Here we go again: Climategate 2.0
Madison Ruppert
End the Lie
November 23, 2011
A mere two years after the original Climategate which exposed massive deception perpetrated by the scientists promulgating the theory of anthropogenic global warming, a massive batch of previously unreleased hacked emails have been released.
The emails were hacked by an unknown entity and contain private correspondence between both British and American scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
This comes a mere five days before almost 200 countries are sending delegates to Durban, South Africa to attempt to come to an agreement on a new internationally recognized global warming treaty which would create the current treaty which is going to expire next year, called the Kyoto Protocol.
The major so-called scientists exposed in the original Climategate scandal return with a vengeance including Michael Mann, Ken Trenberth, Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tom Wigley revealing the fact that they once again are deceiving the public.
The new dump of emails paints the promoters of man-made global warming in quite an ugly light indeed, showing that they are continuing to exaggerate the extent of global warming by privately admitting that the evidence in support of their position is quite lacking indeed.
As James Delingpole, a blogger for the British Telegraph, aptly put it, “what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.”
Yet the promoters of the anthropogenic global warming theory that is abused by criminals like Al Gore in order to rob the world blind in the name of saving the world continue to pretend it is based on hard science.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, the George Soros funded Media Matters continues to promote the discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its recent report that claims “climate change will likely worsen certain extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, droughts and storms.”
Hopefully the rest of the media will not be ignorant enough to ignore the massive and widespread fraudulent activity of the scientists involved in promoting the man-made global warming theory.
That being said, the British Independent writes that, “A series of reviews in Britain and the US later cleared researchers of any scientific impropriety and said the affair had not undermined the scientific basis of global warming,” although to anyone who read the emails this conclusion seems a bit absurd.
UEA did not yet officially confirm if the emails were real while saying that they indeed “had the appearance” of being part of the batch of original Climategate emails that were released in 2009.
The emails date from before 2009 and are between the foremost researchers in the field of climate change in both the United States and the United Kingdom, which includes a leading figure in the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office, Sir John Houghton.
Of course so-called climate experts are claiming that, once again, the emails do not undermine the anthropogenic global warming theory, regardless of the fact that, as the Independent puts it, they “show climate scientists squabbling, politicking, calling each other names and, in effect, plotting how to present their information in the best possible light.”
If the data was truly there, the science would be irrefutable and there would be no need to attempt to put information in “the best possible light.”
Did Newton scheme about how to present his information in order to give the best possible impression? Of course not, if it is true science, there is no need for politicking and “plotting how to present their information in the best possible light.”
To any real scientist, this should be an affront to everything that science stands for, yet Bob Ward of the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change claims, “The emails… do not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed by the independent inquiries into the original publication of hacked messages in November 2009.”
“None of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or serious misconduct by climate researchers, but they did conclude that levels of transparency should be improved. These emails, like the last batch, show that climate researchers are human and prone to the same rivalries and disputes that occur in many professions,” Ward told the Independent.
How can Ward make such a clearly demonstrably false assertion? I’m not quite sure but it appears he has a dogmatic attachment to the theory of man-made global warming that allows him to completely set aside reality in favor of his manufactured paradigm.
For instance, Geoff Jenkins who was formerly the head of climate change prediction at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre wrote, “Would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for Kilimanjaro glaciermelt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?”
Phil Jones, the Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote, “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […]”
How exactly does discounting a “wealth” of studies showing no rise in temperatures in the tropical troposphere “not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed” as Ward asserts?
Jones also made a quite damning comment in writing, “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts [such as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which would require giving information to the public]. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”
If the science is legitimate, what need would there be to delete any emails? I’m not sure how Ward and others can take such blatant examples of misconduct in stride.
Another example of the science being discounted by the second Climategate leak is seen when the researchers mention the snow and ice cover on Mount Kilimanjaro which Al Gore cited as proof of man-made global warming in his propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
As Anthony Watts covered (also see this article), an email from Phil Jones to Geoff Jenkins of the UK Met Office reads, “I’ve heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures – that we don’t have access to, and there was little warming in them. The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can’t pin anything down.”
Jenkins wrote, “I got [P]hilip [B]rohan to look at temps there (see attached) and there isn[‘]t any convincing consistent recent warming in the station data. […] would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for [K]ilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?”
Clearly the science of climate change is far from settled and the claims being made by so-called climate change experts are far from accurate and truthful.
I find it somewhat disturbing that these “scientists” would be so comfortable deceiving the entire world in order to justify an enormous scam like carbon trading.
I sincerely hope that the establishment media doesn’t choose to ignore or selectively cover this latest leak as it is damning evidence showing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is far from the iron-clad science they are making it out to be.
If you would like to explore the leaked emails yourself, take a look here where they are all made available to the public and even available to search or browse through.
I encourage anyone and everyone to actually take it upon themselves to look through these and decide for yourself if you side with the so-called experts or those who think that science shouldn’t be a politicized and misrepresented field.
CrossTalk on Bahrain: Forgotten Spring (video)
RT
November 28, 2011
The BICI report has accused Bahraini security forces of wrongdoing, but is the issue of the report enough justify the regime? Will the international community buy it? And will the opposition take it seriously even if some of the report’s recommendations are implemented? Is Iran to blame for the unrest of the Bahraini people? Or is it another Arab Spring against corruption and injustice? CrossTalking with Mitchell Belfer, Kate Hudson and Peter Eyre.
Egypt votes in post-Mubarak power vacuum amid Tahrir turmoil (video)
RT
November 28, 2011
Egyptians are voting in the first round of multi-stage parliamentary elections which are due to go on until March. While the military government is portraying the poll as a solution to the crisis, sentiment on the streets is quite the opposite.
Pakistanis burn Obama effigy and US flag
Sky News
November 28, 2011
Hundreds of enraged Pakistanis have taken to the streets across the country, burning an effigy of President Barack Obama and setting fire to US flags after 24 soldiers died in NATO air strikes.
The Sunday rallies were organised by opposition and right-wing Islamist groups in major cities of the nuclear-armed country of 167 million people, where opposition to the government’s US alliance is rampant.
In Karachi, the port city used by the United States to ship supplies to troops fighting in Afghanistan, more than 700 people gathered outside the US consulate.
FULL ARTICLE HERE…
(hat tip: Drudge Report)
NATO accused of killing at least 14-28 Pakistani soldiers in cross-border assault
Madison Ruppert
End the Lie
November 26, 2011
Pakistan has alleged that NATO conducted a cross-border helicopter attack operation that resulted in the murder of at least 20 Pakistani troops near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border early Saturday.
This comes as relations between the United States and Pakistan are already quite strained over the continued American drone attacks that defy Islamabad’s requests to cease the operations.
The incident was quickly decried as an egregious violation of Pakistani sovereignty, which Pakistan has been increasingly vocal about.
Back in May of this year, China had backed up Pakistan’s demands to respect their sovereignty, although it appears that the West has no interest in doing such.
Pakistani officials said that the attack occurred around 2 am Saturday morning at a checkpoint in Salala which was manned by Pakistan’s army.
Salala is a village in what The Los Angeles Times characterizes as “the restive tribal region of Mohmand,” and 50 soldiers were at the checkpoint at the time of the attack according to officials.
The Pakistani officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter but NATO officials confirmed that they were aware of Pakistan’s allegations and were investigating the matter.
The Pakistani government “retaliated,” if you could call it that, by closing a border crossing that is used by convoys that deliver supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan.
Pakistani officials said that they had closed the Torkham checkpoint at the Khyber Pass and suspended movement of NATO tankers and supply vehicles traveling into Afghanistan through the checkpoint.
This is hardly retaliation given the fact that coalition forces attacked Pakistani soldiers in sovereign Pakistani territory for no reason at all.
The Los Angeles Times cites a quite similar incident on September 30th, 2009, when NATO helicopters killed two Pakistani soldiers at a border checkpoint in the Pakistani Kurram tribal region near the Afghan border.
The American government and NATO officially apologized for the murder of the two Pakistanis, claiming that the crews manning the helicopters believed the soldiers were insurgents they were pursuing across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In reaction to this assault on Pakistani sovereignty, they stopped allowing the movement of fuel and supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan through the Torkham checkpoint for 11 days.
This shutdown bottlenecked the transportation system and left NATO tankers and trucks vulnerable to attack across Pakistan, resulting in more than 150 NATO trucks being set on fire or damaged and six deaths.
Early numbers cited by the London Telegraph said that 14 Pakistani troops were killed in the NATO incursion, but Russia Today puts the number at 25 and the Sidney Morning Herald cites the Pakistani government’s number of 24 dead troops.
The Telegraph cites two intelligence officials in the region who report that up to 14 Pakistani troops were killed and seven wounded in the assault.
Russia Today is reporting that two anonymous intelligence agents and one government official said that 25 troops were killed and five more were wounded.
The Sidney Morning Herald cites Pakistani security officials who say that at least 24 soldiers have been killed and more than a dozen were injured.
They report that an official located at the paramilitary Frontier Corps headquarters in the city of Peshawar, the capital of the north-west province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa said that initial reports showed 22 soldiers and two officers were killed and 15 other troops were wounded in the attack.
Provincial governor Masood Kausar, who is the head of seven tribal districts’ civilian government said, “This is an attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty and such attacks will not be further tolerated.”
The acting Pakistani Ambassador in Washington, Iffat Gardezi has also expressed strong protest with the U.S. Department of State over the cross-border assault, according to Geo Television.
The Khyber district supplies more than 50% of supplies to coalition troops in Afghanistan and Jamil Khan, a senior Khyber security official said, “So far 50 trucks have been turned back.”
NATO is keeping quite silent on the matter so far, with Lieutenant Commander Brian Badura, the spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) saying, “We are aware that there has been an incident in the border region.”
“Right now we are gathering details and starting to investigate what happened,” Badura said.
It remains to be seen if NATO will take responsibility for this egregious assault on Pakistani sovereignty and how the Pakistani government will handle the response.
There also might be some critical responses from Pakistani allies like China which have been highly critical of Western incursions in the near past.
UPDATE: Reuters is now reporting that two Pakistani military sources are estimating that the number of dead is 28, three more than the closest estimate from a different news source.
The same sources say that 11 soldiers were wounded and 40 were manning the post at the time of the attack. What is clear at this point is that the details are very unclear. We will keep you updated as information becomes available.
If you have information or an article to pass our way, please do not hesitate to email admin@EndtheLie.com// <![CDATA[
/* */
// ]]>with a link or text.
The 7 reasons why the WEST wanted Gadaffi dead (video)
YouTube – 1TheRevolutionIsNow
October 25, 2011
Historic Mars Launch: NASA giant rover ‘Curiosity’ blasts off (video)
RT
November 26, 2011
