Climategate an act of cyber-terrorism? US knew of attacks leading to “Climategate”

[Hat tip DeSmogBlog, and Le Monde]

Thanks to Wikileaks we know now the “denial machine” is waging a cyber war against US government agencies. 

Plains Justice blog reports:

Leading French newspaper Le Monde has been delving into WikiLeaks in depth with a growing online section devoted to new revelations. An article posted Dec. 12, titled Pirates informatiques contre climatologues (Computer pirates against climatologists), reveals a few American diplomats’ fears that cyberattacks on climate scientists might increase in the days leading up to the 2009 Copenhagen meeting. One email reveals an unsuccessful attack against the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science (OES) that has received very little coverage (none that I can find) in domestic press.

According to Le Monde, there was little discussion of “Climategate” via diplomatic cables, but June 19, 2009 traffic revealed by WikiLeaks discussed a failed attack against an agency of the U.S. government. During the summer of 2009, five OES employees received an email titled “China and climate change”, disguised to look as if it originated with an economics journalist for the National Journal. The body of the message was also written specifically for the recipients, according to their professional roles. Attached to the message was a PDF document carrying malware designed to take silent control of the targeted computer. At least one of the targeted employees opened the attachment. Fortunately the State Department’s frequent computer security updates detected and disabled the attack.

Breaking into US government computers is an act of terrorism as defined by the US Patriot Act 

This is a movement prepared to send death threats to scientists and commit acts of cyber terrorism. They are working against the interests of us all.

History will rightly judge them… and for those who take offense at being called a “denier”, too bad.

The science is settled. 

We know the machine is industry funded and it engages in dirty tricks.

About these ads

24 thoughts on “Climategate an act of cyber-terrorism? US knew of attacks leading to “Climategate”

  1. John,

    Congratulations!!! You found a typo!
    Let’s tell him what he’s won!!

    Hey, try to fault the point rather than that a mistake made in a hasty, proof-read-free environment. I’m sick of straw men makers.

  2. Pete_Ridley says:

    Tut tut Tim, there you go again, distorting what I say. I’ve told you so many times how naughty that is. You claim that I say “ .. the majority of geezers are sceptical of the scientific evidence at hand .. “ but I said nothing of the sort. What I said was “ .. most of the “deniers” appear to be middle aged and over .. * – of the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic global climate change”. It is you, Tim, who is saying “the majority of geezers are sceptical of the scientific evidence at hand” not me! Please refrain from twisting what I say, there’s a good boy.

    I was a bit taken aback when you said “Just like any stubborn old bastard in the GP clinic, you think you know best”. Is psychism another of your skills as well as all the others? I’m in the middle of an intense exchange of opinions with my local Primary Care Trust (a tier of the National Health Service in the UK – but hopefully not for much longer) and have just sent off another E-mail to my GP. Your cognitive powers never fail to amaze me.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • Please Pete, do I need to dumb it down further?

      “most of the “deniers” appear to be middle aged and over and most of the “disciples” are middle aged and under.”
      “It could also explain why youngsters are convinced that they know it all.”

      As I explained, if anything, people like myself are humble enough to know that we don’t know everything and have confidence in scientific methodology and scientific journals that have earned their respect.
      We are listening and learning.

      It is people like you who think “that they know it all” – more than the established science. You continually disregard literature and remain convinced that the science is wrong. You’re the dogmatic adherent.

      Being a science doesn’t make me a “disciple” – this is a throw back to a darker era, which further demonstrates that you think “know it all”. I’m not sorry that taking the time and effort to develop my skills makes me what I am, but it is quite clear that you are sure science is flawed (note, you’ve never provided a scientific rebuttal to my arguments).

      “* – of the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic global climate change.”

      You really like to remind me to be stringent in my reply – ie. I cannot ad lib and expand on your nonsense to demonstrate in full light just how ridiculous it is (your willingness to over look the point of my previous comments is a good example f this) – yet you, with all the commitment of the faithful, continue time and time again to refer to the nonsensical “catastrophic” argument. Being a value judgement, it makes no sense in the current discussion. You only refer to it because no-one can argue against it. This doesn’t mean you’ve won, old man, it means that you never really entered the debate to begin with.

      • John R T says:

        ¨Being a science doesn’t make me…¨ ooops:

        Appears you and our host share more than one trait: reread your comments – besides being frightfully nasty to another commenter, you are hard to understand, a dreadful combination.

  3. Pete_Ridley says:

    Tim(othincarnate), we all have our peculiarities, even you, but why keep using ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned debate. I don’t support everything that “deniers *” like Dr. Spencer say, any more than do I reject everything that “disciples *” like you, Mike and Graham say.

    I totally reject “ .. the need for a creator and designer” in the sense that I understand “creationists” mean it (Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible). Also, I have no reason to believe in the existence of some benevolent (and vindictive, as the Jehova’s Witnesses seem to believe) superpower. Despite that I have no answer to the questions:
    - What existed before the “beginning”?
    - When did time start?
    - What is there beyond the infinity of the universe?

    Do you?

    Brilliant scientists like theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking have their theories about bending time and the like but despite their brilliance I am not convinced that they have cracked it – are you and if so why?

    Talking of scientists and their theories, there is some recent research that I am inclined to accept, based upon my exchanges with youngsters like you and Chris Colose. Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, Royal Society University Research Fellow and Professor in Cognitive Neuroscience at UCL reports on recent research and it featured widely in the UK media yesterday QUOTE:

    “Brain only fully ‘matures’ in middle age, claims neuroscientist. ..
    She said: “Until about 10 years ago we pretty much assumed that the human brain stopped developing in early childhood. But we now understand from brain imaging that that is far from the truth and that many human brains keep on developing for many decades. The area of the brain that goes through the most protracted development is the prefrontal cortex right at the front of the brain. It is the part of the brain that is involved in high cognitive function such as decision making, planning and social behaviour. It is also to do with understanding other people. It starts develop in early childhood, is reorganised in late adolescence and continues developing well into the 30s and 40s. It is the part of the brain that makes us human”.

    Note that bit about “cognitive function”. If Professor Blakemore’s conclusions are correct (ignoring all of those involved in the debate about the “doctrine *” who have other vested interests having nothing to do with controlling global climate change) then it could explain why most of the “deniers” appear to be middle aged and over and most of the “disciples” are middle aged and under.

    It could also explain why youngsters are convinced that they know it all.

    * – of the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic global climate change.

    BTW, can you explain to me the significance of the opinions of “award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator” Peter Sinclair? I’d much rather hear the opinions of a leading scientist and confirmed “disciple” like you on the points that I raised above. In particular I’d love to hear your opinions on the issue of whether those attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric composition from air “trapped” in ice during thousands of years is really what Professor Richard Alley considers to be the “Gold Standard” or is it simply “fools gold”. I have a gut feeling that it is beyond your ken but if you can help out on this one it really would be appreciated.

    Mike, you’ve gone very quiet – what’s up?

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • Yawn Pete, try using credible climate science to defend your “scepticism” of anthropogenic climate change and not resort to these continuous side-step rhetorical arguments.

      Basically, Pete, you don’t have much to offer except that CO2 doubling will (by itself) increase the global temperature anomaly by a little over 1 degree C. The rest, you rely on fringe scientists that have on numerous occasions been caught out using flawed tactics to come to their conclusions. When that fails, you have your grey literature that starts on the proviso that the “green communist order” is a given.

      You’re a bore. I’m not resorting to personal attacks, but simply cannot attack your “arguments” because they’re simply pathetic. What else am I to say to you but point out that your vendetta on science is at best laughable?

      You might think you’re a star for your three years of casual “research”, but my understanding will remain on the credible literature published in respected papers and the work done by research scientists, including a number of people within my work group. You’re not a worthwhile critic of the science, just another ideologically minded, paranoid troll.

      • John R T says:

        I trust you have read McKnight & Nova letters to the Australian.

        Is anything left of the Communist ´journalist?´

    • As I do enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy that seem so common in deniers, such as yourself, I feel I should make one more remark to respond to your age argument.

      You claim that the youth (thus including me) think we know it all while age is more sceptical.

      If anything Pete, I’m well aware that I don’t know it all. I have confidence in scientific methodology and the hard-earned respect of the leading scientific journals. I don’t think I know it all and am eager to learn from those more experienced than I. This, I feel is common of the vast majority of the younger supporters of the science – especially those, like myself, who are young scientists.

      On the other hand, as you say yourself, the majority of geezers are sceptical of the scientific evidence at hand. Just like any stubborn old bastard in the GP clinic, you think you know best.

      It is people like yourself who arrogantly think that you know better than the everyone else – even those who have decades (where you have a few years – a few years of “self-training”) of expertise on a given subject.

      Think critically before writing such obviously erroneous statements as, “It could also explain why youngsters are convinced that they know it all.”

  4. Here’s a nice presentation on Pete’s new favourite denial game, CO2 x 2 = 1 degree C (which I discussed above).
    It seems to be the golden denial nonsense of the moment.

  5. Tim says:

    I’m a fan of another of Spencer’s quotes, for it clearly demonstrates the man’s ability to interoperate data;
    “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world… Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.”

  6. Pete_Ridley says:

    Mike, I indicated in my earlier comment about criticism of the Lindzen & Choi paper that I’d look for any reaction from Lndzen or Choi to the criticisms of their 2009 paper made by Trenberth et al. In the search I came across Dr. Roy Spencer’s 9th December thread “The Dessler Cloud Feedback Paper in Science: A Step Backward for Climate Research” ( This discusses a couple of more recent papers on the same subject. One was “A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade” by A. E. Dessler this month (timed to give the UN’s COP16 caper in Cancun a boost?). The other was one in April 2010 “On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing” by Roy W. Spencer1 and William D. Braswell ( These exchanges demonstrate clearly how respected scientists from each side of the debate can draw oposing conclusions from the same data.

    As Spencer says “So what is this new evidence of positive cloud feedback that Dessler has published? Well, actually it is not new. It’s basically the same evidence we published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Yet we came to a very different conclusion, which was that the only clear evidence of feedback we found in the data was of strongly negative cloud feedback. But how can this be? How can two climate researchers, using the same dataset, come to opposite conclusions? The answer lies in an issue that challenges researchers in most scientific disciplines – separating cause from effect”.

    One of the comments on that thread of Spencer’s provides a link to a response in a subsequent paper “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications” ( by Lindzen and Choi. This paper is awaiting acceptance but says “ .. there has recently been a paper [Lindzen and Choi, 2009] ., the details of that paper were, in important ways, incorrect. The present paper attempts to correct the approach and arrives at similar conclusions”. So, once again, the scientific method is seen at work, attempting, through argument and counter-argument between scientists, to unravel the many uncertainties that remain to be resolved before anyone can reasonably claim that “the debate is over” or, as a mutual acquaintance from Graham Wayne’s blog said today “The scientific evidence is beyond doubt”.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  7. Pete_Ridley says:

    Mike, thanks again for being prepared to consider the arguments presented by “deniers”. Not many “disciples” of the doctrine (*) are prepared to do that so I’ll continue regarding you as a sceptic like me – open to reasonable debate. Sceptics look at the evidence that is available along with the speculation that is used to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and arrives at our own conclusions on the basis of the facts, the speculation and our own opinions. Personal bias will always tip the scales of reason and balance is restored as more knowledge is gained. I have found no evidence to suggest that we (the global we) have a very good understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates.

    I repeatedly quote what ecologist Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University said on 23rd April 2009 “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”. I kept on questioning how he could be such a confirmed “disciple” despite admitting to that fact but he ended up doing what many other disciples resort to and banned me from his blog. That is not the way to persuade someone that your opinion is correct.

    Brook went on to say “But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem”. He objected to me not making reference to that bit when I quoted him but why? I see that as a disingenuous attempt to plant the unsubstantiated notion into the reader’s mind that 95% of the processes and drivers of the different global climates are understood.

    In his thread from which I quote ( Brook was criticising the book “Heaven and Earth” by his “denier” associate geologist Professor Ian Plimer, Adelaide University. As is to be expected when debating or writing about a subject which is poorly understood, personal opinion comes into play, mistakes are made and challenge is possible (indeed welcome) this applies to both sides of this debate. Also bear in mind that Brook is an ecologist with demonstrated expertise in species extinctions (which could include impacts of climate change) but I can find no evidence of his own research expertise in those processes and drivers of climates (if you or anyone here can provide evidence that he has such expertise then please provide it. It appears to me that he simply parrots what others have and expresses his own opinions said on that subject. Although I haven’t looked closely into Plimer’s research activities he, like Brook, is a highly respected scientist in his own field (which once again has little if anything to do with climate processes and drivers) but has many more years experience in it than Brook has in his.

    There we have two scientists at the same university on the same floor with widely different opinions about the doctrine, a 50/50 split. In your comment of 14th December @ 23:22 you claim that “Lindzen and his work, it is out of step with 99% of his colleagues” but where on earth is the evidence to support your claim that 99% of his colleagues disagree with him? (please would you provide a link to evidence supporting that claim. Then you go on to say “and his major paper on cloud cover was proven to be seriously flawed” – so what if it was? That’s what happens when scientists express opinions on a subject that is poorly understood. It’s a vital part of the scientific process. Can you provide a link to a properly published refutation of Lindzen & Choi’s paper “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (abstract at full at rather than linking to the biased “hockey team” blog. I will search around for any such and for any response to criticism from Lindzen and Choi. Any help would be appreciated.

    Does it really matter for this debate that he also denies the link between smoking and cancer and that he’s also a heavy smoker? – unless of course, like Graham Wayne, you are into ad hominem attacks rather than proper debate about the topic in question. Please also credit me with a little bit of common sense. Suggesting that I am “Placing (my) hopes on this one man being right” is rather childish don’t you agree,

    BTW, I see that you choose to ignore your misunderstanding of the causes of the foundations of the British Empire (not coal and steam as you believed). Perhaps you shouldn’t, because it could help you to understand that you might also be misunderstanding the causes off global climate changes.

    Tim, keep looking, reading and learning. If you (or anyone else) have any contribution to make to the debate over the validity of Professor Richard Alley regards as the “Gold Standard” for reconstructing past atmospheric CO2 concentrations then please help me out at “Smogbound on Molecular Fractionation in Ice” ( Professor Alley has been trying but is a bit busy at the AGU this week. I’ll be posting his comments on my thread once he gives the OK.

    * that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic global climate change.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  8. I don’t know why you’ve bothering with Pete here.
    Very few of the kid’s are willing to play with him any more and when he can’t gripe about a subject on the given page, he simply posts it, or a variation of it, somewhere else (as he illustrates here, following the one post he got through on a recent post of Graham’s).

    Pete, you’ve done 3yrs of independent ‘research’ (largely, and by your own admission, including grey literature that demonises environmental concern), which we’re suppose to care about, when weighed against more than 1000 researching and publishing climate scientists, some with many decades of experience?

    Yes, doubling CO2 by itself raises the global temperature anomaly by about 1 degree C. However, water vapour is a function of air temperature and pressure. We know that this warmer air will allow a higher water content and as water vapour is a stronger greenhouse than CO2, it too will drive temperatures up (also allowing even more water vapour to occur). Given known values on air pressure etc, this will balance out, with CO2′s 1 degree, by causing at least 1 more degree. 2 degrees will melt ice, changing the albedo effect and allowing more water to absorb more heat.

    These are all known values, not modelled values. They give us the IPCC’s lower value of 2.5C. What other effects do is not as well known. Sure, cloud may reflect more, but they also trap more heat fluxes leaving the environment. And to rely on clouds is to hope for a grey, drab overcast future. You might be used to it in your country, but I for one love a nice sunny day and know enough about the science to feel certain that cloud or high altitude water vapour will save us from a 2.5C warming.

    As for “catastrophic”, I’ve told you know to both with than ambiguous word. Climate change of this sort will be devastating from some regions and useful for others. What will be catastrophic will be that we’re currently situated where climate suits our habitation. Try moving a major population to a more hospitable region closer to the poles. Species that are hindered in moving with shifting climate regions or ecosystems that have lowered resilience due to other human activities will face increased likelihood of extinction with this 2.5C; which I feel is catastrophic (but feel free to knock me for more environmental concern – we don’t all need to care about high extinction rates). ‘Catastrophic climate change’ means nothing on it’s own and is impossible to discuss – which I’ve explained to you previously.

    The reason you’re being ignored Pete, is because you’re a one-note wonder, always screaming about some insane conspiracy, which you cannot demonstrate or provide evidence for and you simply ignore all the available science that challenges your one-track mind.

    I’ll take the established, hard-earned science literature over your communistic conspiracies of 3yrs ‘research’ any day of the week.

  9. Pete_Ridley says:

    BTW Mike, Tim and others, have you seen Professor Richard Lindzen’s “Testimony: House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response November 17, 2010″ (

    Worth a careful (open-minded) look – let Graham Wayne know about it too (he ignores/deletes my comments) but has time for you guys, but then, I’m a “denier” and you are “disciples”!

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      OK, I will look at it in the spirit of fairness.

      However I’m very familiar with Lindzen and his work, it is out of step with 99% of his colleagues and his major paper on cloud cover was proven to be seriously flawed. He also denies the link between smoking and cancer. He’s also a heavy smoker. Funny that.

      Real Climate dissects his work:

      In short, he excluded key data from his paper get the result he wanted:

      “…So the feedbacks from processes other than the Planck function response are clearly positive in both observations and models, in contrast to LC09’s conclusions. Moreover, it is not appropriate to use only tropical SSTs and TOA radiation for feedback analysis as the transports into the extratropics are substantial. Any feedback analysis must also recognize changes in ocean heat storage and atmospheric energy transport into and out of the tropics which are especially large during ENSO events. While the tropics play an important role in determining climate sensitivity, simplistic and arbitrary analyses of tropical variability can be grossly misleading. …”

      Lindzen fudged the results by excluding sea-surface temp from all but from the tropics. Either that is sloppy work, or misleading.

      How he gets it very wrong on other issues:

      “…Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth’s atmosphere.[37] This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen’s theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere….”

      Recent PNAS study of the work of >13000 climatologists demonstrated 97% of them are in agreement about AGW.

      Placing your hopes on this one man being right, and every other scientist on the planet wrong is well… more than optimistic.

  10. Pete_Ridley says:

    Mike, you may recall our earlier exchanges on several of your other threads. You talk here about some “denial machine” that you must have evidence of then go on to say “ .. for those who take offense at being called a “denier”, too bad. .. ”. On Graham Wayne’s “Cancun: How could I not be wearily cynical about this abject failure?” thread ( you say on 13th December @ 03:47 “Tim and I .. share both a distaste and weariness with the denial movement” and “ .. the denial movement is small .. ”. Please would you do what Graham keeps insisting he requires all who post to his blog do, provide evidence to support their claims.
    (Graham provides little if any in support of his own faith in the doctrine that our use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic global climate change and only applies his comments policy and censorship powers to those who have the audacity to challenge his “faith”.)

    By “denier” I make the assumption that you mean anyone who rejects that same doctrine. If I am wrong then please would you clarify what you mean by “denier”.

    I deny the doctrine. I do so because I have done my own research during the past 3 years and find no convincing evidence to support it. I accept that there is scientific evidence that our use of fossil fuels could well have caused some of the 1C or so increase in mean global temperature during the past 150 years but that is not the same thing as accepting the doctrine about catastrophic climate change. So, that makes me a “denier” rather than a “disciple” of the doctrine but I certainly am not a member of any “movement” that I am aware of. I came to my state of denial after starting out in 2007 being very concerned for my children and their children after reading what I now recognises as political and environmentalist propaganda. No “denial movement” was responsible for me shifting from concerned to agnostic then atheist. My own research, using the same methods as the IPCC purports to use (reviewing the work of scientists) on both sides of the debate did that.

    Supporters of the doctrine talk as though they are privy to climate science “truth” and say, without providing any evidence to support it, things like (see link above) QUOTE:
    .. the denial movement is small, .. an excuse for our politicians not to do anything… they won’t move for fear of unsettling this vocal minority, corporate interests and the greater masses. No politician is brave enough to admit the reality: mitigating and adapting to climate change will impact our comfortable lifestyles. No one wants to be told that. People want their cake and then some”.

    Where is the evidence supporting your claims about “minority”, “fear”, ”No politician” and “No one”? (If you don’t provide evidence you may have Graham attacking you with ad hominems before banning you from his blog – although, because you are a “disciple” he may just ignore his comments policy).

    The British Museum tells us that “ .. The Iron Age is the period of European history that dates from around 800 BC to the Roman Conquest .. In the parts of Europe the Romans never conquered, the term Iron Age is used to cover the time period up to the medieval period. .. ” ( It goes on to say “The late medieval period is .. generally seen to end with the Renaissance. At the British Museum, the years from about 1050-1540 are used to signify the period”. So, by your definition there was Bronz Age then Iron Age then ????? age and finally your “Carbon Age”.

    Also, according to you “ .. Thus, we need to be thinking about “life after empire”. .. It was coal and steam that built the British Empire .. ”. According to the National Archives ( “.. There is a lot of disagreement about when the empire began. Some historians say it was as early as the 12th century, … Others say the start date should be the 1490s, while other historians date the empire from the early 1600s. The end of the empire came .. with most of Britain’s colonies ruling themselves independently by the late 1960s .. ”. Let’s be generous and say it started in 1600 and ended in 1970, with its peak around 1800-1900. Your (and Graham’s?) “Carbon Age” started in 1800, only 30 years after Watt’s celebrated improvements to the steam engine and around the same time that the first steamships were putting in an appearance. Doesn’t that beg the question “What did coal and steam have to do with building the British Empire, which was already at its peak!

    As a matter of interest, it seems that climate catastrophe is nothing new. According to Archaeolink “Iron Age from 750 BC to 500 AD: Emerging from the climatic catastrophe of the late Bronze Age .. “ ( but there were still 300 years to go before your “Carbon Age” started – hhhmmm!

    Graham claims on his Comments Policy QUOTE: “My policy is very straightforward. I will discuss anything with anyone, so long as you can provide evidence if you make a claim about science, so long as you are civil, and so long as you don’t come here just to tell me why I’m wrong. Opinion stated as fact isn’t debate, it is cheating – valid discussion is only possible if people can tell the difference.

    Ad hominem attacks, personal slights and insults, lies and distortions, childish behaviour and spurious “challenges” will be treated with the contempt they deserve, and deleted (unless I can make some sport out of them) UNQUOTE.

    Graham was summed up beautifully on his own thread by Birgit Kvarnstrom on 22nd November @ 12:01 ( QUOTE:
    Obviously where there are just trouble makers you must take a stand. But too often this is becoming just censorship to keep out views that people don’t like. There are obviously people who understand science rather well who do not accept your views. I guess this is a personal site so you shall do what you want but you pretend also that you are a liberal. To be a true liberal you need to allow others to have a say. This site seem to be rather one for agreeing among a small group of people who are all thinking alike. Of course you will always agree with one another if you do that but the real test of your views is if you can answer contrary ones not the number of your friends who agree with you.” UNQUOTE

    Graham is a closed-minded bigot who refuses to have open debate. Both you and Tim have demonstrated that although you are confirmed “disciples” you are prepared to discuss with “deniers”. That is the only way to resolve differences if they can be resolved. Censorship is not the answer as it simply hardens attitudes. As for any “denier movement” my opinion is that only a small minority of “deniers” of the doctrine belong to one, just as only a small number of those who support the doctrine belong to any “disciple movement”. I can name a few who might fall into the latter category, such as Al Gore, Maurice Strong, George Soros, Tim Wirth, James Hanson, Michael Mann. Who would you like to suggest for the former (but individuals, not groups like “big oil”).

    Klem, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley.

  11. [...] See also: Climategate an act of cyber-terrorism? US knew of attacks leading to “Climategate” [...]

  12. Thank you for the pingback!

  13. Reality has been harder to sell that the non-scandal over stolen emails, hasn’t it? At least a few outlets are now discussing it (cheers for being one of the first I read doing so). Hopefully, given another year, the stupidity we saw over 2010 will be replaced with genuine action.

    • klem says:

      Genuine action to me is the happy collapse and closure of the Chicago Climate Exchange. Now that’s what I call action.

      The next target is the corrupt sewer the EU Climate Exchange.

      Here’s just the latest disgrace;

      Cancun was a failure. Cheers.

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        The failure of a peace conference does not mean wars aren’t real.

        It’s a failure to avert a tragedy.

        You’re someone cheering for a disaster.

      • John R T says:

        Maybe C. Figueres, Exec Secý, UNFCCC, can save carbon trading: for years she has been a ´senior level advisor´ in that ¨market.¨

        Do you know any scientist? Do you understand the following claim contradicts ALL science: ´The science is settled. ´

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 773 other followers

%d bloggers like this: