Very cool -- Gerard (from American Digest) writes a very nice article on Climategate and Al Gore's involvement with the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd.
From Penthouse:
An Inconvenient Fraud?
It was good to be Al Gore in the last part of the last decade. In the year 2000 he was the world's biggest loser. By 2009 he was one of the world's biggest winners after becoming the master of disaster. Flummoxed by his noninvention of the internet and his nonelection as president of the United States, Gore found a winning hand in predicting the end of the world. In the process, he received an Oscar for his film An Inconvenient Truth, the Nobel Peace Prize, and millions of dollars through his interests in companies that dealt in carbon credits. Gore became more of a 'Comeback Kid' than Bill Clinton ever was. For most of 2009, it was still good to be King Al. But late in the year, Al Gore's beloved internet betrayed him.
On November 17, 2009, someone, somewhere, copied some 4,000 emails and documents from a password-protected server at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in England and put them up on a free and open server in Russia for all the world to read. Whoever made these documents available was an unknown soldier of the truth. Taking the handle of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), he or she stated, "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it. This is a limited time offer, download now."
Whether the Deep Throat who leaked the emails was a hacker or a mole within the CRU, he or she had an exquisite sense of timing. The files were made public just before the Copenhagen climate summit. The CRU had been one of the central institutions involved in promulgating the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (i.e., the Earth is getting dangerously warmer than ever before in history and people are the primary force behind this threatening rise). Now it had become instrumental in the theory's unraveling.
Gerard then proceeds to quote a few of the emails, the spin that the research 'scientists' put on the text and then, the actual meaning in the context of the coverup.
I have also gone through a lot of the data from the programming side and these people were not evil, they were just stunningly bad scientists. Some of the programs would take a dataset and then force an addition or subtraction to the numbers of the dataset to yield a result that was not true to the actual facts. In other words, they were taking a set of temperature readings and willfully skewing them to fit what they wanted for the results. This is not an opinion, this is a fact writ large in the files.
Good article Gerard and I love the illustration that went with it:
