Climategate

2010-01-29T15:03:36Z

IsaacG:

[[File:Gorelying.jpg|right|300px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] on CNN's ''American Morning'', December 9, 2009, in which he stated that snow is melting from the polar icecaps and glaciers at a rapid rate, and that the "global warming deniers" manipulated the emails from CRU out of context. 
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtdoPeYdNRA Al Gore Weighs In On Climate Gate], ''CNN'' interview pt.1 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3IRdkPkatE Al Gore Weighs In On Climate Gate], ''CNN'' interview pt.2]]
[[File:UnitedStatesSnow slideshow 604x500.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Image from NASA showing a record snowfall in the western United States on December 9, 2009, contradicting Gore's claim. (NASA)]]
The '''Climategate''' scandal erupted when emails were exposed, showing [[scientific fraud|fraud]] and [[manipulation]]s by scientists concerning the [[Global Warming Theory]], which asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures and thus [[climate change]]. On November 19, 2009, climate [[science]] was severely shaken by the release of a collection of [[e-mail]] messages, together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were hacked or revealed by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], one of the key centers of [[global warming]] research.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 19, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails and climate data have been the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic (man-made) global warming]]; evidence revealed told the truth about man-made [[global warming]]: it's a [[fraud]].<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate-how-the-greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation-got-its-name/ Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name], Telegraph.co.uk, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125109.guest.html Universe of Lies: Big Warmers Try to Whitewash ClimateGate Fraud], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered], ''American Thinker'', November 25, 2009.</ref><ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem], climateaudit.org, September 27, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrew Orlowski. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/one-of-the-frauds-behind-the-cru One Of The Scandals In The CRU Emails], ''Sweetness & Light'', September 29, 2009.</ref> The scandal that the suffix –'''gate''' implies is the state of climate science over the past decade revealed by a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following the leaked data from the Climatic Research Unit.<ref name=3things>Iain Murray. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/ Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref> Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific [[hoax]] in world history as the worst [[scandal]] of this [[generation]].<ref>Christopher Booker. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation], Telegraph.co.uk, November 28, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/?uri=channels/338017/667734 The Biggest Scam In History (Video)], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', December 01, 2009.</ref> These e-mails show that the true intent of these (most likely atheist) liberals was to change things simply for the sake of changing them. This trait is commonly seen in liberals.

Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on [[climate science]], in a profoundly bizarre situation the [[Mainstream media]] attempted to bury the Climategate story.<ref name=accuracyinmedia>Allie Duzett. [http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-ignore-climate-science-scandal/ Media Ignore Climate Science Scandal], [[Accuracy In Media]], November 23, 2009.</ref> At the same time, liberal [[Wikipedia]] quickly [[Censorship|censored]] Climategate and referred to it as an illegal "incident," as the work of computer hackers stealing data — despite [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests. Contrary to the [[Liberal media|liberal media's]] attempt to hide the scandal, Climategate has received news coverage from notable sources in the [[media]]. Commentators and others in the media have covered news on Climategate, many of which have outlined important takeaways about specific information valuable to the public.<ref>Larrey Anderson. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html Revenge of the Computer Nerds], ''American Thinker'', December 09, 2009.</ref>

==Climategate scandal==
[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]
Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref> The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question, and it appeared to have worsened for global warming theorists after another revelation came about on November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]]. It was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

[[Michelle Malkin]] reported on the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref> The Climategate scandal is a worldwide corruption of climate science and is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. It was discovered that the reported [[warming trend]] in [[New Zealand]] over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature data.<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/26/climategate-scandal-spreads-new-zealand-msm-continues-ostrich-act Climategate Scandal Spreads to New Zealand as MSM Continues Ostrich Act], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 26, 2009.</ref>
:* From a June 11, 2008 press release at the University of East Anglia, the CRU stated that they set the agenda on [[climate change]], "The University of East Anglia, particularly its Climatic Research Unit, is the only university to be included in a list of the key bodies that have set the environmental agenda in the UK over the past 30 years."<ref>Steve Gilbert. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cru-set-the-agenda-on-climate-change CRU “Set Agenda” On Climate Change], ''Sweetness & Light'', November 30, 2009.</ref>

:* On December 01, 2009, [[Phil Jones]], the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the [[United Kingdom]] stepped down pending the investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref>

:* [[Michael Mann]] is under investigation by [[Pennsylvania State University]].

:* The CRU scientists deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. This is [[criminal]] [[fraud]] under [[English]] [[Law]].

:* Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against [[NASA]]. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for the past three years.<ref>Tony Pann. [http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climategate-CEI-to-sue-NASA-Goddard-for-Climate-Change-fraud Climategate: CEI to sue NASA Goddard for Climate Change fraud], ''Baltimore Weather Examiner'', November 25, 2009.</ref>

:* The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims have been proven false.<ref>The revelations were published on November 25, 2009, from ''The Climate Science Coalition'' of NZ: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF] A paper collated by Richard Treadgold, of the ''Climate Conversation Group'', from a combined research project undertaken by members of the ''Climate Conversation Group'' and the [[New Zealand]] ''Climate Science Coalition''.</ref> This data contributes to global temperature statistics and the [[IPCC]] reports. It is partly why the [[Obama administration]] is insisting on participating in the climate conference in [[Copenhagen]].

The ''CBC’s'' Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 03, 2009.
{{cquote|...Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: 'the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleanse scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore's, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you'll never think of climate science quite the same way again.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/ “You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair…” – CBC finds a moment of clarity on Climategate], ''WUWT'', December 03, 2009.</ref><ref>Clive Crook, senior editor of ''The Atlantic Monthly'' and former deputy editor of ''The Economist'': "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process. It goes to the core of that process." [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx Climategate fallout], ''[[National Post]]'', December 03, 2009.</ref>}}

===Primary issue===
The primary issue from Climategate is the data manipulation. [[Science]] requires data, and inadequacy of the climate record was always a problem even before Climategate became known to the public. Dr. [[Tim Ball]] wrote in the ''Canada Free Press'' on the primary issue from Climategate:
{{cquote|Climatology recognizes three distinct periods: The very recent instrumental period; the historical period to 3000 years, and the geologic [and] biologic for the rest. The [Climatic Research Unit scientists] manipulated data in all three but the first is critical because it is the source of material for the computer models, the vehicle of their deception. [...] They claim [the emails] are taken out of context. In context the fullness of their criminality is exposed. They claim there’s nothing of consequence in the emails, but [the emails show] a litany of [[manipulation]] of, the data, the process, publications, [[peer review]], and [[personal attack]]s.<ref name=datamanipulation>Dr. Tim Ball. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17916 The New Big Lie: Climategate Emails Are Not Significant], ''Canada Free Press'', December 14, 2009.</ref>}}

==Three takeaways==
Iain Murray at ''Pajamas Media'' pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.<ref name=3things/>
<blockquote>
#First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are [[paleoclimatologists]], who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in [[temperature|temperatures]] well above historical variation in recent decades.
#Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, [[Tom Wigley]] of the University Corporation for [[Atmosphere|Atmospheric]] Research in Boulder, [[Colorado]], complained that paleoclimatologist [[Hans von Storch]] was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” ([http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt 1051190249]) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).
#Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the [[Freedom of Information Act|Freedom of Information]] process of the United Kingdom.<ref>[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt Alleged CRU Email - 1212073451.txt]</ref><ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=490&keyword= Email - Re: For your eyes only]</ref>
</blockquote>

===Data Manipulation===
[[Image:Orange sun large.jpg|thumb|right|300px|On December 10, 2009, [[Roy W. Spencer]], Ph. D., showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/geomagnetic-forcing-of-earth%E2%80%99s-cloud-cover-during-2000-2008/ solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections]. On the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations, the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic]] [[Greenhouse effect|greenhouse gas emissions]], but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)]]
Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], FOXNews.com, November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 25, 2009.</ref> From ''Cube Antics'', by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU scientists, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the Climategate emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the Climategate emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs revealed from Climategate, code from the CRU shows proof that valid [[temperature station]] readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref name=codeproof>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle], ''Cube Antics'', December 03, 2009.</ref> Analysis of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:
{{cquote|First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce. This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing. If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.<ref name=codeproof/>}}

On December 05, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code uncovered from Climategate:<ref name=codepart2>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/ Climategate Code Analysis Part 2], ''Cube Antics'', December 05, 2009.</ref>
<blockquote>
:1. The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.
:2. No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.
:3. Interpolation is a normal part of dealing with large data sets, this is no different.
:4. You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.
</blockquote>
After further analysis, his first concern pointed out that the source code that printed the graph was commented out and thus is not valid proof. On the second concern, Greiner clarified that, "Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period." The third concern as pointed out by Greiner is not about the fact that the CRU researchers used [[Interpolated|interpolation]]; the issue is the weight of the "valadj" array with respect to the raw data. Greiner said, "valadj simply introduces '''too large''' of an influence to the original data to do anything productive with it." Fourthly, Greiner said that raw climate data is needed to prove that foul play has actually occurred. He said, "It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data. So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data."<ref name=codepart2/>

====Integrity of the data====
Climategate has jeopardized the [[integrity]] of worldwide scientific data on [[climate change]].<ref name=dataintegrity>Willis Eschenbach. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 08, 2009.</ref><ref>On December 11, 2009, the ''Economist'' published an unsigned article attacking the work by Willis Eschenbach. This open letter is Eschenbach's reply. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Willis: Reply to the Economist], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> There are two objections that question the validity of temperature data from the IPCC report released in 2007, one of which Climategate does not affect. The earth has generally been warming since the [[Little Ice Age]], around [[AD]] 1650 (Akasofu, 2007).<ref>Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? (2007) A possible cause of global warming [http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf PDF] by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, ''International Arctic Research Center'', University of Alaska Fairbanks.</ref> The second objection has questioned the integrity of the data, as pointed out from ''Watts Up With That?'' in an article written by Willis Eschenbach. There are three main global temperature datasets, as clarified by Eschenbach.

:* One is at the [[CRU]], Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
:* Another one is at NOAA ([[GHCN]]), the Global Historical Climate Network.
:* The final one is at NASA ([[GISS]]), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The three groups take raw data, and they "homogenize" it to remove temperature discrepancy's that occur when a station is moved to a warmer or colder location. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data.<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=GHCN&topEmails=&submit=Search Search - GHCN], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS uses the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis. Both GISS and CRU get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. But the [[IPCC]] uses the "adjusted" data; GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls "inhomogeneities."

At [[Darwin]] Airport there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record.<ref>[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin GISS Surface Temperature Analysis], data.giss.nasa.gov.</ref> In 1941, a station was moved to Darwin Airport. The GHCN then removed the inhomogeneities to adjust the data. Of the five raw datasets at Darwin, the GHCN discarded two. The three remaining records were first homogenized and then averaged to give the "GHCN Adjusted" temperature record for Darwin. Before the GHCN homogenized the data, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century. After the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century.

Willis Eschenbach looked into it further and started with the earliest record, "Station Zero" at Darwin. The five different station records (raw data) covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that there is "indisputable evidence that the 'homogenized' data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming." The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station shows that at least one part of the data is bad at Darwin Zero.
{{cquote|They’ve just added a huge, artificial, totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! A six degree per century trend? What’s up with that? [...] The GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them. That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it 'hides the decline.' [...] Care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? They only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. Every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling.<ref name=dataintegrity/>}}
Separate from GHCN, GISS takes the raw temperature data and does their own adjustments. However, GISS verified that their adjusted, homogenized data is the same as GHCN.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/ GISS “raw” station data – before and after], ''WUWT'', December 11, 2009.</ref> The data is questionable because the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) manipulates the data prior to its use by others; this process was described as homogenizing. The CRU apparently "lost" their data. Scientists at the CRU, who produce global annual average temperatures, select stations that create the results they want, then adjust the data again for fraudulent purposes.<ref name=datamanipulation/> Climategate revealed a fact that, until all of the station "adjustments" are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS cannot be trusted if using homogenized numbers.

[[Image:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|'''8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps.''' Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/june-2009-global-temperature-anomaly-update-000-deg-c/ blog] that June's anomaly globally using the Aqua satellite dropped to 0.001C. '''This continued downtrend started after 2001''', and is another indicator [[Global Warming]] alarmists have certainly embodied a hoax. It was also reported: '''Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists:''' Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase [[Big government|Big Government]] power and control, including [[Socialist]] [[Income redistribution]] ideologies. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12629 ''Canada Free Press''] - http://www.climatedepot.com/]]

====Hockey Stick Graph====
In one Climategate [[e-mail]] dated November 1999, CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote to [[Michael Mann]], Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:
{{cquote|I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''.<ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html UN Climate Reports: They Lie], ''American Thinker'', October 05, 2009.</ref>}}

Michael Mann's [[hockey stick graph]] hid the real declining temperatures and instead showed a [[warming trend]].<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/ Historical video perspective: global warming in the context of scale], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> Mann's graph portrayed temperatures as steadily declining since [[Medieval Warm Period|medieval times]] and then sharply rising in the last century and a half. Notably, his reconstruction fueled claims that 1998 and following years had the highest temperatures in 1,000 years. Once it became publicly known that man-made global warming is a hoax, as a direct result of the e-mail discussing a "trick" for adding data to each temperature series for the last 20 years, Climategate motivated the making of a video called, "Hide The Decline."<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-video-hide-decline.html Video of the Year: 'Hide The Decline' - Climategate], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', November 27, 2009.</ref>

====Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction====

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


====Videos on Hockey stick graph====

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data], the “unprecedented” temperatures of the present day when put in perspective of geologic time.
* ''Hi-Definition'': [http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif Historical perspective slide show (.GIF)], “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale.
* ''Low-res'': [http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif Historical perspective slide show (.GIF)], “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale.


===Subverting the scientific peer review process===
The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a [[cap and trade]] scheme as part of a Global Warming movement.

===Freedom of Information Act===
Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a [[FOIA]] request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable [[university]].

==Climategate emails==
The Climategate emails discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure dissenting papers had no access to publication. The Climategate emails show that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money, deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. The collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref>Steve Gilbert. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/some-summaries-of-the-cru-emails A Few Summaries Of Some ‘CRU Emails’], ''Sweetness & Light'', November 22, 2009.</ref>

===Themes===
On the climate science environmental agenda and the scandal that Climategate revealed all together, [[Glenn Beck]] commented on the [[e-mail|emails]]:
{{cquote|[The scientists] were asking each other to delete messages to avoid [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests. That doesn't sound legal. Scientists are working together to try and change the definition of [[peer review]] journals so that anybody who said global warming wasn't real couldn't get their papers published. ... [And then with] these thousands of E-mails ... Shouldn't this be - oh, I don't know - everywhere now? All of them are, to varying degrees, important. But how much could any of those actually cost you? This scandal will literally cost you trillions of dollars. That's what's at stake worldwide. It's on how we deal with the climate.<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>}}

According to [[Rush Limbaugh]], another theme of the e-mails that have been released is how people at the Climatic Research Unit were constantly trying to "shake down" the oil companies (ie. Exxon, Shell) for [[money]] and for partnerships.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/ Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support], ''WUWT'', December 04, 2009.</ref> On this reoccurring theme, Limbaugh mentioned the following:
{{cquote|They talk about it openly, how they're constantly trying to shake down the oil companies. The only thing man-made about global warming is the theory behind it. What you are going to do with people who are even willing to lie about the weather?<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125111.guest.html It's Not a Consensus, It's a Cabal], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref>}}

===IPCC and the CRU's 'Trick'===
Further analysis of the word "trick" and how it was used in the Climategate emails from the CRU provided interesting feedback. It showed that CRU did indeed truncate tree ring data, so that the real decline in global temperature is not shown in the [[IPCC]] report, as referenced by Steve McIntyre.<ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483 IPCC and the “Trick”], climateaudit.org, December 10, 2009.</ref> McIntyre brought this to attention as an expert reviewer in the IPCC process in 2005, but at the time of inquiry his dissent was stifled and the discussion was never presented to external peer reviewers.

The explanation for the use of the word "trick" came quickly from CRU director Dr. Phil Jones in his official announcement on November 23rd. He claimed, "The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." If Dr. Jones used such colloquialisms regularly, it stood to reason that further analysis should find a number of similar instances of the word "trick" in the CRU Climategate emails over the decade that the emails spanned. A file search program with a simple mission to scan the email folders for all file content with instances of the word "trick" used by itself (excluding other words like "Patrick" that would have "trick" embedded in it) returned eight files with that condition:<ref name=trickcount>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/counting-cru-tricks/ Counting CRU “tricks”], ''WUWT'', December 10, 2009.</ref>


* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=12&filename=843161829.txt 0843161829.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt 0942777075.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=365&filename=1065206624.txt 1065206624.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=366&filename=1065636937.txt 1065636937.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=454&filename=1103236623.txt 1103236623.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=796&filename=1179416790.txt 1179416790.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=812&filename=1188508827.txt 1188508827.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=852&filename=1200162026.txt 1200162026.txt]


After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (eg. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

===Wikipedia===
Lawrence Solomon from the ''[[National Post]]'' discovered from the Climategate emails how a small band of [[climatologists]] plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the [[Medieval Warm Period]].<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=Wikipedia&submit=Search Search - Wikipedia], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> The Climategate emails revealed the enlistment of [[Wikipedia]] in their attempt at rewriting history. It was revealed how Wikipedia’s "green doctor," a U.K. scientist and [[Green Party]] activist, rewrote 5,428 climate articles. The recruited [[Wikipedia]] administrator, William Connolley, literally rewrote history and then abused his administrative privileges to stifle criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/ Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes Wikipedia climate information], ''WUWT'', December 19, 2009.</ref> Lawrence Solomon wrote on this revelation and on Wikipedia's loss of [[integrity]] as a source of factual information, and on the clear abuse of power from administrative authorities within Wikipedia:
{{cquote|Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.<ref>Lawrence Solomon. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor], ''[[National Post]]'', December 19, 2009.</ref>}}

==Global reactions to Climategate==
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="350" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: lightblue no-repeat scroll top left;"|Climategate Scandal Spreads Worldwide
|-
! Nation!!Involvement in corruption of climate science
|- valign="center"
| [[File:50 star flag.png|50px]]||[[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State]] is investigating [[Michael Mann]] for his role in Climategate. [[Barack Obama]] is "doubling down" on his commitment to combat fake Global warming; the [[Obama administration]] dumps [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/12/17/2009-12-17_us_will_contribute_to_100b_climate_fund_for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html more U.S. taxpayer dollars] into a global $100 billion [[European Union]] climate change fund.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Australia.png|50px]]||Liberal Party members within [[Australia|Australia’s]] parliament resigned rather than voted for a cap and trade scheme based on flawed science.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.png|50px]]||[[Saudi Arabia]] called for an independent investigation into Climategate.
|-
| [[File:Flag of New Zealand.png|50px]]||The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims are proven false: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF]
|-
| [[File:Union jack.jpg|50px]]||The [[UK|UK's]] CRU director Phil Jones stepped down.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Russia.png|50px]]||[[Russia]] admitted the [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html CRU emails were uploaded on a Siberian Internet server] and denied involved, but [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ "confirmed" that UK climate scientists manipulated data] to exaggerate global warming.
|-
|}

===Copenhagen===
[[Sarah Palin]] called for President Obama to skip [[Copenhagen]], the climate summit in [[Denmark]], because of the information Climategate exposed. She commented on [[Facebook]] that the president should reconsider his trip until the e-mails can be investigated, "Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the [[United States]] government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices."<ref name=obamacopenhagen>Wendell Goler. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/05/obama-s-shift-copenhagen-visit-defies-climate-gate-controversy/ Obama Ignores 'Climate-Gate' in Revising Copenhagen Plans], FOXNews.com, December 5, 2009.</ref> Instead, the [[The White House|White House]] attempted to downplay the controversial leaked e-mails of climate scientists. [[President Obama]] announced that he was "doubling down" on his commitment to the worldwide environmental agenda, pushing forward with a [[cap and trade]] scheme that is based on flawed science, and hoping to secure a "meaningful" agreement. The President made it clear that he will invest more energy and taxpayer dollars to help advance the global warming hoax.

Originally, the [[President of the United States of America|President]] was supposed to attend the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen for the beginning of the conference, "bless the occasion and leave," said Roger Simon of ''[[Pajamas Media]]''. After Climategate became known, ''Pajamas Media'' reported that President Obama, "[S]witched his itinerary to be there at the end of the two weeks in order to give his blessing and impetus to the decision itself."<ref>Roger L. Simon. [http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/12/06/climategate-why-obama-switched-his-copenhagen-itinerary/ Climategate: Why Obama switched his Copenhagen itinerary], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', December 06, 2009.</ref>

===Obama administration===
In a case of see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, the Obama administration showed commitment to [[climate change]] legislation and at the same time dismissive of Climategate. Though evidence revealed from the e-mail messages from the CRU shows that researchers manipulated data, suppressed data and stifled dissent, [[John Holdren]], Obama's science czar who is directly involved in the Climategate scandal stated boldly, "The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue."<ref>Dr. Tim Ball, Judi McLeod. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183 Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal], ''Canada Free Press'', November 24, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/24/science-czar-john-holdren-and-climategate-perfect-together/ Science czar John Holdren and ClimateGate: Perfect together], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 24, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/02/white-house-science-officials-defend-climate-change-data-amid-e-mail-scandal/ White House Science Officials Defend Climate Change Data Amid E-Mail Scandal], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> The [[reality]] is that this small 'fraction of research' — the theory which is the foundation of [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic global warming]] — the data used by CRU scientists, it is proven fraudulent. The [[theory]] which used to hold human beings responsible: it is nothing more than a Global warming scam, according to Jim O'Neill from the ''Canada Free Press''.<ref>Jim O'Neill. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17361 Attention Lawyers! Make Millions Off Of Climategate Crooks!], ''Canada Free Press'', November 30, 2009 .</ref> The scientists at the CRU, from the evidence found in their e-mails and documents, show a criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, and at the same time advance an ideological [[Leftist]] agenda.<ref>Christopher Monckton. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/ Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', November 23, 2009.</ref>

===U.S. Congressional comments===
When House [[Republicans]] asked for a hearing or investigation into the Climategate scandal, independent from the Penn State University which is looking into the Climategate emails by its own researcher, [[Michael Mann]], calls for further investigation were criticized and then rejected by [[Democrats]]. U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner ([[Republican|R]]-[[Wisconsin]]) said, "These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit."<ref>Seth Borenstein. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010411091_apsciclimatehearing.html Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails], ''The Seattle Times'', December 3, 2009.</ref> Democrats harbored ill will against the facts and continued to theorize that the [[earth]] is warming, insisting that the fraudulent data "[does] nothing to undermine the very strong scientific [[consensus]]," which showed a [[warming trend]] and claimed it is largely a result of human activity. The top [[Democrat]] on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, [[Barbara Boxer]], a global warming alarmist, said of the scandal, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate." Rather than investigate the fraud and manipulation of scientific data that was used by climate science researchers, Boxer hoped to get her hands on the so-called 'real' criminals, those who released e-mails and data to the public.<ref>[http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=11748 Sen. Boxer Attempts to Turn Climategate Into ‘Email-Theft-Gate’ as Warmist Scandal Grows], ''The PoliJAM Times Blog'', December 2, 2009.</ref>

===Other countries take notice===
While U.S. [[Democrats|Democratic]] politicians downplayed the Climategate controversy, and despite the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scoffing at Climategate by suggesting it provided no basis for questioning the science behind global warming, global reactions from other countries around the world took notice of the scandal. [[Saudi Arabia]] called for an independent investigation into Climategate, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations. "The level of confidence is certainty shaken," said the Saudi Arabian negotiator. "We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the ‘Climategate’ scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations."<ref>Lisa Lerer. [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html Saudi Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation], ''[[Politico]]'', December 07, 2009.</ref> Elsewhere, [[Australia]] had planned on setting an example to lead in the fight on climate change, to become one of the first countries to install a [[cap and trade]] system. However, due to an "emissions trading scheme" Climategate revealed, [[Liberal Party]] members within Australia’s parliament realized that cap and trade is based on flawed science. Liberal MP’s resigned rather than voted for a cap and trade scheme.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/ripples-of-climategate-being-felt-worldwide-liberal-mps-desert-turnbull-in-australia-over-emissions-trading-scheme/ Ripples of Climategate? Liberal MP’s desert Turnbull in Australia over emissions trading scheme], ''WUWT'', November 25, 2009.</ref>

[[File:GlobalWarmingLie.jpg|right|200px]]

==Climategate media coverage==
The Climategate media coverage refers to the journalistic methods used by the the Mainstream media to deceive the public from learning more specific details about the fraudulent climate data. In the wake of the Climategate scandal, a truly bizarre situation happened; the [[Mainstream media|mainstream media]] stories about global warming pretended the uncovered documents never happened. This worldwide Climategate cover-up also occurred before the public had learned about Climategate, too. The [[U.K.]] ''[[Daily Mail]]'' pointed out that, a month prior to November 19, 2009, the first unreported instance where political ideology reigned over journalistic duties happened over at BBC News:
{{cquote|The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.<ref name=bbclie>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], November 28, 2009.</ref>}}

Climategate coverage of the scandal is a [[media]]-focused overview from the most notable discussions covering Climategate: the revealed data, e-mails and manipulated code sets. As details emerged from the Climategate scandal, Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia were exposed. Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on climate science, the leftist media ignored it, and then focused on pushing forward with the [[global warming]] [[hoax]].<ref name=climatehoax>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125110.guest.html Hoax: Climate Change Makes Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism], RushLimbaugh.com, December 8, 2009.</ref> Coverage of Climategate showed just how [[bias]] the [[liberal media]] has become in order to advance an environmental agenda.

As Climategate was totally ignored by most TV news outlets, ''[[Fox News]]'' appeared to be the only national news media in [[United States|America]] interested in the growing scandal.<ref>John Lott. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen/ Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'], FOXNews.com, November 24, 2009.</ref><ref name=accuracyinmedia/> Perhaps the [[MSM]] felt that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it would have just gone away. However, just as the case was during the [[Tea Party Movement]], notably during the [[Tax Day Tea Party]], [[blog|bloggers]] and the readers of the global warming stories kept bringing up [[An Inconvenient Truth|the inconvenient truth]] of Climategate by mentioning the scandal "over and over and over again."<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/24/climategate-msm-writers-try-ignore-scandal-global-warming-stories-read Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

[[File:GlobalWarmingFraud Newsbusters.jpg|left|200px]]

===Global Warming hoax===
On December 08, the second day of [[Copenhagen]], news from the ''UK Telegraph'' headlined a Global warming hoax, "Starving Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism."
{{cquote|New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalize each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds. The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food. Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea.<ref>Jonathan Liew. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6760103/Starving-polar-bears-turn-to-cannibalism.html Starving polar bears turn to cannibalism], Telegraph.co.uk, December 08, 2009.</ref>}}

[[Rush Limbaugh]] blasted the Global Warming hoax and commented, "None of this is true" (Dyck, M.G., 2007).<ref>Dyck, M.G. et al., Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the ‘‘ultimate’’ survival control factor?, Ecol. Complex. (2007), doi:[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002 10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002]</ref> He rebuked the false claims about [[polar bears]] and at the same time pointed out the continuation of fraudulent stories from the media despite Climategate; Limbaugh revealed another hoax blaming a natural event on global warming.
{{cquote|If you know anything about polar bears, you know that there are any number of reasons why polar bears attack each other. But did you know that polar bear males are well known for eating their young if given half a chance? They do. The mother, the female polar bear has to protect the cubs from the father and other males. Polar bears are a vicious species. They're not this cuddly little old English sheepdog type thing. People go out on ice floes to study these things, and if they attack they have to shoot them. They're not at all in any way tame, and they're huge. They can rip you to shreds inside of five seconds, they wouldn't care, and Reuters would run a picture and blame it all on global warming, not the fact that a polar bear is a polar bear. Polar bears eat their young, if given half the chance, males do. So another hoax, 100% total fraud on the second day of Copenhagen.<ref name=climatehoax/>}}

==Climategate cover up==
Fourteen days after the story broke worldwide, the Climategate scandal had been mentioned by [[ABC]], [[CBS]] and [[NBC]] a total of '''''zero''''' times. Because the story affects [[Cap and trade]] legislation, the [[White House]], in their daily collusion with [[liberal media]] sources, may have told news channels to bury the story.<ref>Diane Macedo. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html Comedy Central Scoops Network News on Climate-Gate Scandal], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> From ''NewsBusters'', it was reported that [[Glenn Beck]] used the news source to, "Demonstrate that much as in [the mainstream media's] boycott of the [[ACORN]] scandal and green jobs czar [[Van Jones|Van Jones's]] peculiar associations, the television press are once again hiding important information from the public hoping it will all just go away."<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txh_BXdeWBU ClimateGate... What??], Glen Beck on ClimateGate censorship.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upkO0j3fN9A ClimateGate], Glenn Beck on ClimateGate scandal.

===Unreported and censored===
[[File:Leftist News.gif | right]]
The liberal [[Wikipedia]] has cited various references to contend against the facts uncovered with Climategate and has claimed that the e-mail files were illegally stolen by computer hackers, despite repeated requests for the data files under the [[FOIA]]. Though unreported by the [[MSM]] and at the same time [[censorship|censored]] by liberal Wikipedia, there is strong evidence to suggest the data was released by a fellow employee, a "whistle blower" within the Climatic Research Unit.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com Those <s>"hacked"</s> released CRU files], JunkScience.com, December 03, 2009.</ref>

* There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files
* The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers
* The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff
* Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s)

The [[U.K.]] ''Daily Mail'' pointed out the following:
{{cquote|The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.<ref name=bbclie/>}}

===Liberal media missed the mark===
The first liberal media source to openly discuss Climategate on [[United States|American]] [[television]] was during a segment on [[Comedy Central|Comedy Central's]] ''[[The Daily Show]]'' with [[Jon Stewart]], a slapstick entertainment news program. After more than two weeks had passed since Climategate went public, CBS evening news finally reported on the scandal. However, CBS missed the mark and called the scandal by its [[Google]] created name: "Climate Gate" — and then CBS provided a weird subtitle in their news article that said, "Leaked E-Mails Provide Climate Change Deniers Ammunition Near Beginning of Global Summit."<ref>Kimberly Dozier. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/05/eveningnews/main5908487.shtml "Climate Gate" Casts Cloud on Change Meet], ''[[CBS News]]'', December 5, 2009.</ref> ''[[CBS News]]'' also aired a short video of an interview with Kevin Trenberth. Dr. Trenberth in the past has said this in one of the CRU e-mails:
{{cquote|The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/cbs-finally-reports-on-climategate-dr-trenberth-interviewed/ CBS finally reports on Climategate: Dr. Trenberth interviewed], ''WUWT'', December 06, 2009.</ref>}}

===Googlegate===
[[File:Gore firegloablawarminghoax.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] demonstrating how his ability to spout fire is somehow proof of his silly 'global warming is man-made' fraud.]]
It was reported that, despite Climategate related pages being the most-read articles of the UK's ''Telegraph'' entire online operation, mysteriously when attempting to search using [[Google]] – it didn't feature links related to Climategate.<ref>Anthony Watts. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/ “Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 28, 2009.</ref> James Delingpole from the ''Telegraph'' noted, "Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me."<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018263/climategate-googlegate/ Climategate: Googlegate?], ''Telegraph Blogs'', November 29th, 2009.</ref> Google.com has been accused before of interfering with its own search [[algorithm|algorithms]] in order to interfere with searches for material deemed "[[Politically correct|not politically correct]]."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Google-blocking-climategate-autosuggestion Google blocking 'climategate' autosuggestion], examiner.com, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>Danny Sullivan. [http://searchengineland.com/of-climategate-googlegate-when-stories-get-too-long-30755 Of Climategate, Googlegate & When Stories Get Too Long], ''search engine land'', December 01, 2009.</ref> Through December 3rd, despite the rising search popularity for the query "Climategate," or "Climategate scandal," and attempted "Climate-Gate" keywords from about 26,400,000 articles on the [[World Wide Web|Web]], Google’s "autosuggestion" function in the search box was not suggesting "climategate." But rather, instead, Google and other search engines also began to suggest to Web searchers if they meant to search for "Climate Gate" rather than the intended query, "Climategate" or otherwise "Climategate scandal." However, by December 7th, Google was correctly displaying "climate-gate" in the autosuggest list, which led to a full list of search results about this scandal.

Al Gore's position on Google's senior advisory board is likely bearing responsibility; in Gore's bio he says:
{{cquote|A member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. Gore is also Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.<ref>http://www.algore.com/about.html</ref>}}
According to ''[[NewsBusters]]'', [[Al Gore]] has done some "advising" of Google’s search quality in the past.<ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/15/al-gore-advised-google-about-its-search-quality Al Gore Advised Google About 'Search Quality'], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', October 15, 2009.</ref> There is some history between Google and Al Gore that has some bearing on the current situation.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/google-trends-on-climategate-show-public-interest-increasing-but-troubling-questions-loom/ Google trends on “climategate” show public interest increasing – but troubling questions loom], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 02, 2009.</ref> In the case of "Climategate," Mr. Gore's ability to continue his current speaking engagements might be hampered. Thus, there could well be a motive for him doing some "advising" in this case. A phone call might be all it took.

==Videos==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4 The Stroke Of A Pen], 'Lord Christopher Monckton' closing statement at the Minnesota Free Market Institute.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk 'Hide The Decline'], satire starring Michael Mann.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI 'The Twelve Days of Global Warming'], satire starring Al Gore.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI It's A Climategate Christmas], satire on Global warming post-ClimateGate.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5F6eYho8U Imagine There's No Global Warming], satire of John Lennon's song "Imagine" turned politically incorrect.
* Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? ''Fox News'' reporting: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqi7fxERiqk Part 1] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCLQIYNYgo Part 2] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisVhZHouq4 Part 3] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Pj6uWTgXM Part 4] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYuZs6Idb8 Part 5] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BTS3K9DFy0 Part 6]

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Also See==

* Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (November 11, 2008) by Christopher C. Horner ISBN 1596985380


==External links==
* [http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Watts Up With That?] - Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
* [http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up Climate Depot] - Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up
* [http://www.PJTV.com/climategate PJTV Covers Climategate] - Full coverage of how scientists cooked data on climate change
* [http://www.nocapandtrade.com/ ClimateGate] - Facts on climate change
* [http://eastangliaemails.com/ The CRU emails] - East Anglia confirmed emails from the Climatic Research Unit
* [http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/ Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data]

{{Climategate scandal}}

[[Category: Global Warming]]
[[Category: Earth Sciences]]
[[Category: Ecology]]
[[Category: Science]]
[[Category: Environment]]
[[Category: Environmentalism]]
[[Category: Deceit]]

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Climategate

John Lennon