MSM on damage control after "climate change evidence" fabrication busted by hackers

[creep276]

Here's one from Wired magazine that only features the least damning of the emails.



Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate

* By Kim Zetter Email Author
* November 20, 2009 |
* 2:05 pm |
* Categories: Breaches, Hacks and Cracks
*

globe_west_540

An online debate over global warming science has broken out after an unknown hacker broke into the e-mail server at a prominent, British climate-research center, stole more than a thousand e-mails about global warming research and posted them online.

Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion.

The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is one of the United Kingdom’s leading climate research centers and has been a strong proponent of the position that global warming is real and has human causes. The center confirmed the hack occurred in an e-mail statement to Threat Level.

“We are aware that information from a server in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,” the statement read. “We are extremely concerned that personal information about individuals may have been compromised. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm what proportion of this material is genuine.”

The stolen cache includes more than 1,000 e-mails and more than 3,000 documents, some containing code. They were posted anonymously to an FTP server in Russia. The hacker then posted a link to the 61-MB file of data on the blog Air Vent.

The hacker’s message that accompanied the link read: “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.”

The e-mails, which cover a decade of correspondence, are getting a lot of attention among bloggers who point to statements in them that they say suggest the scientists colluded and manipulated data to support their global warming viewpoints. The bloggers highlight a statement in one 1999 e-mail from Phil Jones, director of the research center:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

The comment refers to Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Mann told Threat Level the “Nature trick” refers to a solution for displaying data that he and others used in a paper they published to get around a problem in the way that temperature data is traditionally displayed. The solution allows for better viewing and understanding of the data, Mann said, and pointed to a post on the RealClimate blog that his colleagues have made to explain the reference. That post also indicates that the hacker first tried to post the trove of stolen data to the RealClimate blog on Tuesday.

Another e-mail from Jones dated last year with the subject line “IPCC and FOI” is a request to Michael Mann, asking him to delete certain e-mails. Bloggers allege that Jones was trying to destroy data that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Jones wasn’t available for comment. Mann told Threat Level that he never deleted any e-mails and doesn’t know the context under which Jones made the request.

Bloggers allege that an e-mail from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, suggests that reality contradicts scientific claims about global warming:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low….

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

“It says we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing,” he says.

Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

“There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,” he told Threat Level. “There’s no funding by nefarious groups. There’s no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There’s nothing hidden, no manipulation.

“It’s just scientists talking about science, and they’re talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.”

Trenberth agrees.

“If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists,” he says. “The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.”

This post was updated with comments from the Climate Research Unit and Michael Mann.

Photo courtesy NASA

* Post Comment |
* Permalink

Yahoo! Buzz
add to StumbleUponStumble
ShareThis
Comments (71)
Sign in to comment
Username:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your sign in information?
Sign In Loading
Not a member?

If you're not yet registered with Wired.com, join now so you can share your thoughts and opinions.

It's fast and free.
Join Now
Registration
E-mail address:

Username:

Password:

Password must be at least 6 characters.

Confirm password:

Please send me occasional e-mail updates about new features and special offers from Wired.
Yes No

Please send occasional e-mail offers from Wired affiliated websites and publications and carefully selected companies.
Yes No

I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to it's User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Join Now Loading

Already registered? Click here to sign in.
Retrieve sign-in

Please enter your e-mail address or username below. Your username and password will be sent to the e-mail address you provided us

E-mail address
or
Username
Submit Loading
Close

*
Posted by: StupidPeasant | 11/21/09 | 10:22 am

I am corruption. In the refrigeration service industry, we tend to not believe any of this crap; but we are happy to sell all the new “green products”. Sometimes there is no conspiracy, there is just millions of people doing business independently.
Science is the business of grant money. I don’t think Obama’s regime will give money to non-beleavers. The trend is unstoppable. It is like war, maybe something good will come of it, even though it started in the land of stupid greedy humans.
*
Posted by: thisthinghere | 11/21/09 | 11:50 am

‘a graph that showed no evidence of the Medieval Warm Period but showed a near-vertical rise in temperatures in the late 20th century’

this is another form of a very common argument that i hear from those who dispute global warming. there are also graphs showing rising and falling levels of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago.

the argument is, since mankind was not around way back then, or was not driving cars during the Medieval age, the rising levels of CO2 and rising temps happen naturally, and not because of any activity of mankind.

personally speaking, i don’t dispute that long before mankind ever set fire to anything on planet earth, that levels of CO2 rose and fell, and temperatures rose and fell.

what i strongly dispute is the argument that claims that because levels of CO2 went up, and temps went up, in ages past when mankind was not even alive, or when mankind was not burning petroleum, therefore man could not be responsible for the rising levels of CO2 and rising temps now.

i strongly dispute this because the “logic” of it is fundamentally screwed. first, it’s an argument based on the proving of a negative. second, could such logic be used in a court of law without being shot down and laughed at? imagine a lawyer claiming the following: “because 50 years ago, before my client was born, there were a lot of murders, this proves that my client is NOT responsible for the murders under examination today.” are you serious? no, that simply does not constitute a valid argument, whether in science, law, or even in every day relationships. imagine trying such b.s. with a spouse. it doesn’t fly.

better science will defeat weaker science, every time. guaranteed results. if you dispute anthropogenic global warming, develop a better hypothesis, better experiments, and better science. it’s as simple and as difficult as that. may the best science win.

whining? no. specious, flawed logic and arguments? no. trying to prove negatives? no. “i just don’t believe in it”. no. attacking science, the scientific method, and scientists? no. radio talk shows? no. testimony before congress? no. only better science. you might be surprised at how much of a hero you would be to a lot of people if you were to prove via reproducible experiments an even better hypothesis than anthropogenic global warming. may the best science win.
*
Posted by: DistortedLoop | 11/21/09 | 11:55 am

@stopcrazypp - Isn’t Bush is an oil man? That would give him every reason, financially, to take a non-global warming stance. On the other hand, there’s a lot of big money names, Boone Pickens for one, that stand to make a lot of money if the global warming agenda is pushed, whether it’s true or not. I don’t recall the details, but I recently also read that even Al Gore, the high priest of the global warming movement, stands to profit hugely if the global warming agenda is moved forward.

I’m not saying yay or nay on whether the climate is warming or whether it’s warming from mankind’s influence, or not, so don’t flame back on that. I’m 50 years old, and I recall earlier in my life that we were supposedly facing a new ice age and that modern civilization would be destroyed by ice, now it’s going to be destroyed by tropic conditions. (sigh).

My only point is that the “science” keeps changing, and that most of the people in these forums who have taken global warming on as some kind of religious crusade probably don’t have the qualifications to understand the research, if they’ve even read it.

More importantly, like anything these day, it’s probably a good idea to “follow the money” and see who stands to profit from what they’re saying, and to question of that’s their motivation for saying it.
*
Posted by: cai | 11/21/09 | 1:54 pm

Everything gets appropriated. Any international concern is open game to be used to gain power, control, and as a consequence, money. I do not disagree or disbelieve that there is a serious problem in the amount of carbon emissions emitted by us, but I feel as though we are just kept in a state of debate on these matters. An undecided world is a one where money can be made from either side. This for me is a 1984 moment, but instead of war its global warming.
*
Posted by: scottyb408 | 11/21/09 | 2:43 pm

If humans don’t effect the earth. . Then what natural thing out there is causing the co2 levels to rise?
*
Posted by: BrenArt | 11/21/09 | 3:09 pm

While taking a break from the ongoing battle of Man-Bear-Pig, Mr. Gore is reseting his Cache on his apple slate.
*
Posted by: sixwings | 11/21/09 | 3:16 pm

@scottyb408,
*
In the past, rising CO2 atmospheric levels have always followed temperatures increases. It’s the high temps that cause atmospheric CO2 to increase. Not the other way around. There is a tremendous amount of CO2 stored in the oceans, rocks and organic matter that is released when the average temperature increases. Research it.
*
Posted by: CandyMan | 11/21/09 | 4:12 pm

This made my weekend.

And Dan2 and all the other socialist weenies - no one every said Mankind has ZERO effect on the climate. The question has always been ‘how much’ and ‘what is the appropriate response’? Lying to 8 yr olds and telling them Manhattan and London will be submerged in 50 yrs, the US needs to stop practicing growing their economy and apologize to the world, and polar bears are all going to die horrific deaths is clearly hysterical. You’re just feeling punked because Al Gore played you for the tools you are. Eat your poop sandwich with a smile on your face!
*
Posted by: elgrau | 11/21/09 | 5:44 pm

spin on Wired, spin on! But these comments are pretty clear and point out VERY dishonest and very biased “science” (i.e., “political science”):

Another expressed internal doubts: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.”

“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” Delingpole writes, “a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.”

He cites an e-mail: “This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature.’ Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board …What do others think?”

Myron Ebell, of the GlobalWarming.org website where “cooler heads prevail,” said the e-mails are “shocking.”

“Its kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community,” he said.

The documents, he said, “raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community.

“What I’ve seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issues. It’s very improper,” he said. ” One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientist, and policy can be handled in public debate.”

Delingpole observes the world “is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called ’skeptical’ view is now also the majority view.”

Phil Jones, head of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, confirmed to Investigate magazine the documents appeared authentic.

But Jones denied there was any attempt to mislead or conceal.

“They’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years,” he said.

Jones said he could not recall what he meant when he wrote about a plan to “hide the decline.”

In the e-mail, dated 10 years ago, Jones wrote: “Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers, Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit.”
*
Posted by: vaporland | 11/21/09 | 6:17 pm

the human race is ****ed, and deservedly so, considering the comments here and elsewhere. time will tell, but usually humans end up looking pretty stupid when viewing the past from the present.

earth is flat, here be dragons, malaria is caused by vapors, sickness is caused by bad air, bleeding makes you healthy, only gay people get AIDS.

When the poles and high altitude ice are obviously melting, and the Arctic Ocean is nearly ice free for the first time in recorded human history, it doesn’t take a genius to see something is seriously wrong.

Then again, ever since Reagan, stupid ignorance has been in vogue in our American leaders, and Bush II sealed the deal - people did elect him twice.

When tools like Palin are immensely popular, the powers that be laugh all the way to the bank - for now…
*
Posted by: nikrok1 | 11/21/09 | 6:39 pm

Ohhh . . . It’s Ronald Reagans’ fault and Sarah Palin is in on it too. Now I get it. When will people realize it’s all about the Sun, you know old Sol, the big gassy ball up in the sky. Co2 FOLLOWS warming not the other way around. As to the question, Where is it all coming from? Anything that’s not a ROCK generally gives off Co2. It’s part of a process called WEATHER. I’m sure you’ve heard of it. It’s been around a while. Climate change used to be called weather. However some people have been able to convince certain nervous types that WEATHER isn’t normal. It’s something to be feared and controlled. Which is, of course, impossible.
*
Posted by: meelk | 11/21/09 | 8:16 pm

“When the poles and high altitude ice are obviously melting, and the Arctic Ocean is nearly ice free for the first time in recorded human history”

..only thaaaats not really true. It might interest you to actually look into this, it’s happened before.
*
Posted by: cyberbully | 11/21/09 | 8:55 pm

If someone leaked emails from climate skeptics, I’m sure there would be plenty of discussion about downplaying evidence OF global warming.
*
Posted by: mcswell2001 | 11/21/09 | 9:54 pm

Michael Mann is at Penn State, not U Penn.
*
Posted by: takarada | 11/22/09 | 6:18 am

@CandyMan - agree
Historically speaking, we and in the middle of a really cold period.

A warmer earth is a nicer earth. We need global warming.
A huge area of the earth, Siberia, northern Canada and particularly Greenland will become pleasant to live in.

Of course the sea level will rise but Holland has shown that this problem can be solved.

Climate change is real, but is it really such a bad thing?????

Even if we stop producing green house gases the climate will still change as it always has, ice ages and warm periods will come and go.

The greenies see this as a religious quest rather than having a scientific viewpoint on it.
*
Posted by: Knut_Witberg | 11/22/09 | 6:35 am

The worst is what you cannot see
It is important to emphasize that the worst damage is not what you can see – the FOI refusals, the successful efforts to get skeptical researchers sacked is not the worst – it’s what you can’t see that is the worst.
All the researchers lower in the hierarchy who witness that a skeptic gets fired, who get promoted, who’s got the big money to spend on research – they realize pretty quickly what they should think and do to get a career going – and even more so what NOT to say.
Sacking, ridicule, denial of space in publications and so on is reported from many countries, not only Great Britten and USA.
The parallel to the situation in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is obvious - and be clear on this: many believers in communism and nazism believed that they were doing the right thing – just as many AGW proponents are about the climate today. There was no lack of “good faith”. It is the system that is to blame.
What does “consensus” mean in a situation like this?
What we soon will see is the Empire strikes back. Many researchers, who has conformed and lived well in this political system, will protest. They will in essence say: “No, I didn’t agree because of cowardnes, I believe in AGW!” But the main strategy will be denial and
Even worse is the situation in the political circles. So many has committed themselves to the belief in AGW. It is pretty difficult to come forward now and publicly express uncertainty or doubt, not to mention a change in their conviction.
And all the big shots in poor countries that already could smell the money soon coming to line their pockets. They will do all they can to maintain the current situation, to deny any need for change in the IPCC, academic hierarchies, allocation of funds etc and they will blame “capitalists”, “imperialists”, “reactionaries”, “liars”, etc.
The repair of the system will take years – if it can be repaired. But we must try. In the end – this is about protecting our democracy.
*
Posted by: vulturetx | 11/22/09 | 9:55 am

@vaporland - wow so you think recorded history began with Reagan? And you obviously never bothered to actually study history because it all happened in your lifetime ;)

Yep the Northwest Passage and Artic Ice have been less and the vikings were in the area too. It just happened before Reagan.

/now since multiple people have corrected you, you might as well give up . Let’s face it if the world is as doomed as you say, take yourself out of the equation, because you are not helping.
//climate change is real, so is the Sun’s variance coincidence? I think not!
*
Posted by: zav | 11/22/09 | 10:35 am

If anyone doubts we can affect the Earth, think about the ozone hole.
*
Posted by: thisthinghere | 11/22/09 | 10:53 am

i love this:

“it’s not rising CO2 followed by rising temps, but rising temps followed by rising CO2″

hmm. so, the rising temps are caused by… what?

oh yeah, “sun variance”.

but once again, the problem i have with this “argument” is, it doesn’t prove that mankind ISN’T responsible for rising levels of CO2, regardless of which came first, rising temps or rising CO2.

i think this “argument” would have a tremendous amount of integrity if the following were proven via reproducible experiments:
- CO2 does not trap heat within the earth’s atmosphere. it is NOT a greenhouse gas. why are we even talking about it.
- internal combustion engines burning fuels - gasoline, ethanol, diesel - do NOT emit CO2
- coal, whether burned in old steam engines or the latest steam turbines, does NOT emit CO2
- well, o.k., maybe mankind’s industrial activities do emit some minute amounts of CO2, but the amounts of CO2 given off by everything else (”biomass emissions”) as the temperatures rise because of “sun variance” dwarfs anything man emits. and besides, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. and because of very poor math skills and the generalized incompetence of those climatologists who are proponents of anthropogenic global warming, they have blindly focused on what little CO2 is emitted by mankind, and have failed to account for all the CO2 emitted in all the other ways, as well as the CO2 which has been there forever anyway. this is why their climate models are so inaccurate, and they are all deluded amateurs.
*
Posted by: acehigh88 | 11/22/09 | 12:20 pm

Oceans give off the most carbon: fact.
The earth is getting warmer, but it definitely isn’t our fault.
I heard the sun is just running through a cycle where it gives off more heat and its not the first time it occurred. When the global temperature increase, after a number of years the oceans are going to warm up and give off more carbon, hence carbon levels rising.

The geologists at the university I go to during a debate, denied that rising CO2 levels is caused by human activity, because they say human activity give off somewhere around 8-15% of the carbon and the rest is all natural , with oceans giving off the bulk. There are other real problems such as the release of Carbon monoxide and other pollutants, which causes asthma and other health problems such as cancer as well as environmental changes such as dust clouds, smog, land erosion and acid rain

The ozone layer thing is different, a ‘hole’ in our ozone layer would mean that we are loosing protection from the sun i.e. more UV-A rays are passing.
There is also another theory called the greenhouse effect, which makes a little more sense than Al gores.
*
Posted by: debreuil | 11/22/09 | 1:26 pm

This is the internet, do not get your opinion through a filter. Read the source Luke, read the source.

« Previous 1 2
Comments (0)

Want to start a new thread or reply to a post?
Login/Register and start talking!
There are no comments
Login/Registration
Subscribe to Wired Magazine

Subscribe to WIRED

Renew

Give a Gift

International Orders
Editorial Team

*

Editor:
Kevin Poulsen |
E-mail |
Twitter

*

Contributor:
David Kravets |
E-mail |
Twitter

*

Contributor:
Kim Zetter |
E-mail |
Twitter

*

Contributor:
Ryan Singel |
E-mail

Follow the Threat Level team on our new Twitter list!

Send us a tip
Most Recent Entries

* Prosecutors Drop Plans to Appeal Lori Drew Case
* MPAA Says Copyright-Treaty Critics Hate Hollywood
* Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate
* Feds Charge 3 With Comcast.net Hijacking
* Judge Calls Bull on ‘Psycho-Acoustic’ Beatles Covers
* Health Insurer Loses 1.5 Million Patient Records
* Copyright Czar Vote Heads to Full Senate
* Computer ‘Glitch’ Grounds Air Traffic
* It’s Alive! Hollywood Claims Pirate Bay Tracker Lives
* Palin Calls E-Mail Hack ‘Most Disruptive’ Campaign Event

* Threat Level RSS feed

Search for:
Categories

* Announcements
* ATM Hacking
* BitTorrent
* Black Hat Conference
* Breaches
* Censorship
* Conferences
* Copyrights and Patents
* Cover-Ups
* Crime
* Crypto
* Cybarmageddon!
* Cyber Warfare
* cyberbullying
* Cybersecurity
* DefCon
* Digital Millennium Copyright Act
* E-Voting
* Elections
* Fed Blotter
* Glitches and Bugs
* Hacks and Cracks

* Hans Reiser Trial
* Identification
* intellectual property
* Lori Drew Trial
* Miscellaneous
* Network Neutrality
* NSA
* politics
* porn
* privacy
* RFID
* RIAA Litigation
* RSA Conference
* Spooks Gone Wild
* Sunshine and Secrecy
* Surveillance
* The Courts
* The Ridiculous
* Threats
* Three Strikes
* Watchlists
* Yo Ho Ho

Popular Tags
4chan Al-Haramain BlackHat Cannon-to-the-Wiz CCC Censorship cfp09 China Citibank copyright cyberbullying Darkmarket DefCon DHS DMCA election08 FBI hacking information-sharing intellectual property kickbacks Lori Drew lundeby MPAA NSA patents Patriot Act piracy Pirate Bay politics privacy RIAA RSA Conference spam and phishing Surveillance swatting ToorCon tyrone Virginia Tech shootings Wikiwatch
Advertisement
Climate change
UPS Strives to Protect the Earth for our People and our Community. - www.sustainability.ups.com

Bank of America®
Buy Gifts Online, Earn Cash Back For Yourself W/ Add It Up® Program. - www.BankofAmerica.com/Solutions

Urban Development
A Carbon-free future for megacities with Siemens: Our Solutions here. - www.siemens.com/SustainableCities

Autodesk Inventor
Autodesk Inventor takes you beyond 3D to Digital Prototyping - Autodesk.com/Inventor

Ads by Google
Services

*
Subscription: Subscribe | Give a Gift | Renew | International | Questions | Change Address
*

Quick Links:
Contact Us |
Sign In/Register Sign Out |
Newsletter |
RSS Feeds |
Tech Jobs |
Wired Mobile |
FAQ |
Site Map

[Click to see how many people are online]

[General of Darkness]

Oh yeah ol Gavin Schmidt, now look at this ugly bastards smug face. He's definite not to be trusted.

[hoarder]

No need to dig any deeper. I am fully informed.

[General of Darkness]

Originally Posted by hoarder

No need to dig any deeper. I am fully informed.

LMAO, I didn't want to say anything, but a picture is worth a thousand words, right Hoarder?

[hoarder]

Originally Posted by General of Darkness

LMAO, I didn't want to say anything, but a picture is worth a thousand words, right Hoarder?

Especially one so very...uh...ahem...kosher!

[FreeMyLand]

Originally Posted by General of Darkness

Oh yeah ol Gavin Schmidt, now look at this ugly bastards smug face. He's definite not to be trusted.

Ahhhh, Schmidt, he must be German, right?

[tekrunner]

link to original article?

nm, found it

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack