Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interview: Sen. James Inhofe will call for hearings into IPCC, UN, East Anglia CRU e-mails
Quote:
Inhofe told Melanie Morgan and Jed Babbin that he would call for a Congressional hearing on the e-mails and their impact on the credibility of the AGW movement, especially as it relates to the IPCC and the United Nations:
In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."
"[T]his thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said during the interview.
Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails
Both sides of climate change debate urge investigation as Met Office dismisses 'shallow attempt to discredit robust science'
Prominent voices on both sides of the climate change debate today called for an independent inquiry into claims of collusion between climate scientists after it emerged last week that hundreds of their emails and documents had been leaked that allegedly manipulated data and destroyed evidence for Freedom of Information Act requests.
Contrary to the wishful thinking of those in support of the AGW research in question, this isn't going to go away and the level of corroboration concerning their actions are well documented by external requests and dealings with them over the years.
Just to give you an idea if you haven't read on this, McIntyre was dealing with their run around all this summer.
My favorite response considering the now released e-mails is this response from the Met Office concerning McIntyre gaining access to the information he requested (multiple FOI requests that were denied) via a mole.
edit: correction and clarification on the "mole". The mole actually turned out to be Phil jones who apparently had mistakenly made the data available http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedb...climate_1.html Which by the way leads to current speculation that this "hack" may have actually been an opportunistic person who happened to catch the FOI file on the public server and downloaded it passing it to those who might find interest in it. That is, the assumption is that the access to such data might actually be yet another mess up similar to the last incident.
Quote:
Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole. They are now aware that there has in fact been a breach of security. They have confirmed that I am in fact in possession of CRU temperature data, data so sensitive that, according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, “damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector”, interfere with the “effective conduct of international relations”, “hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations” and “seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.”
They are unbelievable. They were lying and cheating and then had the audacity to lay his obtainment of the facts of the data as a "National security" issue.
There isn't a cell cold and dark enough to put these people in.
This was definitely not a hacker, although that term makes it much easier for the MSM to ignore this story - I'm sure they wouldn't want to publicize "stolen" emails and docs, but they sure don't have a problem airing sensitive military intelligence that endangers the troops.
This was either a whistle blower or to me it looks like this zip file was being prepared for a FOI request, that was subsequently denied.
There are deniers alright. The ones in this thread who are purposely reading things out of context and ignoring the rest of the data that goes along with it. Scientists have confirmed the emails, but also emphatically stated that key data is being excluded from the quotes. I'm quite sure that none of the boneheads in this thread have read these in their entirety, nor do they ever intend to. Besides, who would you believe anyway? A group of established PHDs, or a group of habitual LIARS who spend their life online dreaming up conspiracies and quoting right wing blogs all day? Gee golly, who do I believe? The academics, or the grown up children, with a chronic desire to lie about stupid crap online all day?
Like I said, this has been reported elsewhere by non political spin machines, and what they are saying isn't anything like this. Wonder how that could possibly be? Let us also not forget that not ONE major news source is reporting this in the way they are portraying it. How could that possibly be? Of course they have that base covered too: The liberal media conspiracy theory.
Like I said, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING will come of this, because there is nothing to this. Just like all the hoopla I've watched her for months on end, all the "truth" all the "birthers", all the predictions of "Socialism". NONE OF IT ever happens. Why? Because it's all made up crap, usually spun from things taken out of context.
HAHAHA..Talk about boneheads... I think you get the nice blue ribbon for this post.
If this turns out to be true, which appears to be the case, this is truly one of the biggest stories of the century. And we are only nine years into it.
This could undermine the Democrats and environmentalists for the next 100 years. How sad for America.
I wonder what's in the secret health care database ?
Realclimate.org adressed this issue and has shown that these e-mails were taken out of context. It explains the 'hide the decline' part as well. The only thing that this whole thing proved is how easy it is to spread misinformation when people have no understanding of what they are talking about. In any case, if old e-mails that were taken completely out of context is what the skeptics have to resort to now, I don't think they have much of a case.
chances are this was done by an insider, not a hacker at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dano
