REMEMBER NIXON’S DONALD SEGRETTI?
TOMFOOLERY by those NASTY BOYS?
Hacked climate emails used to attack scientists!
(typing) “I'm here
to tell you the air is just fine. (cough) There is
absolutely no
problem, but let's lie. Let's tell Copenhagen
there's mega
(cough) trouble ahead and get all that money!
signed,
--Professor”..uh..lesse. Look at that roster.
Who's on it? Vladamir
wants this done NOW.
Pick an Oxford
Professor. ANY #%(@ PROFESSOR!
By Chris Talbot
9 December 2009
The theft and publication of emails from
the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in England,
containing communications between top
scientists, has been used to boost the reactionary campaign backed by major oil producers and
corporate lobbyists (and Russia) to deny the existence of
global warming so they can continue with pipeline wars..
In the run up to the Copenhagen summit, the anti-climate change lobby has seized on sentences taken out of context --- from private communications between Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU), and other scientists to attack them and undermine their work.
OK I got that. Nixon
hacker crew, a true SEGRETTI MOVEMENT.
Up
until the discovery of the hacker's email (1,000 of them) just
recently
in England, we all believed in joining the bandwagon and head
for
Copenhagen. In the U.S. alone 34,000 scientists signed a petition
disproving
the so-called man-made global warming by excess of CO2. Very
well
researched documents from around the world followed suit. Hmmmm,
why
would these individuals cut their own throats knowing very well that
they
could join the rush for $ billions in contracts from certain
governments,
the IMF and the World Bank?... Have they all gone mad, you
say?...
Admittedly we do have CO2 spewing around the globe. However data
shows
us that CO2 has very little to do with global warming and the
culprit
is the activities of the SUN!... The corporate empire can't wait
to
get its hands on $ zillions and pretend that the end result will be
reversing
global warming. Yes, folks, let's head out and purchase stocks
in
these wonderful, "green" corporate giants who promise us a much
greener
planet thanks to their noble effort!
Polly
wanna cracker? Parroting the puppet masters... I see. (of course
you
didn't write this Frenchie) Did I not go into detail about these so
called
30 plus thousand scientists before the list was put on freeze?
Here
is a good example why I froze it. People have no recall. No
attention
span... no tenacity. Even when they are hand fed... they are
too
lazy to chew and then digest what you are offering them. How quickly
we
forget??? Say it ain't so Joe.... READ IT.... GO ON.... READ ALL OF
IT....
REMEMBER THE PAST AND YOU WON'T BE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT...
cosmicly
speaking http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cosmicrose/message/3401
I
happen to like the particular response I pasted below to this link
posted
previously by someone.
This
is becoming like a cut and paste nightmare for serial conspiracy
theorists.
Every little connection and thread is obsessively followed on
its
insignificant course to no conclusion; being salivated over by a
crew
of enthusiasts for futility. None of it matters. The carbon trade
market
is the onbly bit of interest and that would be nice to curb
before
it gets out of hand but the markets invented derivatives, and all
the
rest of the financial moondust, for the last bubble so they will
find
another way to engineer funny money out of nothing if we stop them
playing
with a carbonated world. As to the rest it gets us nowhere. It
does
nothing except score a few points for a bunch of people crazed by
the
thought they must be proven right. And the more they argue the more
imperative
that thought becomes. Forget it all because it is of no
significance
and start thinking about what lies behind and below the
argument.
Oil is becoming increasingly expensive to extract. Wells are
being
capped. The remaining significant and easily available stocks are
in
the Middle East (largely). Here America has planted itself by
invading
a sovereign state. Pipeline routes and other strtegic
positioning
is advanced by holding Afghanistan so America is there too.
We
are following for the same reasons; we want to be where the economic
oil
is. Both America and Britain want to support their military
industrial
complexes. They are scared of the economic collapse that
would
follow a reduction in these sectors and the unemployment this
would
create. They (we) need war. Hence the demonisation of various
peoples,
religions and so on. This demonisation is allowed and even
encouraged
and the dirty work is done on blogs like these by the
gullible
who are playing to the desires of the governments wanting the
real
agendas to be hidden. We should be asking why are we not reducing
our
abilities to scrap over remaining easily available oil stocks and
investing
this saving in the production of alternative energies to get
our
energy balance right for the, possible, good of the planet but also
for
the obvious security of mankind and his/her health. This is work
that
has to be done soon and it should start now before countries like
Iraq
find that the new democracies that have been planted on them at the
end
of a gun actually entitle them to be inedependent in the disposition
of
their resources and auction them off in such a way that America loses
out.
This has greatly increased the possibility of confrontation,
eventually,
between major powers, China, Russia, India (SCO members or
associates)
and the Western block lead by America. Sticking Gate
on
the end of a word does not impart significance to what is essentially
banal. John Duckham http://johnduckham.uk
Saudi Arabia’s climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban claimed that the content of the emails would derail discussion at Copenhagen on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change,” he told the BBC. Mind you he’s an oil billionaire.
Leading anti-climate change campaigner Patrick J. Michaels of the right-wing Washington Cato Institute, alleged that the emails showed scientists were preventing him publishing in journals: "This is what everyone feared. It has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical."
In Britain, the right-wing Daily Express, under the headline "Climate Change Fraud," publicized the views of Australian mining engineer Professor Ian Plimer. He asserted that scientists are supporting claims of climate change simply to get more research funding: "The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets."
The response of the climate change deniers was
predictable. But they have been assisted in their task by liberal sections of the media. Journalists who normally pose
as defenders of science concerned about the impact of global warming have also
attacked the UEA scientists. They have behaved as though Jones and his
colleagues have a case to answer. None of the accusations against the
scientists have stood up to examination after two weeks of probing. Yet as a
result of media "concern", Professor Jones has been forced to temporarily
step down as director of the CRU while the University of East Anglia carries
out an investigation into the scientists work, chaired by a former civil
servant. The United Nations has also stepped in, with Rajendra Pachauri,
chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), saying he will investigate the matter. The Guardian opined that
"we have all been reminded that the frontiers of technical knowledge are
not in fact advanced by automatons, but by fallible human beings. Any
suggestion that scientists are being less than frank will
shred their credibility."
The credibility of the scientists is being shredded, not by their own actions, but by the media. The storm that has engulfed Professor Jones is as much the responsibility of the respectable broadsheets and papers of record as it is of the tabloids. The media have responded in a cowardly and hypocritical way to an assault from corporate interests, in order to discredit scientists and science itself.
One of the most prominent eco-journalists in the UK, George Monbiot, responded with despair and self-pity. "I have seldom felt so alone," he wrote in his regular Guardian blog. "However good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren’t going to follow or understand them. I feel desperately sorry for him [Phil Jones]: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left in which to make an honorable exit."
Monbiot criticized the university’s handling of
the affair as "a total train wreck¦ As far as I can tell, it sat like a
rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike." The Washington
Post columnist George Will wrote of climate change, "Never in peacetime
history has the
government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic
lockstep about any subject."
He accused the UEA scientists of "intellectual arrogance", having "messiah complexes", and of considering it "virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent".
A somewhat more measured response came from the authoritative science journal Nature, which points out firstly that the emails were stolen. This is an important point because publication of the emails was not the result of some concerned whistleblower. It was a major criminal operation. (See Natures report here.)
It stated, "Nothing in the emails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real” or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. The case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions that are debated in the emails."
"A fair reading of the emails," the Nature article continued, "reveals nothing to support the denialists conspiracy theories."
In one of the most highly publicized excerpts from thousands of stolen emails, the UEA scientists suggest that two papers should be kept out of the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This has been taken as evidence of a "smoking gun" proving climate change to be a fraud. In fact, Nature pointed out, both papers were referenced and discussed in the Assessment Report in 2007. Neither the UEA scientists, nor the IPCC suppressed anything.
Nature has itself come under attack from the climate change deniers, who have demanded that the journal investigate articles it has published from the UEA scientists. The journals editorial rejects this call in a principled fashion: "It is Natures policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies."
It has rapidly become apparent that the theft of the emails was a highly organized operation. "Its a carefully made selection of emails and documents that's not random." Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC told the UK-based Independent, "This is 13 years of data, and its not a job of amateurs."
The hackers had access to the email system for at least a month. On October 12, Paul Hudson, a BBC regional weather presenter, received a number of emails including the stolen documents. On November 17 some 4,000 documents were uploaded to a climate website from a computer in Turkey. On November 19 a link was posted from a computer in Saudi Arabia to a zip file of the documents on a Russian computer.
Professor Ypersele suggested that the FSB, the Russian secret service, might be behind the operation. They were posted on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk, which belongs to an internet security business called Tomcity. The FSB in the city has a record of congratulating students on successful hacks of sites that are regarded as hostile to Russian interests. They are thought to employ hackers in concerted attacks on Russia’s neighbors.
Whoever was ultimately responsible for stealing
the UEA emails, the operation served the interests of major capitalist
enterprise--- whether in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Europe or America. It reveals
the lengths to which the representatives of the capitalist class are prepared
to go in the attempt to preserve their profits at the expense of the vast
majority of the planet’s population.
ç BACK TO
CRIME-A-TOLOGISTS WRESTLING MATCH