Busted !!!!!!!
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
Climate Emails Stoke Debate
Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming
Article
Comments (447)
MORE IN US »
EmailPrinter
FriendlyShare:
facebook
↓ More
Save This
↓ More
Text
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258834 ... 215.htmlBy KEITH JOHNSON
The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
More
Download the emails and documents (The file is over 60 MB)
Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.
"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, 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 all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.
"The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said.
Journal CommunityDISCUSS
“Any group with such a single-minded view (whether they are believers in global warming, global warming rejectionists, liberals, conservatives, whatever) bears close watching and a certain amount of skepticism. ”
— George Rebovich
Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.
A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.
In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.
The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.
The IPCC couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.
In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "tempted to beat" up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.
The emails were published less than a month before the opening of a major climate-change summit in Copenhagen.
Representatives of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a large professional organization, expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The association believes "that climate change is real, it is related to human activities, and the need to counteract its impacts is now urgent," said Ginger Pinholster, an association spokeswoman. She added that the association's journal, Science, evaluates papers solely on scientific merit.
John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."
Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published."
Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming
Article
Comments (447)
MORE IN US »
EmailPrinter
FriendlyShare:
↓ More
Save This
↓ More
Text
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258834 ... 215.htmlBy KEITH JOHNSON
The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
More
Download the emails and documents (The file is over 60 MB)
Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.
"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, 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 all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.
"The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said.
Journal CommunityDISCUSS
“Any group with such a single-minded view (whether they are believers in global warming, global warming rejectionists, liberals, conservatives, whatever) bears close watching and a certain amount of skepticism. ”
— George Rebovich
Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.
A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.
In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.
The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.
The IPCC couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.
In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "tempted to beat" up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.
The emails were published less than a month before the opening of a major climate-change summit in Copenhagen.
Representatives of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a large professional organization, expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The association believes "that climate change is real, it is related to human activities, and the need to counteract its impacts is now urgent," said Ginger Pinholster, an association spokeswoman. She added that the association's journal, Science, evaluates papers solely on scientific merit.
John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."
Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Plus people are getting rich playing on others FEARS...
now somebody give me a snare rim shot...
yeah i do not know what to think about global warming. the science says it is happening, and that case is compelling, at least in my eyes, look at the massive glaciers from the antarctic that are drifting to new zealand, yet this past summer was below normal most of the season and this fall has been way above normal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123/ts ... ateiceberg
either way we need clean energy for the sake of not polluting our own environment.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud | Print | E-mail
WRITTEN BY REBECCA TERRELL AND ED HISERODT
MONDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2009 00:00
Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet.
The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times. The article opined, "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."
Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud." The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: "Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise." The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential "hockey stick" graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," wrote Jones. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed "our [inadequate] observing system." Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the "Climategate" bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical "trick" he used to "hide" data. Or perhaps they mean Mann's reference to climate change skeptics as "idiots."
Now that AGW is revealed as a farce, will big-spending politicians in the U.S. Senate halt efforts to impose a cap-and-trade system to ostensibly combat greenhouse gases and global warming? Of course not. Cap and trade is about raising taxes and increasing government control over our entire economy. Our socialist politicians in Washington will never stop pushing this issue, even if global-warming alarmism is disproven to the point that Hell really does freeze over.
Will widespread and irrefutable knowledge of scientific fraud silence the socialist promoters of a new United Nations Climate Change protocol? Nonsense. In the name of saving the planet, the UN Copenhagen Treaty they intend to impose on the world would help to shackle it. Specifically, their "green" agenda would impose international controls, diminish the industrial might and living standards of developed nations, and transfer wealth from rich countries to poorer ones in an emerging world government. Internationalists and socialists will not back away from their long-sought-after global designs simply because the "science" supporting runaway global warming is shown to be flawed. No doubt they will continue to demand retributions for climate debt from the United States and the largely agreeable EU, despite Trenberth's observed "lack of warming."
The good thing is that even more than in the past, these false scientists and their alarmism will be countered with their own words. Even now reliable researchers are compiling the information in a publication that should shake our nation — and maybe even a few Democratic politicians.
we've been thru this stuff before - anytime climate change becomes front page news (this because of copenhagen) ... some right wing "news site" will post something totally out of context to feed the lies so many want to soak up ...
get over it - climate change is happening and it's cause primarily by human actions ... just say you don't care and move on - stop posting these BS articles that will (like every single other one) be proven to be absolute crap ...
all of y'all who think climate change is a fraud - i know for a fact have not studied it yourselves nor really know anything about it ... all ya do is go and get your propaganda information you google and post it ... seriously - go read and get some facts before you post this shit ...
People are trying to stay very, very very rich by saying climate change isn't man-made, you know. Exxon/Mobile just happens to be the wealthiest corporation in history. Who the hell knows what the truth is on this anyway? I doubt it is you or I, or a tv talking head or some douchebag on the radio. Unfortunately, the media has become so convoluded with bias, I'm not sure there is anywhere to turn these days.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Exactly what I was thinking. Everyone is so polarized on this issue because they let their emotions get involved or they reach a conclusion and then try to find evidence to support their conclusion, ignoring the opposing view. It seems to me that the overwhelming evidence points to man-made climate change - and I don't know if it is the only cause or one of many.
Let's be honest, the Copenhagen summit is coming up next month and this is probably just fodder for the skeptics to regurgitate as "evidence" of a massive conspiracy among the scientific community. A small sample of emails with ambiguous language hardly proves anything.
wait, wait, wait....you complained about gimmiesometruth using media matters and other sites asking if we could use sources that weren't biased and then you use a publication produced by the john birch society? really?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
yeahh i was wondering about that myself.... :?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
see, you would think that is a contradiction. but the truth is that left-leaning sources are inferior to right-leaning sources. you see, it may LOOK like they're doing the same thing, but if you look at it closely and are a conservative, you will realize that when the left spins things it is becos they are evil and manipulating you and making things up. when the right spins things, it is just becos they have to counteract reality's liberal bias or it's an accident or they're just trying to make sure everyone feels the full emotional impact of how horrific the story would be if any of it was true. it's kinda like jesus telling parables, sure maybe none of it really happened, but the point is to get your agenda across, not provide information. left-spin is more like hitler raping babies and gassing jews... it's just evil and fascist and communist and homoist and whatever other "other-ists" you can think of.
unless that liberal rag says something that supports their view and then and only then will they have 'gotten it right'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
So here's another link to the story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 86_pf.html
dude ... i'm telling ya ... you're barking up the wrong tree ... you can link a thousand articles that say the same thing ... it's crap ... just move on ... if you really care about this - go and read some objective pieces on it ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -cru-hack/
i agree that most of this stuff is being blown out of proportion or at least dangerously out of context, but it's kind of ridiculous to post a press release by the hacked entity and claim it's an objective piece. that's like saying if a hot woman said she wanted to fuck me but wanted to know if i was any good in bed first, she'd get an objective answer from me.
What, you admit right here that you're a lousy lay? Where's your confidence brother?
But joke aside, it's not like climate change is "busted wide open", more like a couple of the more influential scientists leaned a bit harder than warranted. But seriously, that's all in a day's work in any field of ambitious, smart people. Not right, but not exceptional either. So, a slap on the wrist on these people may be warranted, but it does nothing to discredit the mounting evidence. Also, if you're used to have to counter corporate sponsored bullshit on the subject distorting the field, you might get a bit uptight after a while and want them quiet so one can continue to deal with the real problem instead of the "alternative" of the month. Just saying.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
i never said the objective answer is i'm a lousy lay, just that she'd probably get a story about how i make regular payments to a chiropractor becos many of the women i sleep with orgasm so hard they end up with back problems that i feel guilty for causing.
I do have some questions though for polaris_x ... or anyone else.
1. If the earth is getting warmer thus warmer ocean temps then why are we having less and less huricanes in the atlantic every year ? There were only 3 named hurricanes in 2009
2.What about all the record snow fall in early October out west
3. What about the 3000 scientist calling Al gore a fraud and suing him ?
IMO I think its B.S. It's nothing more than a way for the globalist to get cap and trade passed.
Hehe. Do women EVER fall for anything like that? If so, it must be in spite of it.
But if I were to say it, vulgar as it is, I wouldn't be lying either
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
And to your questions...supply the stats. Supply those LEGIT 3,000 scientists and they'd better not be affiliated with Bush's administration, there's proof they he paid some scientists off for saying what he wanted them to.
Weather has been erratic; THAT's what's causing issues questioning climate change; it's not just the frequency of hurricanes, it includes all weather including snow. Just because the planet isn't obviously seemingly warmer, doesn't mean it's not happening. El Nino is present in the Southern Hemisphere again spelling trouble. We have a sea full of plastic along with a garbage dump in the Pacific. I wonder if that has any effect on weather?
Why don't you go research about climatology and weather trends of the last 50-100 years.
hey, i never made any claims about how desirable the women that fall for that are
1&2 are local weather phenomena, not an indication of CLIMATE change. Other local phenomena (current situation in Australia) could be pointed out as an indication of warming... but it isn't appropriate. Long term changes of climate are the key indicators.
3 - Who is suing him? What for? What is their affiliation to universities/think tanks/employers, etc? There is not causal link between scientists suing him and a climate change hoax/conspiracy.
which is owned by Rupert Murdoch....i'm just sayin, if media matters can't be used because George Soros gives money to it then the owner of Fox also owning the Wall Street Journal should also make it suspect....
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZbsMlr9WRI
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
ok ... i have an environmental studies degree and i have worked for the climate centre of canada ... but in the end - it means shit in this day and age ... what's frustrating is that these articles and links have been posted for years and every single one of them has been found to contain zero merit and they rely on partisan people to eat it up ... i've been saying this for years - if you are so concerned - educate yourself instead of posting articles that make you look like a sheep ...
i'll answer your questions tho:
1. have you noticed the hurricane (typhoon) season in the pacific - how many people have died in the philipines this year!?? ... as well as the rest of south east asia ... hurricanes depend on warm waters and wind shear - sometimes the conditions don't quite make it but if you look at the pacific season ... you'll see the results
2. the reason why there was an emphasis in changing global warming to global climate change is for this reason ... people just assume it means warming everywhere ... this is what it boils down to: the single biggest factor in determining weather is temperature ... when we artificially adjust the temperature (and the overall trend is warming) we affect the weather ... thus, you are going to get more extreme weather ... that's why we are seeing more floods, more torrential rains, more heat waves, more cold spells and in the case of the west coast - record snowfall
3. ever hear of lobbyists!? ... do not underestimate the power of PR firms ... they find obscure items and make full blown articles with no substance - some of your links are from organizations who's job is just that ...
listen - i don't know about the cap and trade system ... maybe it will be a sham - but the evidence is overwhelming ... global climate change is caused by man ... i guarantee you that you WILL NOT FIND ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE to prove otherwise ... I will also guarantee that if you google global warming is a fraud you will get a million links telling stuff you want to hear ...
education is key to every issue ... if you're against the cap and trade system - great, figure out it's workings and preach it's problems ... i may support you ... but first you have to understand global climate change and observe around you ... the weather is changing ... it's obvious ... the only issues should be whether you think we caused it or not ... and to that - there is overwhelming evidence ...
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see
The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics' claims
George Monbiot - guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009
'It's no use pretending 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. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 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.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
From: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk">ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk</a><!-- e -->
Sent: 29 October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.
More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.
This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.'
it was in a 5 or so part series from the BBC called Earth: A Biography it's a really great series, worth checking out. that was from the episode on oceans
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'