Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Climate Speculation

Who leaked the East Anglia e-mails that helped derail the worldwide global warming movement? There's no clear answer yet, but that didn't stop Sir David King, Tony Blair's former chief scientific advisor, from speculating wildly:
"It was an extraordinarily sophisticated operation. There are several bodies of people who could do this sort of work. These are national intelligence agencies... there is the possibility that it could be the Russian intelligence agency." However, King goes on to suggest that the expense of such an operation would be too great for the entire Russian state to undertake: "In terms of the expense, there is the American lobby system, which is a very likely source of finance, so the finger must point to them."
How much does he think it costs to create or download a zip file? Does he even know what a zip file is?

The climate blogs are still speculating (some here) and from reading their speculation in conjunction with Sir David's I've some of my own. One, it doesn't seem likely a state intel agency would want anything to do with such a stunt. True, they might have scrubbed the emails of addresses/personal info but getting caught would be far too risky. The Russians stood to gain from Copenhagen as did most rogue states and 3rd world nations. "Bin Laden" just recently condemned the US for ruining the climate and there was a Saudi server in the mix, but for the House of Saud it would still be a risk and besides, they would have used cut-outs and never their own servers-tracks.

Two, could any corporation-cartel take the risk? Surely Sir David means the oil/gas variety, but getting caught would be the end of them. Safer to use traditional lobbyists.

The first trace of the information went to a BBC weatherman due a skeptical segment he rain, but he ignored it, so they sent it to the blogs. Surely they've traced the package sent to the weatherman by now, and surely people know more than is being reported. Would young hackers take time to scrub the emails if they simply stumbled upon the file misplaced on the wrong server? Or, as Lawson opines:
For some reason, it has not occurred to Sir David King that the UEA emails might have been accessed and then leaked by an insider shocked at what he had discovered. Remember also that they were in any case all being collated following a request under the Freedom of Information Act; perhaps this insider became aware that the now suspended head of the Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, had asked colleagues to delete certain emails, and was determined that Jones should not be allowed to get away with it.
This sounds plausible, yet until the Guardian let down its guard most stories referred to the emails as being 'stolen'--which smacked of a collusion or conspiracy within the mainstream media establishment. Maybe things are about to crack open.

Meanwhile, the discovery of the bogus 2035 Himalayan glacier melt stuffed into the 2007 IPCC report has climate honcho Rajendra Pachauri refusing to apologize for some reason. The sensible reason is because he's a true believer, meaning the ends justify the means. To defend such tactics means there's no limit to the amount of BS thrown out in support of this crisis. Does he not see that?

While speculators argue the scientists keep plodding along. A recent paper outlined the discovery of a drop in stratospheric relative humidity that could easily account for all the 'cooling' that has taken place in the last ten years (which the warmists insist were actually years of record warming despite a cessation of the alarming upward trend). Obviously there's still a lot to learn on the subject--which is what most skeptics have been saying all along.

No comments: