Welcome to Blogster!
809,686 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 155656

Posts: 409

My Comments: 19010

User Comments: 23329

Photos: 106

Friends: 157

Following: 2

Followers: 45

Points: 18290

Last Online: 13 days ago



No Recent Visitors

BREAKING!!! Climategate II, 5,000 New Emails Released Detailing Climate Change Hoax

Added: Tuesday, November 22nd 2011 at 12:05pm by drDrjojo

No you are not experiencing deja vu. do not adjust your television set, it is neither the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits, it really is happening again.  Another 5,ooo emails from the University of East  Anglia  have been placed upon an Russian Server to be shared with the public.  And just like the last time, the emails are very damaging.

These emails must be from around the same time as the first set, two years ago, because they feature the same cast of Scientists  such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa admitting the same sort of thing, that the evidence behind man made global warming is paper thin, and it is being pushed for political rather than environment reasons.

The whistleblower who posted the emails calls himself 'FOIA 2011' introduced the emails with:

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

And FOIA 2011 is right on, if we are going to screw up the world economy with oppressive climate rules that will create energy shortages that lead to food shortages, it should be based on real scientific evidence. Not selective reports which in aggregate sell a theory based on half-truths..

Below are some of the most incriminating tidbits found so far

<1939> Thorne/MetO:
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 [...]

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike,[Mann, Mr. Hockey Stick]  The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

<2009> Briffa:
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
<2775> Jones:

I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:
I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:
if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

<1790> Lorenzoni:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon

<2428> Ashton/co2.org:
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as

<3332> Kelly:
the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[...] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable
<3655> Singer/WWF:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:
[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [medieval warming period]go away in Greenland.
<5039> Rahmstorf:
You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing

<5096> Cook:
A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.

<5315> Jenkins/MetO:
would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

<2292> Jones:
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.

<1788> Jones:
There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.

<4693> Crowley:
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships

<2967> Briffa:
Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even

<2733> Crowley:
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.

<4262> Klein/LLNL:
Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
warming do this

<2461> Osborn:
This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however,
it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.

<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:
In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
cannot be explained in this way.

<4938> Jenkins/MetO:
By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI [Urban Heat Effect]
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
<0896> Jones:

I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.

<0044> Rean:
[...] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.

<1601> Jones:
I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
20th century.

<4165> Jones:
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
<3373> Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year

<4369> Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
<5055> Cook:
One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.

There is much more to be found on sites such as Tallbloke and Climate Depot, the bottom line is that these emails are another nail in the coffin of the climate change hoax. In the meantime go out and buy the large popcorn and keep your eyes on this site. Its going to be fun.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey has more here 



Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

User Comments

More Lies:


Greenhouse gases soar; no signs warming is slowed

WASHINGTON (AP) — Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.

New figures from the U.N. weather agency Monday showed that the three biggest greenhouse gases not only reached record levels last year but were increasing at an ever-faster rate, despite efforts by many countries to reduce emissions.

As world leaders meet next week in South Africa to tackle the issue of climate change, several scientists said their projections show it is unlikely the world can hold warming to the target set by leaders just two years ago in Copenhagen.

"The growth rate is increasing every decade," said Jim Butler, director of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Global Monitoring Division. "That's kind of scary."

Scientists can't say exactly what levels of greenhouse gases are safe, but some fear a continued rise in global temperatures will lead to irreversible melting of some of the world's ice sheets and a several-foot rise in sea levels over the centuries — the so-called tipping point.

The findings from the U.N. World Meteorological Organization are consistent with other grim reports issued recently. Earlier this month, figures from the U.S. Department of Energy showed that global carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 jumped by the highest one-year amount ever.

The WMO found that total carbon dioxide levels in 2010 hit 389 parts per million, up from 280 parts per million in 1750, before the start of the Industrial Revolution. Levels increased 1.5 ppm per year in the 1990s and 2.0 per year in the first decade of this century, and are now rising at a rate of 2.3 per year. The top two other greenhouse gases — methane and nitrous oxide — are also soaring.

More on link....

wow, he has egg in his face, more of the same ole lies. What a shame !  They need to get mad ! Really mad at the ppl who faked the documentation. The UN needs to own up to their part in the global scam . And the media should get off their butts and do real investigative reporting and expose these scam artist.  They are no different than Bernie Maddoff.

Is there nothing these slimeballs with stop at to push through their ridiculous agenda???? 

Paging AL GORE Paging AL GORE He will never admit to his scam. http://www.algore.com/

Obama ignores the emails and goes on with business as usual while it will NECESSARILY cause energy prices to skyrocket. The OWS need to OccupyGore and liberal Democrats for all of the lies and propaganda they fed them over the years.


Thanks MamaKats ! Happy Thanksgiving to you too .  We had our Thanksgiving dinner Sunday.  My daughter's family is going to the mountains for the holiday, so we celebrated early. I have re-couped already. : )

I posted you a picture, but it messed up the entire comment. Weird ! So I had to delete it.

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Whatta crock of crap. Greenhouse emissions do NOTHING to effect climate and those bozos know it. They merely want to control who supplies the energy and the money it generates. They are LIARS! You're right it's a scam worthy of Bernie Madoff. They are all scoundrels and they scream climate change to panic populations into buying into their scams.

Yes, we need to allow our PRIVATE sector develop energy alternatives. But with continuing government interference (via the EPA) and road blocks to shut down current energy sources it won't happen. Oil Companies and coal have the capital to invest in the technology but if the government taxes the Hell out of them they won't succeed.

It used to be Ozone, then Carbon, now it's greenhouse gases (cow farts)....and it's all a buncha hot air.

I wish that perverted sex-crazed poodle Al Gore would choke on his lies.

I agree, you have been following this for a long time.

This is the scam of the century, where in the world do ppl think the $37 TRILLION will come from? They better start questioning this bull crap, because countries are already in debt that they will never dig their way out of. This will not only increase the cost of energy, it will cause the price of EVERYTHING to skyrocket.

It is affecting the entire global economy.  All this does is redistribute the money to the fat cats who could care less out anything but wealth and power.  JoAnne even documented it.


Livestock Farmers Say Ethanol Consumes Too Much Corn


Hot new search tool for Climategate – I and II combined


Thanks...it is a lie, always was a lie and was initiated by liars for money, power and control.

Its all about MONEY - trying to steal ours through higher taxes "to save the planet" so the sleeze-scum politicians can have more $$$ for themselves....

How can liberals claim to care about the middle class and the poor when they want their energy prices necessarily to skyrocket and ppl to lose their jobs that work in the oil and coal industry.

They have NO problem flying in jets or traveling by limos or SUVs... if they were truly worried about carbon emissions, they would hold conferences via Skype. NOPE, they want to rake in the big bucks that comes with speaking fees.

As much as liberals hate ppl who make big bucks off the working class, you would think they would be 'occupying' some of these scam artist. Just imagine how much extra cost of energy will be passed onto the colleges, which in turn increases the cost of tuition.

The politicians and the media play their games for their own political gain and power. You cannot believe everything you hear in the liberal press. so much is covered up.

NBC would never admit it is a hoax, they are too involved in it. The UN pushed it so all of the liberals jump on board. Liberals never own up to their lies.  They always blame someone else.

You have to dig for the truth, and many people do not bother to dig for it.

That is so true. We can't take much of anything at face value any more.  Al Gore should be in prision for pushing this lie.

Okay the guys with the white coats are hear gang, time to get back to your rooms...what some crazy stuff...incredible ignorance and denial...

Stider for being the smartest lib on here you do surprise me with your comment.Ignorance is knowing that the earth is in constant change!Seeing how far this global warming farce of Al's has taken him,,hum all the way to most banks.

The last little ice age lasted aprox. from the 1300's thru the middle 1800's.Climate change is nothing new or unusal and this hoax has gone way to far.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving,,if you have time over the holiday study this issue some more and you might find this post is very truthful.

I can't be in denial of something I never believed in to begin with Strider. You are the one in denial {#a-little-birdy.gif}



On a side note, Strider, I am glad to see you are back to your normal self. {#basic-cool.gif}  

Hope you are doing well.

Happy Thanksgiving

not knowing the earth changes...ophs!

LOL! Great toon jojo!

It is an easy subject for cartoons. LOL

Maybe the toons will help educate a lib somewhere LOL!Gullible group of followers aren't they that can't see facts.gez!

Well my friendly conservatives, maybe sharpen up on your high school geology a bit...we have reached a CO2 level never seen before through 60,000years and 6 ice ages...that's a bit of a no brainer, and we have already reached the point of no return and have entered the consequential stage for the last number of years. To be in denial of self evident truth is well beyond me. But don't worry, the real devastation will occur when you're both long gone a real travesty of a legacy to leave for our kids. It makes no difference if you believe or not...it's here and we have reached the tipping point.  This has happened before in history when denial tried to hold back science:


Controversy over heliocentrism Main article: Galileo affair Cristiano Banti 's 1857 painting Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition

Biblical references Psalm 93:1 , 96:10 , and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.[ 48]

Galileo defended heliocentrism , and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. He believed that the writers of the Scripture merely wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, from that vantage point that the sun does rise and set. Another way to put this is that the writers would have been writing from a phenomenological point of view, or style. So Galileo claimed that science did not contradict Scripture, as Scripture was discussing a different kind of "movement" of the earth, and not rotations.[ 49]

By 1616 the attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine , acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothesis (thus maintaining a facade of separation between science and the church). For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Maffeo Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems , was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.[citation needed ]

Dava Sobel[ 50] explains that during this time, Urban had begun to fall more and more under the influence of court intrigue and problems of state. His friendship with Galileo began to take second place to his feelings of persecution and fear for his own life. At this low point in Urban's life, the problem of Galileo was presented to the pope by court insiders and enemies of Galileo. Coming on top of the recent claim by the then Spanish cardinal that Urban was soft on defending the church, he reacted out of anger and fear. This situation did not bode well for Galileo's defense of his book.

Earlier, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems , was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[ 51] This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defence of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[ 52] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems , Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[ 53] He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[ 54] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life. His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[ 55] Tomb of Galileo Galilei, Santa Croce

According to popular legend, after recanting his theory that the Earth moved around the Sun, Galileo allegedly muttered the rebellious phrase And yet it moves , but there is no evidence that he actually said this or anything similar. The first account of the legend dates to a century after his death.[ 56]

After a period with the friendly Ascanio Piccolomini (the Archbishop of Siena ), Galileo was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence in 1634, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest. Galileo was ordered to read the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. However his daughter Maria Celeste relieved him of the burden after securing ecclesiastical permission to take it upon herself.[ 57] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he dedicated his time to one of his finest works, Two New Sciences . Here he summarized work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials . This book has received high praise from Albert Einstein .[ 58] As a result of this work, Galileo is often called the "father of modern physics". He went completely blind in 1638 and was suffering from a painful hernia and insomnia , so he was permitted to travel to Florence for medical advice.[ 13] [ 14]

The Galileo affair is better than the Al Gore affair. woof woof

"We have reached the point of no return" sounds like the fear liberals put into the minds of their subjects. Yet you guys call Republicans fear mongers.



I agree we need to do our part to protect the environment, I have been conscience of that before it was 'cool'... but this other stuff is bull crap. But you and I wont be around to see. 

Why don't the liberals who are preaching this not walk the walk? If Al Gore really believed this, why does he jet off all over the globe, why did he buy a seaside mansion? John Edwards home was mega huge, the Hollywood crowd just takes shorter showers and use less toilet tissue and they think that will save the planet. Get real.

Read the emails ... They were not fabricated.

History repeating itself...there's serious climate change taking place as I write but I'm not calling for any policies or to trade your car in for a horse.  With China building those coal fired plants every minute, there's nothing we can do...we're screwed my friend....but not as screwed as the next generation...they're fricked....

Hot new search tool for Climategate – I and II combined


They like to scare people with stuff like this : "Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012"  (link )  I think it was posted in 2007.


Here is a new search engine for the climate change hoax

Hot new search tool for Climategate – I and II combined


From every honest/truthful id. est.  non-liberal science/geology/ecology prof here, it is impossible for nature to have an excess of CO2.... The great facts of Earth Nature - should air levels of CO2, let's say, double -nature will cause an exponential increase of photosynthesis --  to triple or quadruple - The more CO2 in the air - very soon - the more greenery and plant growth until system is stabalized again...

The 'climate change denier' websites are having a field day with the new emails.

You might like the link I posted above to PatriotDeluxe.
Hot new search tool for Climategate – I and II combined


Great source for the real truth...I keep telling people that 45 years ago, my military training was in Northern Greenland - their 'local' lore is that 1000 years ago when the Vikings first inhabited - that it was a lush, plush, warm near-tropical environment...So much for "global warming."

Good point ! Some scientist are predicting another period of extreme cold weather. It is suppose to last 20 to 30 years, I think.

But you know what the climate change believers say:

Hot = climate change

Cold = climate change

Rain = climate change

Drought = climate change

hurricanes = climate change

tornadoes = climate change

They might want to fly south for the winters {#blue_bird.gif}

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.