re implying is it’s ok that these scientists LIED about global warming because they’re fighting against the evil oil companies and the military industrial complex? Even if what you believe is true, it’s not ok to lie. I don’t care if the ends justify the means in your mind, two wrongs don’t make a right.
      If you really want to “take them down” what needs to be done is that you need to find FACTS that support your beliefs and expose them to the public. It is unethical to lie to people about a made up hoax-lie-fraud called global warming, just to get the result that you want. Because what you have created by doing that is a global warming-industrial complex and a global warming economic bubble that will do a graet deal of harm when it bursts.
      What you should have done is PROVE the new technologies are better than the old technologies of fossil fuels. It may have taken a long time to develop them, but in the long run we would have all been better off. But now there has been incalcable damage done to the world by this LIE.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 28, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

        Sorry, spell checker off. I meant incalcuable not incalcable. And it really is incalcuable. How many people who invested in the global warming industries are going to go broke now? How many people who got jobs building and maintaining wind turbines, solar panels are going to lose their jobs? And what about all those dupes who quit their jobs and went to work for ACE indoctrinating school kids? It’s all very sad, and it’s because people like you, with an agenda, refused to see the truth. Refused to listen to us. It’s all on your hands, but you try to deflect it by talking about it’s all about oil and the military industrial complex. You know at least big oil provides us with energy that we need, and the military industrial complex has protected us and given us the most powerful military in the world. The global warming lie has given us just lies, lies and deceit, heartbreak and sorrow, and higher taxes. Nice job.

    • Thor November 29, 2009 at 8:27 am #

      Rob N. Hood–You seem to have forgotten basic grade school civics. The United States is and always has been a republic–not a democracy. Try the pledge of alliegence given at school and other functions. “….and to the Republic for which it stands….”
      Lose the fixation on the corporate structured companies. You (as can all) are able to structure a business venture as a sole proprietorship, a partnership, variours corporate structures like LLC, Sub S, Chapter C, etc.
      Given todays litigeous society even a smart single owner business choses to incorporate to isolate assets. Would you like to be sued as the result of an accident (ACCIDENT) and lose the house you and your wife bought as a “fixer upper” 15 years ago and spent all your free time fixing up? Well, you would.

      Doesn’t make you looked up to as a DAD by your kids who have to move out. Wise up. First you don’t buy a house using joint tenency.(use a personal trust). Next, you set up that lawn moving service as a corporation (LLC) so when you get sued its not you but the corporation. The corporation leases a pickup and a trailer, and other tools including a computer, the desk for the computer and the bookcase you are going to get to hold your business law books, from another LLC (in other words it does not own them). Oh, did a light bulb go on? Try Legalzoom.com for the necessary paperwork. Duh! Thor

    • Devereaux December 3, 2009 at 8:06 pm #

      LOL Actually Rob – the US is totaly about democracy – its the Democrats who have become Socialists that have screwed up this fine country!

  5. paul wenum November 29, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    Robby Boy does not know what to say so he changes the subject. The subject is lying. What don’t you understand???

  6. Rob N. Hood November 29, 2009 at 9:11 am #

    Again, as I’ve said before many times it isn’t small business or small corporations that are the problem. We’ve all become slaves to the big ones. So your lecture, Thor, is misguided. You are brainwashed re: that issue like many others. It is you who needs to wise up. And it is about Democracy. We’ve had this little debate too. Are our soldiers dying today for Republic, or for Democracy? If I had a hundred dollar bill for every time Bush the Dim told us that we were fighting for democracy in Iraq and everywhere else, I’d be rich. If you are correct about that then we are all bigger fools than I even thought. We are a Democratic Republic, what is it about that that you wing-nuts don’t understand?

    News update: Arctic ice conditions are even worse than feared after a survey found that ice detected as older and thicker by satellites is actually thin and fragile, a prominent Canadian researcher reported Friday.

    University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said experts around the world believed the ice was recovering because satellite images showed it expanding, but the thick, multiyear frozen sheets have been replaced by thin ice that cannot support the weight of a polar bear.

    “Polar bears are being restricted to a small fringe of where this multiyear sea ice is. As we went further and further north, we saw less and less polar bears because this ice wasn’t even strong enough for the polar bears to stand on,” said Barber, who returned from an expedition to the Beaufort Sea in September.

    And Neil, again you put words in my mouth instead of being honest about what I have posted. Nice subtle change of subject that. Really I mean it. You are very subtle, about that anyway. And what about the news above? All lies by the evil Liberal MSM I guess, huh? One BIG liberal conspiracy… The whole world must be Liberal. Wow, my dreams have come true I guess.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 29, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

      An anectdotal story by a some researcher does not mean anything. So he didn’t see many polar bears. Do you see a deer every time you drive down the road? Besides, the NSIDC reported the ice was young thin ice last year so that was already known. If anything that shows how wrong experts from around the world can be. And, come to think of it, I don’t recall anyone saying that the ice was recovering. All I ever hear is “the polar ice caps are melting” and “the sea level is rising” You show me one source where an “expert” says the polar ice is recovering. It actually is recovering from 2007-2008 levels, but not by much, see here: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png All the predictions I heard were that the ice woud melt rapidly during the summer melt season, which it did not. I’m wondering what Mr. Barber’s feild of research is. It just says “University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said:” As far as I can tell he reseaches the University of Manitoba!
      This exemplifies the lack of critical thinking you display Rob. You ask “Is this the smoking gun I was looking for?” Where I ask “What was the research project? Was he surveying the ice? Or was he surveying polar bear populations?”
      Oh and I wasn’t talking about you personally. I was just including you in that subset.
      I was also employng tactics used by your side i.e. making sweeping broad generalizations and using hyperbole. If you want a fair fight, I think it’s way too late for one. All tactics invariably give rise to counter-tactics. I have not read it, but that is probably in Sung Tsu’s The Art Of War.

      • Devereaux December 3, 2009 at 8:08 pm #

        Neil – you should start a blog of your own! I would support it and read it! You very plainly explain things, “He didn’t see many polar bears. Do you see a deer every time you drive down the road?” Thank you!!! Keep it up brother!

  7. Rob N. Hood November 29, 2009 at 10:25 am #

    Also for Neil, re: a previous post:

    Historically, the Senate process has taken three steps to get to where it is today. In 1917, the Senate decided that a filibuster could be stopped by a cloture vote of two-thirds of those voting. In 1975, Senate Rule 22 was amended to reduce the cloture threshold from 67 Senators to 60. Filibusters and cloture votes happened relatively few times during each Senate Session.

    In 1993, Senate Republican Minority Leader Bob Dole introduced the modern notion of the “procedural filibuster” (the nuclear option) to frustrate the Clinton Administration. Dole persuaded Republican Senators to vote as a block against cloture. As a result of Dole’s action, cloture votes have dramatically increased; there were 112 in the last Senate session. The pace of accomplishment slowed accordingly.

    Therefore, while it appears that Democrats have the sixty votes necessary for a successful cloture vote on any issue, one of those votes belongs to capricious Senator Joe Lieberman, who sides with Republicans on many issues. Furthermore, since the Democrats are a national Party there are several Democratic Senators who come from states in Republican territory – Landrieu in Louisiana, Lincoln in Arkansas, and Nelson in Nebraska – who also occasionally side with the GOP. Therefore any cloture vote is “really, really hard.”

    The obvious answer would be to change Senate Rule 22 to reduce the cloture threshold to 51 Senators. The problem is that Senate Rule 22 states that for “a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules… the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.” However, the Constitution says the Senate sets its own rules and the process followed in 1975 indicates a simple majority can modify Senate Rule 22.

    Before the end of the year, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats need to wake up to the fact that the negative Republican strategy is succeeding. The Obama change express has nearly ground to a halt. Many American believe Democrats aren’t getting the job done; that they’re afraid to tackle jobs that are “really, really hard.”

    Democrats have to find a backbone, change Senate Rule 22, reinstate majority rule, and quicken the pace of legislative accomplishment.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 29, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

      Whatever Rob. I really don’t care all that much. Besides, your splitting hairs here. But I’ll play. Essentually you said that the “nuclear option was created by the Republicans during the Clinton administration.” I posted something from wikipedia that gave a short history of the “nuclear option” So it was used during the clinton administration by Republicans. Which makes you right. But the phrase “nuclear option” wasn’t coined until the G W Bush administration, which makes me right. So we’re both right. So what, who really cares?
      I think senate rulle #22 is a good thing. And so should you, in my opinion. The less that Congress can do makes us ALL better off. And if you are for changing that rule I’d ask you to think very carefully about that. And ask yourself this: What happens when the Republicans hold a simple majority? Hmmm?
      You can’t go changing the rules to favor yourselves in the short run because doing so will bite you in the a** in the long run. Just some food for thought.

  8. paul wenum November 29, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    The subject was the IPCC Climatologists lied. Period. Why are you posting bull??? There should be an investigation. Period.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD November 29, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

      He knows he’s got no legs to stand on here Paul, so he’s doing what he knows best. Distraction, and misdirection. Idon’t care, I’ll play. It’s fun for me! However, I do try to wrestle it back around to the topic at hand, though I’m not always successful at it.

  9. paul wenum November 30, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    Neil, Stay on point. You are an expert at posting things that we, as Americans should know. I’m an emotional Scot that even though I research/view/be on scene, cannot vocalize like you. I can visualize but cannot put into words. Keep it up my friend. If you know it or not, you are doing a service to ALL communities. People that agree with you, as well as deniers. Don’t let up!!!!

  10. Rob N. Hood November 30, 2009 at 12:15 pm #

    I want the Dems to make some changes that allows our Representatives to do what we hired them to do, whether it’s the Right or the Left. That’s all. Otherwise what’s the point? they might as well all be Royalty and sit there and do nothing. I guess you’d prefer that. And you fail to notice it’s 99% of time the Repubs use dirty tricks before the Dems. If and when the Dems use them it’s out of desperation. The Dem party is very weak and spineless and basically a lighter Repub party. But you guys are so far Right (extremists even) you cannot see that.

    And, Neil, so funny to see you to try and tell me I’m right about something- you can hardly manage it. How adolescent.

    I knew you guys would fail to notice anything other than imaging full victory re: the hacked emails. Which it isn’t. Actually, it would be nice if it cleared things up one way or another but of course it does not- only in your minds, and other extremists’, does it do that.

    And nobody, including the MSM, even mentions the fact that what the hacker did was illegal and should be prosecuted if caught. That darn Liberal media! Let me make a prediction: the illegal hacker will NOT be caught. Why? Powerful people were behind if not the actual hacking but the timing of the results.

  11. paul wenum November 30, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    “Victory” is when the “Truth is told.” So far, that is not being done by our media. Unfortunate but true. Where is the original “60 Minutes” cast 30 years ago? They would be all over this. Oh that’s right. That wouldn’t be politically correct would it.

    • Rob N. Hood December 5, 2009 at 11:42 am #

      You conservatives are just never happy, no matter how much things actually go your way. Cheer up Paul, we live in a neo-conservative world (or neo-Liberal, I think they are pretty much the same thing, i.e. authoritarian and conservative).

  12. Fred December 1, 2009 at 1:07 am #

    “but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.”

    Man made Global Warming was never about science. So called scientists wanting to prove APGW do not follow the most basic scientific processes. First a scientist develops a theory, like APGW. Then the scientist attempts to prove the theory “wrong”, not correct! If said scientist fails to prove the theory incorrect, the “data”, computer models and processes involved are published to the “entire” scientific community. The scientific community then attempts to prove the theory incorrect. If that fails, then the theory “might” be accepted as science.

    These processes are not followed and have never been followed by the so called scientists attempting to prove APGW. In fact now we find, via the release of the emails, that data has been hidden, deleted and modified to fit preconceived notions. This is not science!! It does not matter what Monbiot’s view is, he is simply wrong.

    Now that some people have had their eyes opened, it is time to apply “real” science to Al Gore’s community of APGW believers. It will not be long until the whole idea of APGW falls apart. Then maybe we can all return to “real” science.

    • Devereaux December 3, 2009 at 8:13 pm #

      Well said Fred! Too many get off this very important point – they are not scientists and bring shame to those that really are! These so-called scientists should be investigated. If Barbra Boxer has anything to do with it further, investigations against the email hackers will distract and protect the true criminals…

      • Rob N. Hood December 5, 2009 at 11:44 am #

        Riiiight, that’s what will happen……..

  13. Rob N. Hood December 1, 2009 at 9:16 am #

    Their new owners are richer and more powerful than ever, that’s why. It has nothing to do with PC-ness.

  14. paul wenum December 1, 2009 at 11:38 pm #


    I Agree. The game is beginning. Now let’s see the end.

  15. K> Thornley December 2, 2009 at 7:39 am #

    I think when they gave George Monbiot teeth they ruined a pertectly good backside.

  16. Fred December 2, 2009 at 4:59 pm #


    I’m not sure of your point from your comment. Clearly this is not a “game”. As far as an ending, APGW never existed, so where there is no start there is no end.

    Billions of dollars have been spent, countless lives have been negatively effected by these non scientists trying to forward that man is responsible for Earth’s climate change. I didn’t need these emails to know it was all a scam. A simple application of scientific logic was enough. Now that we have proof positive that these scientists have been lying. Maybe more of the un-informed will see the truth, man is not changing the Earth’s climate. Meanwhile we need to prosecute these University of East Anglia scientists just as if they were Bernie Madoff.

    As I posted in another blog, there is a simple litmus test. Stop giving grants to the believers to research APGW. Begin giving grants to scientists to prove APGW does not exist. It would not be long until APGW does not exist. This is a great problem in today’s climatological science, it is largely driven by the supply of money.

    If there is one thing that man should begin to consider, we will have another ice age. The natural cycles of the Earth predict this. See the Milankovitch mathmatical models on Earth’s orbital variations. If we are not a space fairing race at that time, we are going to have problems. Although no one reading this blog will need to worry about this problem.

  17. Fred December 3, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    Just so everyone knows,

    This blog can/will censor your comment, so much for free speech.

    This is the very reason APGW went as far as it did until the emails were released.

    • Dan McGrath December 3, 2009 at 5:46 pm #

      You are correct. We will censor comments that contain profanity, personal attacks against other readers, racist remarks, calls for illegal acts or violence. Exceedingly long comments, comments that are unrelated to the subject of discussion, or plain old spam will simply be deleted.

  18. Fred December 3, 2009 at 9:08 pm #


    Thank you for your clarification. It was not my intention to post an article which went beyond the defined boundaries.

    The article from December 2 seems to be visible once again.

    It’ll be curious to see how much of an impact, if any, the release of the emails will have on APGW.

    Thank you for the forum for comments.

    • Dan McGrath December 4, 2009 at 11:51 am #

      I think what you experienced is comment moderation. The system is set up to hold comments for moderation when it doesn’t recognize the poster. Once you’ve had a comment approved, the system generally lets subsequent posts skip moderation, unless they have a lot of links or certain words. Sometimes it takes a while for a human to look at the held comments and approve them.

  19. paul wenum December 4, 2009 at 12:43 am #

    Fred, “The game”, similar to chess, has begun with one holding “Check” and the other one, hopefully our side, holds “checkmate.” That is all I meant. Now we shall see won’t we?

  20. Rob N. Hood December 5, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    So you guys found your “holy grail.” Must be nice… As if you deniers weren’t insufferable enough, now you think it’s case closed, even more than before. Funny what some illegally hacked emails taken out of context can do in the MSM, huh? And yes, it’s been in the MSM, so no more conspiracy there I guess…

    As to Neil’s “genius” for posting I will try to keep my mouth shut for once. In some areas there may in fact be a lot of polar bears, but perhaps (!) it’s because there is a lack of ice they would be out on, so they are concentrated on dry land in certain areas. And in other areas there may be few, for the same damn reason. It’s very easy to take a fact and skew it… very easy. Oops- Neil’s secret’s out of the bag!

  21. paul wenum December 6, 2009 at 12:45 am #

    Remember. Watergate started with a piece of tape. We shall see.

  22. Rob N. Hood December 6, 2009 at 9:38 am #

    Good point. Believe me when I say I WISH this would settle it, and then we wouldn’t have IT to worry about. BUT so far it is NOT settled. But not to worry, because in just a few years there will be enough evidence world wide to settle it either way. This is definitely one thing that can’t be hidden forever. Why doesn’t that occur to you all? Settle down. Besides which, the elite will ALWAYS find a way to rip us worker-bees off. They always have. We average schmucks need to realize we need to band together to fight them or things will never change. But based on your posts you guys are not ready for any kind of real solidarity. Shame.

  23. paul wenum December 7, 2009 at 1:48 am #

    I’m Solid in my beliefs/convictions. I don’t need an Army. I jst seek the truth. And as stated, Once know, Truth always prevails. Always has, always will. Will it be now, or years from now? Only time will tell. Hopefully my grandchildren can look back and say “Grandpa never took the road well traveled. He took the road with the most potholes!” with an unknown possibly at the end.

  24. Fred December 7, 2009 at 12:30 pm #


    So you guys found your “holy grail.” Must be nice…

    The emails are not the “holy grail” nor are they an epiphany. People like Al Gore have been yelling “the sky is falling” for so long, people now believe the sky is falling. The problem is, no one has actually looked up to verify for themselves.

    This is the problem in the science of Man Made Global Warming. Too many people just accept what is told to them. School used to teach kids to question, seek out information and prove things for yourself. This approach seems to be a lost art these days.

    I would submit that I could cite any number of scientific facts that challenge the concept of Man Made Climate Change. I could compare and cotrast natural occurances to demonstrate that the scale of nature far exceeds the scale of man. All that will not matter, people do not want to confuse preconceived notions with facts.

    Rob, if you want to create solidarity, encourage people to study all the facts. Not just the missives circulated by the APGW crowd.

  25. Rob N. Hood December 8, 2009 at 10:04 am #

    Not too helpful Fred. Why? BECAUSE YOU COULD BE WRONG…!! At least I am questioning things and bringing up things that may be related to the whole deal somehow. You people on the other hand are religiously on ONE side. Done deal, no doubt or uncertainty. Now THAT is scary to me.

    Do you really think Gore and a couple of rich people (who happen to be Liberal) have that much power, really? Isn’t it much more logical to think that it is the largest global corporations who don’t want global warming to bite into their bottom-line/business as usual?? Why is that not logical to you? I don’t understand that way of thinkig. Yes, Gore is backing Cap and Trade, which I don’t believe in BTW. But that is just another example of the global elite (which includes MANY Republicans/conservatives/libertarians too by the way) ripping all of us off. You are being diverted from soemthing that could be real, and if so, should be examined much more carefully and not dismissed because a few Liberals are behind an ordinary and Republican-invented scheme to make money. Wake up.

  26. Fred December 9, 2009 at 4:34 pm #


    The problem is that there is no open peer reviewed science being performed by the Man Made Climate Change crowd. The recent CRU email also supports that conclusion. When CRU said the core data was deleted and can not be recovered, that also means they never allowed the scientific community to peer review that data, otherwise there would be copies. Deleting data is contrary to accepted scientific methods. It also means any conclusions formed from that data are not proven. Many people including the IPCC have based Man Made Climate Change claims on this very data, a very foundation which is built on quick sand. It could be there is Man Made Climate Change. If so it has certainly not been proven, in fact this so called science fails to use widely accepted scientific methods.

    That’s is good you are questioning things. Have you researched Milankovitch cycles. If so then you are aware how much these mathmatical proven natural Earth cycles assist in research and confirmation of climate research. Ocean floor core samples and ice sheet core samples are commonly clibrated using Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch spent many years of his life on his mathmatical theories. He consulted many scientists in his process, he encourage peer review throughtout his research. Other scientists suggested considerations, one such suggestion help Milankovitch prove his theories. This is the scientific method in practice.

    Simply looking at the statistics in considering mathmatical principles like Milankovitch cycles, Solar variations, etc. there is a far better chance that I am correct and you are incorrect.

    I am willing to entertain the opposing view, please cite open peer reviewed scientific proof that proves the existance of APGW. By open peer review, I mean that base data, theories, computer models and all processes are published and have been made available for review by all in the scientific community not just like minded scientists. Of course any science base on CRU can not be considered, there is no base data available.

    By the way, APGW is not a religion whether one thnks it exists or not.

  27. paul wenum December 10, 2009 at 12:59 am #

    Fred, Thank you sincerely, we all needed your input. Wish more people like you would let us minions know what is going on with both sides of the science stated, right, wrong or indifferent. Wish Roy Spencer would enter in. Not Hansen! Thanks again.

  28. Rob N. Hood December 11, 2009 at 5:27 pm #

    Fred, How do YOU know it’s not been peer reviewed…???!!!

  29. paul wenum December 12, 2009 at 12:10 am #

    Rob, how do you know it is not? Let me know.

  30. Fred December 12, 2009 at 8:59 pm #

    Rob Says: Fred, How do YOU know it’s not been peer reviewed…???!!!


    If CRU had allowed their Climate Change findings to be peer reviewed, they would have provided copies of the base data to other scientists. That would mean CRU wouldn’t have had the only copy. CRU themselves stated they deleted the data and it can not be recovered. By CRU’s own admission, the data was not peer reviewed.

    You could argue that all the peer review was done internal to CRU. As we all know now, that would not have been a real peer review. Again by CRU’s own admission, they went to great extents to block research which was contrary to APGW.

    Nothing I formulated, CRU’s own position demostrates the point in question.

    Although Rob, if you know of a scientific journal where CRU’s research was peer reviewed, please cite the publication.

  31. paul wenum December 12, 2009 at 10:28 pm #

    Thank you Fred. We need more people like you. I Assume that you are in the science community? 99% of these posts are from laymen like I. We just want the truth, or at least an honest debate. Thanks.

  32. Rob N. Hood December 14, 2009 at 11:18 am #

    I believe they are doing that now- that is letting all their data be available to the public- something which they are not obligated to do. And didn’t you say they “dumped” or deleted the data that they did not like, etc. How do you know that was important/pertient data in the first place? You talk the talk, but you aren’t citing anything to contradict their findings either.

  33. Rob N. Hood December 14, 2009 at 11:19 am #

    I can see into the future: …. a real scientist posts something Paul doesn’t like. He then dismissed that person as lying or otherwise illegitimate. Aren’t my powers amazing?

  34. Fred December 14, 2009 at 7:19 pm #


    The fact that CRU may or may not be releasing data in the future is not significant. All past findings on the data which no longer exists are invalid. That reaches far and wide, even to the IPCC. Since there has been legislation created on scientific research which now has no foundation, that legislation should be held in question. It will be an interesting exercise to see if CRU can be held legally liable in class action suits. Many careers were stiffled, defamed and put down by CRU’s practices. Many businesses have been harmed. Countless sums of grant money used under false pretenses.

    As far as obligations on CRU to release data. One of the CRU emails cited that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act. CRU was concerned that if it was discovered that FOIA requests applied to the data, they would have to respond. That same email outlined how the data could go missing if such a FOIA request occurred.

    Here is an interesting question. Lets say CRU did in fact have data which scientifically proves Man Made Climate Change. I would think that data would be considered priceless. Why would CRU be so careless as to remove data which had infinite intrinsic value? I doubt the data had significant value in proving APGW, instead it was a danger in that it could prove tampering.

    I do work in the arena of science, although not specifically related to climate research. This is a sad time in our history where scientific process has been perverted to support an apparent agenda. To that end, anyone seeking to challenge APGW is called names and denigrated.

    Thanks for the intresting bit of fun on the blog.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.