Climategate:The smoking gun

In writing my previous post on the “Climategate” break-in to the University of East Anglia computer system , I remained unclear about who was actually responsible for the break-in theft of the emails, which were then selectively quoted to promote a bogus allegation of scientific fraud. It seems unlikely at this point that the hacker/leaker wll be identified, so as far as criminal liability is concerned, we will probably never know.

Looking over the evidence that is now available, however, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person (apart of course from the actual hacker/leaker) who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime.

Here’s the timeline of key events

By July 2009, CRU had advised McIntyre that climate data used in their work was available from the original sources, but that they couldn’t release it because some sources had supplied it under confidentiality agreements.

24 July 2009: McIntyre organizes a spam FOI campaign against CRU, asking his supporters to send requests nominating five countries whose data they wanted of the form:

I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing(sic) the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]

(unsurprisingly, his supporters ignored the request to stick to new countries, and sent multiples of the same request). In the end, CRU got over 100 FOI requests, all essentially identical, but different enough to pose a huge burden.

25 July 2009: The next day McIntyre announced that he had got a mass of CRU data, essentially all that sought in the harassment campaign, in a post headed “a mole”. McIntyre stated in comments that he had received the data from a person in the UK. In any case, it is clear that his harassment campaign was going hand in hand with attempts to gain unauthorised access to CRU computers, and did not stop when its supposed goal was realised.

Over the weekend beginning Friday 13 November, someone located and copied files (apparently associated with the CRU response to this effort, although this is unclear) from a back-up server at the university’s Climatic Research Unit, and attempted to load it on to the RealClimate site under the name FOIA.zip (the files were in a directory called FOI2009). That attempt failed and the files were then widely circulated to anti-science sites. It’s unclear whether the extraction of the file required sophisticated hacking, simple illegal entry to a poorly protected site, or McIntyre’s “mole”. What is clear, as this report notes is that the name FOi2009 indicates that someone associated with the campaign was responsible. As the report says

An abbreviation often used for the US Freedom of Information Act, it suggests again that the leaker was familiar with the attempts by US bloggers and others to get release of tree ring and similar data.

.

These files included large numbers of emails, selective quotation of which was the primary focus of the subsequent bogus scandal. Whatever claims might be made about access to data, there is no justification for stealing and publishing other peoples’ mail. Everyone who passed on or made use of the stolen emails was guilty of an offence against normal standards of behavior.

Having been advised of the stolen emails, McIntyre linked to them and played a prominent role in disseminating dishonest and misleading claims about their contents, focusing on the phrases “trick” and “hide the decline” which were used to suggest a conspiracy to commit scientific fraud. In fact, as the U Penn investigation found, these claims were baseless. “Trick” referred to a clever way of combining data, and the “decline” was not a decline in global temperatures but a well-known problematic feature of tree ring data.

So, to sum up, McIntyre, having earlier obtained information from the CRU file system by means he declined to reveal, linked to the stolen emails shortly after the theft and made dishonest and defamatory use of the stolen information. The excuse that he was not personally involved in the hack/leak, but merely benefited from the proceeds is essentially irrelevant in moral terms.

What can we learn from this? The first point is that what has been presented as an exercise in a quest for transparency is in fact a standard piece of rightwing harassment and intimidation of scientists, along the lines of the Data Quality Act.

The second is that those who accepted McIntyre’s self-presentation as an honest seeker after truth and the CRU scientists as secretive obstructionists have been suckered. That includes the Institute of Physics, at least some people in the British FOI office and, unfortunately, George Monbiot. Monbiot at least is clearly acting in good faith, and the FOI people presumably didn’t realise they were being played. The story with the Institute of Physics is much murkier, an irony not lost on Tim Lambert.

Note: I’ve updated this to correct some errors. In particular, I mistakenly thought the name FOIA.zip had been assigned to the files by UEA, rather than by the hacker/leaker. Also, it’s been pointed out in comments that the multiple emails referred to confidentiality agreements about data rather than data per se. And I’ve emphasized the point that we don’t know and will probably never know who actually stole or leaked the emails. That’s a question for the police. McIntyre’s responsibility, as I said, is moral.

137 thoughts on “Climategate:The smoking gun

  1. @kim

    PrQ’s facts and inferences are plausible.

    Beyond an evident desire to make the thread about you rather than the topic, and possibly to win some minor battle in your side of the culture war, I can’t be bothered trying to fathom your aims here, so I won’t.

  2. @smiths

    I’ve been banging the boards for many years, smiths, and yes, I’ve done a lot of good. My conscience is quite clear and my instinct for the truth has been vindicated over the last few months, as the exaggerations of the alarmists, based on little more than the products of imaginative and mistaken models have been revealed for the fearmongering that they are.

    I’d like to thank all the wonderful people here, whose relative lack of invective is refreshing compared to what I’ve endured in the past on alarmist boards.
    ====================

  3. Grim :
    @smiths
    Oh, TerjeP just wants his regular pat on the head for being such a cute little Dennis the Menace.
    Terje – have you had your claim to being a ‘man’ peer reviewed ?

    Grim – say something intelligent or else piss off.

  4. @Donald Oats
    It’s interesting how alarmists continue to bring up the idea that McIntyre was somehow disingenuous in his Briffa requests. What you relentlessly fail to incorporate into your meme is the prior history**, which taught McIntyre to be incredibly careful about ensuring original sources certified exactly which data version had been used.

    In that context, it was completely appropriate for him to ask Briffa for the data… impossible to presume the data he had was the correct version. And Briffa knew it: Briffa actually said he (Briffa) was going to go to the data source to get permission for McIntyre. He didn’t tell McIntyre to do it as some have suggested.

    This is all so silly. What should be a simple matter of coming together in support of improved scientific process (isn’t that something ALL of us want?!!) has turned into a political game.

    That’s one reason CA prohibits all discussion of politics and religion. The issues should be scientific, not political.
    I’ll leave you to your political banter…

    ** McIntyre had often been sent down rabbit trails where people claimed the data was available online…except the referred-to versions were never the version they had used. And of course they then accused him of stupidity, etc. With such poor metadata documentation, both in the journals and in the SI’s, their work was literally uncheckable. That’s one reason he’s become such an ardent advocate of improved scientific process with respect to data handling.

  5. mrPete, if it is a “simple matter of coming together in support of improved scientific process” why do you use the word alarmists to describe people who genuinely believe there is an earth threatening problem that needs to be fixed,
    or is it that anyone who sees something dangerous and vocalises the potential is an alarmist?

  6. Since various commenters seem to have missed a basic point, let me restate. Gaining unauthorised access to someone else’s emails and publishing them is a crime.

  7. jquiggin :Since various commenters seem to have missed a basic point, let me restate. Gaining unauthorised access to someone else’s emails and publishing them is a crime.

    Indeed, we’ve all been distracted by the claims of “hide the decline” and other nonsense. Put aside the questions of what the emails say, don’t say… The simple matter is that were stolen intellectual property.

    Can McIntyre hide behind “whistle blower laws”? Quite possibly his only plausible defence.

    And yet, I suspect there is a difference between an insider passing on IP/emails/evidence as *opposed* to a co-ordinated attack on the CRU’s systems, the theft of IP and then another person (McIntyre) making public these materials.

    Whistle blower laws exist in the hope of protecting individuals in government and private sector or chose to release information for the public benefit. Think the release of documents from the tobacco firms or from Enron that alerted the public to the illegal activities of those companies. What has McIntyre done? Received stolen materials. There release was a co-ordinated with an attack on Real Climate. Just before COP15.

    The timing of events, motivations of the parties concerned and the “A miracle just happened” comments cast doubt on the sincerity of McIntyre’s motivations.

    A crime, is a crime, is a crime by any other name…

  8. @smiths
    Kims time in this blog isnt running out fast enough Smiths. Prof where is your delete key? This idiot needs to go find a support group. Its not here.

  9. @kim
    And Kim – you keep threatening to leave but like the last of the dregs at a party you gatecrashed you are still here.

  10. @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Michael :
    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Do you think Stephen McIntyre suggestions for others to join a coordinated barrage of FOI requests was made in good faith?

    “Given the context yes.”

    You are bad Terje. Just an old wooden spooner stirrer award should go to you. You are in here primarily in your role as dissenter from the mainstream. We can take a bit of moderation occasionally but it doesnt make you any more popular.

    We know who you really are and what you stand for and the fact that its no better than a 50 year old bikie still wearing the colours of his misspent youth doesnt make you any more palatable. Terje – you are an aberration who has not grown up and refuses to give up his flag for a flawed cause (libertarianism, rampant deregulation, delusionism on climate science no matter what the evidence or need for policy change, anti government no matter what the evidence or need for policy change)

    Yet you have nothing to offer except a utopia your kind dreamed up…with no evidence and no facts and no science…. (the perfect world where all are free tio be small town individuals with the freedoms to shoot each other and refuse a sherriff)

    Hippies used to think LSD expanded their minds as well. They were wrong and so are you…just another dreamer on planet earth. There is no small town anymore. Your kind went global and its a big town now.

    We tolerate you Terje…but dont ask me why.

  11. What an poor piece of “scholarly” research.
    CRU cannot describe the changes they have made to their original data.
    To attempt to replicate CRU work you need original data and the rationale for any changes made to it.
    Neither are available which would normally invalidate the output of CRU as having any scientific value.
    McIntyre asked for original data and any modification made to the data.
    CRU refused citing “confidentiality agreements”
    CRU have not been able to cite these agreements, and agree that many have been “lost”.
    CRU have supplied this “confidential” data to “friends”, which either invalidates their argument about confidentiality or shows that they honour them when it suits their data hiding agenda.
    The FOI requests by CA bloggers was subsequent to the refusal by CRU.
    The requests were made to prove that the initial rejection reason was specious.
    The requests were divided into small lots so that CRU could not hide behind a “it takes too long” rejection of the FOI request.
    The assertion that “the data is available from the original sources” is also specious.
    It does not answer specifically what data was used by CRU or what changes they made.
    It is used to “hide the denial”.

  12. Steve received the stolen emails in much the same way as John is receiving this comment. Steve held off commenting on them until several other parties had already published the data and released it to the broader public domain. In fact Steve was busy trying to deal with the technical aspects of a sudden traffic overload on his blog following the publication of the email by others. That he has subsequently commented on the content of the leak is hardly a crime, moral or otherwise. I agree that the transfer of these emails from the private sphere into the public sphere was wrong, just as the historical nationalisation of many corporations has been morally wrong, however such inappropriate transfers of ownership are on the whole like broken eggs and can’t be reversed by refusing to use the property in it’s new context. Telstra traces it’s roots back to the government theft of telecommunications assets in the early 20th century but I don’t think the current owners and users of that property are morally or legally at fault. Likewise the land I own and occupy and enjoy was no doubt stolen from aborigines at some point in history but I don’t carry any moral burden for that injustice. As a libertarian I have strong views about how property ought to be transfered (by voluntary consent) but where eggs can not be unscrambled and restitution can not be made and where the current owner neither instigated or assisted the original injustice the property should not be subject to any subsequent involuntary transfer. These emails are now public domain. It is wrong that this happened but it did and it can’t be undone. Given that it is public domain the public has a right to comment on it. Last time I checked Steve was a member of the general public.

    Of course John can stand his moral high ground if he promises us that he will never pass comment on the content of any leaked document or the revelations caused. Personally I think this would be a silly position to adopt. It would also in my view necessitate outright opposition to wire taps and search warrants. I don’t think privacy is so sacred that the substance revealed in any breach must never be used. Of course I agree that people are entitled to take measures to protect their privacy and that invading somebodies privacy without just cause isn’t on.

  13. TerjeP (say tay-a) : I agree that the transfer of these emails from the private sphere into the public sphere was wrong, just as the historical nationalisation of many corporations has been morally wrong, however such inappropriate transfers of ownership are on the whole like broken eggs and can’t be reversed by refusing to use the property in it’s new context. Telstra traces it’s roots back to the government theft of telecommunications assets in the early 20th century but I don’t think the current owners and users of that property are morally or legally at fault….

    …Of course John can stand his moral high ground if he promises us that he will never pass comment on the content of any leaked document or the revelations caused

    I believe this is what is called a non sequiter? Comparing the privatisation of public assets to hacking of theft is well… I’m not sure what. The argument does not fly.

    McIntyre could have easily commented on their contents without publishing them.

    Re the last comment, there is a difference between leaked documents and stolen ones. Whistle blower laws are in place to handle such incidents, and where introduced upon the premise that it was necessary for public safety.

    Saying “leaked” instead of what they actually where – stolen – is a rhetorical trick.

  14. @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Yes Terje and thousands of climate scientists are wronga nd you want to claim the high moral ground. What part iof this picture isnt tehe average person on the street getting?
    The fact that vested interests big tobacco, big oil,and big coal can afford their own organised hack and snow jobs ine the media?

    Most of us arent fools Terje as much as you would like us to be. We will defend the truth tellers in the same way as you persist in defending the liars. You can go to your grave with that on your conscience Terje. I hope you recall your contribution as an old man and live to regret it.

  15. @smiths
    Smiths..first it expands it and then it contracts it…there are no free lunches in mind altering substances and thats the only place there are no free lunches…you get free lunches everywhere else in the business world!

  16. As a libertarian I have strong views about how property ought to be transfered (by voluntary consent)

    I don’t think privacy is so sacred that the substance revealed in any breach must never be used.

    so to paraphrase, private property is sacred, and private property is not sacred

  17. Terje

    I thought there was no “public domain” in your world?? yet you say

    “Given that it is public domain the public has a right to comment on it.”

    Doesnt someone own the public domain Terje? Isnt that what you want? Private ownership over the public domain. You are being hypocritical. What was stolen wasnt in the public domain. Unauthorised access to other people’s emails is a crime. Repeat crime. So why arent you defending the transgression of private property rights? (Because you are a hypocrite?)

    Yet another case where Terje is causght tripping up over his own ideologies. Its not pretty is it?

  18. Alice :Terje
    I thought there was no “public domain” in your world?? yet you say
    “Given that it is public domain the public has a right to comment on it.”
    Doesnt someone own the public domain Terje? Isnt that what you want? Private ownership over the public domain. You are being hypocritical. What was stolen wasnt in the public domain. Unauthorised access to other people’s emails is a crime. Repeat crime. So why arent you defending the transgression of private property rights? (Because you are a hypocrite?)
    Yet another case where Terje is causght tripping up over his own ideologies. Its not pretty is it?

    Ideology does not demand consistency, just subservience.

  19. Alice – of course there is a public domain. It isn’t however the same as government ownership.

  20. p.s. The alphabet is a classic example of something that is neither private intellectual property nor government property. The alphabet is public domain.

  21. We definately know a crime was comitted. The FOI people were very explicit that Hadley CRU had committed a crime by lying about reasons to release information. Thinking that Steve Macintyre committed a crime by asking for something that should be made available is reserved for the twisted little minds that believe Exxon is somehow to blame. The E-mails also say that the Hadley folks were actively soliciting funds from Shell. Further, now that the e-mails are in the open and the fact that thees paragons of scientific virtue were in fact fudging the data, it would be a crime to ignore them. People still look at the Elgin Marbles don’t they?

  22. Alice :@TerjeP (say tay-a) Whe would you suggest they sell the public domain then Terje?

    I wouldn’t and I didn’t.

    It is possibly also worth pointing out that the atmosphere is in most regards currently public domain. A lot of policy debate in response to AGW is about whether this thing that is currently public domain ought to be controlled (ie ought to become property) with the government as initial owner and then privatised in a manner via an ETS. I’m very hesitant to support such a transfer of the atmosphere from the public domain into government hands and then into private hands via an ETS. I am however aware that such a move is not without precedence nor completely without merit.

  23. @Don Wagner
    Another drop in from the delusionati crowd – did you whip out – change your name from Kim to Don Wagner – nice normal name for a fruitloop and drop back in here suggesting Exxon isnt to blame when its been funding the “there is no global warming” garbage you got conned with for years.

    You cant pump up the amount of oil we have in a century, burn it and expect there not to be some damage.

    Don – go away.

  24. nice normal name for a fruitloop

    Alice I thought name calling violated John Quiggins dinner party rules.

  25. Your “evidence” is nothing more than assertions and your own characterizations:
    “24 July 2009: McIntyre organizes a spam FOI campaign against CRU, asking his supporters to send requests nominating five countries whose data they wanted of the form:

    I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing(sic) the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]

    (unsurprisingly, his supporters ignored the request to stick to new countries, and sent multiples of the same request)

    What facts do you present that McIntyre was behind this? You seem to have left this out. Linking to a fellow “anti-denialist” is like asking a wife where her husband was the night of the crime. Do you have any proof? The link is in itself only an assertion, and by someone with an axe to grind.

    “25 July 2009: The next day McIntyre announced that he had got a mass of CRU data, essentially all that sought in the harassment campaign, from “a mole”. Note that this may be true or may be misdirection to protect external hackers. In any case, it is clear that his harassment campaign was going hand in hand with attempts to gain unauthorised access to CRU computers, and did not stop when its supposed goal was realised.”

    You clearly ADMIT that both possibilities exist, but then you proceed having proven nothing, but as if the incriminating supposition is true. It would get a big fat “F” in Logic 101 class.

    Your assertion that his FOIA request wet hand in hand with attempts to gain access to their computers – that is quite a stretch of logic there – quite a quantum leap in jumping to a conclusion. Mind giving actual facts? Assertions from other blogs don’t count as facts. You should know that by now, having your own blog. Assertions MAY be facts, but they MAY not be, also.

    As to “its supposed goal was reached”: Are you asserting that CRU has given up all their data, emails and methods (as required by UK law)? If so, you are sore mistaken. SOME data has been turned over. Not enough for anyone to make heads or tails from it. As to emails, those are not all relinquished per their laws yet, not as far as I have heard. I could be wrong on the emails; I know people are still waiting for adequate data and methods with which to replicate the work done at CRU over 10 years ago, which no one has ever been able to replicate per scientific custom and requirements.

  26. @Alice
    I’m suggesting that scientists who lie and fudge data are to blame, plus delusional idiots like yourself who follow them over the cliff in your own dull-witted fasion. Tell us how much money Steve Macintyre got from Exxon genius? Tell us why it’s ok for Phil Jones to try and get funds from the oil industry? Why aren’t you getting your panties in a twist about that?

  27. BTW, since the very beginning, I’ve thought it was Phil Jones himself who outed CRU.

    If it was an insider who compiled the emails and docs and then released them, is it a crime? I believe it might be, but don’t know for sure.

    For an outsider to have filtered through all their emails AND docs it would have taken a VERY long time, all the while connected to their server. That the police investigation hasn’t stepped up to label this as definitively a hack – this says a lot. By process of elimination, it suggests an inside job.

    Jones having run away almost from the first moment – what was that all about?

    And some of his recent statements suggest he is not sold on the “consensus” nearly as much as any of us would expect.

    I think the bugger has a conscience and decided he’d been bullied by Michael Mann enough, and that he decided to blow it before the emails DID get erased. YES, I know it was him who suggested deleting them. That argues the opposite, I know. But some intuition tells me to expect the unexpected.

    The butler did not do it. There are only about 11 people at CRU. Briffa was a suspect. Who among them had reason? Who among them could DO it?

    I think it was Jones.

    Am I speculating? Hey, so are you!

  28. @smiths
    Gavin Schmidt was online at NASA GISS at 6:20 am? Boy, there is an eager beaver!

    Should we suspect him? WTF was he doing at work at 6:20am??? Up all night hacking into CRU so he could send the zip file? He must have been the only white collar person in the western hemisphere at work at that time of the morning.

  29. @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Terje – so does swamping which you are seriously in danger of violating.
    As for you Don Wagner
    Anyone who believes Exxon hasnt been funding your delusionist anti science that you have so gullibly swallowed whole, without even chewing, for years has to be a fruit loop…let me show you why

    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

    http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/exxon.html

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

    http://www.exxposeexxon.com/newsroom/page.jsp?itemID=30375328

    Choose one Don Wagner – I could post a million links here about Exxon’s funding and promotion of the sort if rubbish you believe.

    Its in the public domain. Well and truly. Its big tobacco all over again.

    I bet you have not read or informed yourself of any funding sources for the fruitloop anti science industry and if you did you would still go around the world saying “people who think Exxon funded delusionist anti science are mad.”

    We are not dreaming.

    You are.

  30. @Don Wagner
    Yep. At most one crime was committed. Outing a crime – only those who got outed consider it a crime. Outing it is whistleblowing. While it can get you fired, it isn’t a crime. Except in the eyes of Antonin Scalia – Mr. “I am not an activist judge!”

  31. Ha ha ha Terje….

    You say, refering to the privatisation of the atmosphere itself that we all breathe,….

    “I am however aware that such a move is not without precedence nor completely without merit.”

    How on earth can I take you seriously?? ROFL

    (I think thats the only reason why you are still here Terje…hanging by a thread due to the kindness of the Prof, dinner party host. You are a barrel of laughs.).

  32. Alice – I told Grim to PO because like you Grim was making rude remarks. Grim was also contribute nothing.

  33. Don and Kim (our two newest drop outs).

    Someone between teh vexatious Steve McIntyre – his website and the world – structured and organised a mass email FOI submission across the globe using email networks. Its like being asked for your date of birth 60 million times and if you are a genuine scientific research organisation they dont have time to deal with a snowstorm of electronically deluged FOI requests. Any small business would be out of business under these conditions. Id like to say it was an attack – it was indeed. It was alos immoral and greedy and well funded.

    Get it? It was a paper attack only it wasnt on paper. It was organised – there were form FOI requests and they fell from the networks like snow on scientific organisations across the globe.

    Do I want want scientists dealing with this garbage…why arent you delusionati complaining about the scientists being buried in so much regulatory garbage they cant do their job?

    How come you arent championing the deregulation of science like you do the de-regulation of business????…on your terms the FOIs (hundreds and hundreds of them) should have been shredded as useless wasteful hindering regulation. But no …you want your deregulation when it suits you and your FOI regulation when it doesnt.
    Its a political game spelt “mad right wing conservative bogans” and you want to win politics and then power. Not a chance – dishonest and rotten to the core.

  34. @Alice
    There is no evidence of what you are saing – only the assertions here and a few other warmers are organizing – and hoping to do what with it? It has no reality. It is in their imaginations.

  35. Alice :Don and Kim (our two newest drop outs).
    Someone between teh vexatious Steve McIntyre – his website and the world – structured and organised a mass email FOI submission across the globe using email networks. Its like being asked for your date of birth 60 million times and if you are a genuine scientific research organisation they dont have time to deal with a snowstorm of electronically deluged FOI requests.

    Actually the total number of FOI requests received by Hadley in 2009 was 105, not millions. Furthermore, in spite of your belief, they are humans, not gods, and therefore subject to the FOI law. What is so difficult about that concept that you don’t get it? Had they released the information instead of lying about it when initially asked they and you wouldn’t look like the fools they are

    Any small business would be out of business under these conditions.

    Any small business that lied and obstructed the way your Hadley Heros did would find it’s executives in jail

    Id like to say it was an attack – it was indeed. It was alos immoral and greedy and well funded.

    You have no proof, no reason to believe it other than you’re too shallow intellectually to do a little research so you have to rely on the other inhabitants of your little echo chamber

    Get it? It was a paper attack only it wasnt on paper. It was organised – there were form FOI requests and they fell from the networks like snow on scientific organisations across the globe.

    105 snowflakes. What a blizzard. I’d blame global warming

    Do I want want scientists dealing with this garbage…why arent you delusionati complaining about the scientists being buried in so much regulatory garbage they cant do their job?

    If they did their job instead of trying to make sure no one could replicate their “Science” and find out how incompetent they really are there would be no discussion

    How come you arent championing the deregulation of science like you do the de-regulation of business????…

    You keep making shit up like this someone is going to mistake you for a climate scientist

    I don’t champion the deregulation of business but I will be when we get the climate scientists straightened out.

    on your terms the FOIs (hundreds and hundreds of them)

    105. Stop lying. It doesn’t enhance the debate

    should have been shredded as useless wasteful hindering regulation. But no …you want your deregulation when it suits you and your FOI regulation when it doesnt.

    Sorry, you got me mistaken for Phil Jones

    Its a political game spelt “mad right wing conservative bogans” and you want to win politics and then power. Not a chance – dishonest and rotten to the core.

    Your rant, unencumbered by facts or truth, and laden with made up shit, like my “Championing of business deregulation” is typical of fraud artists who’ve been exposed.
    you calling me dishonest is the ultimate irony. What a small minded loser you are.

  36. Alice :@TerjeP (say tay-a) Terje – so does swamping which you are seriously in danger of violating.As for you Don WagnerAnyone who believes Exxon hasnt been funding your delusionist anti science that you have so gullibly swallowed whole, without even chewing, for years has to be a fruit loop…let me show you why
    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
    http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/exxon.html
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil
    http://www.exxposeexxon.com/newsroom/page.jsp?itemID=30375328
    Choose one Don Wagner – I could post a million links here about Exxon’s funding and promotion of the sort if rubbish you believe.

    Wow. 16 million in seven years. That must explain why the world media was 100% behind the global warming people all these years. Until the e-mails exposed them for the fraud artists they really are. Anothet thing, I didn’t see a link to how much they paid Steve Macintyre. He is the one this artical is blaming or do you remember that far back

    Its in the public domain. Well and truly. Its big tobacco all over again.
    I bet you have not read or informed yourself of any funding sources for the fruitloop anti science industry and if you did you would still go around the world saying “people who think Exxon funded delusionist anti science are mad.”

    Fruit loops are a cereal manufactured by General Mills. Normal people stop using them as an insult about the eighth grade. Scfientists are those that propose theories and submit their work openly for confirmation or rebuttal, unlike the folks you worship. By the way, I’ve informed myself quite well. That’s why I can expose your cluelessness so easily. Oh, and it’s not anti science, it’s anti dishonesty.

    We are not dreaming.

    You are. In Technicolour

  37. Gee you focus on the pettyness of who may have obtained the emails but forget about the billions dquandered on the AGW scam. Do you normally look for flees in the room but ignore the herd of charging elephants!

  38. oh bugger, twawki i keep forgeting,
    what exactly is the AGW scam again?

    and don, the UK Met officce and Nasa say that the last decade was the warmest,
    each of the last seven decades have been warmer than the last,
    do you believe them?

  39. Smiths you would think the extreme weather events around the globe would have them thinking, however such are the limits of their argument that they use them as “evidence” global warming is not happening.

Comments are closed.