That hypothesis would still require the "leaker" to have hacked RealClimate which indicates some hacking skills
And failed, which doesn't indicate great skill.
So in conclusion, yes, it is possible that there was a rogue sysadmin at CRU who suddenly decided to release a huge dump of emails from a backup server, and who was also a hacker who could break in to RealClimate, and who had some link to Russia.
Doesn't seem all that far fetched. How may sysadmins do you know?
Your link directly contradicts your claim about RealClimate and UEA. RealClimate claims that someone attempted to hack into their server to upload the files taken from UEA. That would mean that the leaker definitely didn't work for RealClimate and could still have been a UEA insider.
The mention of Koch in the memo is for me a clincher on this being a forgery. The Koch foundation and Heartland have said their donation was for a health care project. In the budget document their donation is listed with the code HCN. If a forger had the budget document and not been aware of the HCN coding they could have assumed that the Koch donation was for a climate change project.
Another is Heartland referring to themselves as "anti-climate" in the memo. No denier would ever refer to themselves that way, that'd be like an internal KKK memo referring to themselves as "racist rednecks". Anti-climate is, however, a term that Gleick has used before in referring to different groups.
California Penal Code Section 528.5 a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d). (b) For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated. (c) For purposes of this section, “electronic means” shall include opening an e-mail account or an account or profile on a social networking Internet Web site in another person’s name. (d) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (e) In addition to any other civil remedy available, a person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of subdivision (a) may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) and subdivision (g) of Section 502. (f) This section shall not preclude prosecution under any other law.
Actually, it was claimed by some that it was him who forged it before he came out, based mostly on similarities in his own writings and the memo. There was speculation on a number of blogs and Roger Pielke Jr. even sent him a tweet asking him if he could confirm or deny his involvement in a forgery. That was before his confession blog entry.
The one document in question duplicates what's in the others that are almost certainly genuine. That in no way shows that the document is genuine, only that a forger could have copied and pasted. That's a pretty weak argument from DeSmogBlog.
Boy, you really didn't grasp what I was saying. You asked, "At what point do you concede that perhaps the word is getting warmer and that HUMAN BEINGS are the cause? When the asphalt in front of your home spontaneously combusts? When the squirrels in the trees melt like marshmallows?"
Asphalt combusting and squirrels melting would cause someone to concede that "the world is getting warmer" but wouldn't cause someone to concede that "HUMAN BEINGS are the cause." The fact that you can't seem to distinguish between the two in your own mind is quite telling.
If we refuse to buy phones and such from companies that run mandatory twelve hour shifts and force college students to "intern" doing manual labor for a pittance, that doesn't mean that all those jobs will come back to the US.
Or, more likely, it will mean that no one makes the gadgets at all and there are no jobs.
At what point do you concede that perhaps the word is getting warmer and that HUMAN BEINGS are the cause? When the asphalt in front of your home spontaneously combusts? When the squirrels in the trees melt like marshmallows?
None of the those things have anything to do with the cause of the heat. Can you not tell the difference between cause and effect?
Here's the thing: Real scientists don't write or say things like this.
So I guess Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (just to name two of the many politically outspoken climatologists) aren't real scientists either? Or, are they still real scientists because you like what they say?
The +2c rise "in the last decade" is actually relative to the 1850s (and it's not quite +2c). There hasn't been a rise within the last decade, which is what the article is referring to. It's called a "plateau" and it's something that a surprising number of./ readers don't seem to understand.
"Deny the holocaust" I understand what that means. "Deny that the earth is round" I get that one, too. "Deny the climate" Not quite sure what that means. Who is are these people denying the climate?
You're absolutely correct. There is no $$$ at all in solar, wind, wave, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, and other forms of power. Plus carbon trading, there's no money there. CFLs and battery technology? Nope, all free from the taint of money.
The people who stand to gain from these things are far too honest and upstanding to try to push their agenda. There's just something about carbon based fuels that makes people act bad, maybe they're drinking the oil?
Slashdot Mirror
That hypothesis would still require the "leaker" to have hacked RealClimate which indicates some hacking skills
And failed, which doesn't indicate great skill.
So in conclusion, yes, it is possible that there was a rogue sysadmin at CRU who suddenly decided to release a huge dump of emails from a backup server, and who was also a hacker who could break in to RealClimate, and who had some link to Russia.
Doesn't seem all that far fetched. How may sysadmins do you know?
Your link directly contradicts your claim about RealClimate and UEA. RealClimate claims that someone attempted to hack into their server to upload the files taken from UEA. That would mean that the leaker definitely didn't work for RealClimate and could still have been a UEA insider.
sounds like a pretty strong statement of veracity to me.
Unless the document was a forgery written after the other documents were received. Then it would only mean the the forger could copy and paste.
Sorry, wrong link for Gleick's announcement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html
Gleick's announcment Feb 20: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/
McArdle's Article: Feb 19: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/
Pielke's tweet Feb 18: http://twitter.com/#!/RogerPielkeJr/status/170542669007818752
The mention of Koch in the memo is for me a clincher on this being a forgery. The Koch foundation and Heartland have said their donation was for a health care project. In the budget document their donation is listed with the code HCN. If a forger had the budget document and not been aware of the HCN coding they could have assumed that the Koch donation was for a climate change project.
Another is Heartland referring to themselves as "anti-climate" in the memo. No denier would ever refer to themselves that way, that'd be like an internal KKK memo referring to themselves as "racist rednecks". Anti-climate is, however, a term that Gleick has used before in referring to different groups.
California Penal Code Section 528.5
a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d).
(b) For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated.
(c) For purposes of this section, “electronic means” shall include opening an e-mail account or an account or profile on a social networking Internet Web site in another person’s name.
(d) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(e) In addition to any other civil remedy available, a person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of subdivision (a) may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) and subdivision
(g) of Section 502.
(f) This section shall not preclude prosecution under any other law.
Actually, it was claimed by some that it was him who forged it before he came out, based mostly on similarities in his own writings and the memo. There was speculation on a number of blogs and Roger Pielke Jr. even sent him a tweet asking him if he could confirm or deny his involvement in a forgery. That was before his confession blog entry.
The one document in question duplicates what's in the others that are almost certainly genuine. That in no way shows that the document is genuine, only that a forger could have copied and pasted. That's a pretty weak argument from DeSmogBlog.
Boy, you really didn't grasp what I was saying. You asked, "At what point do you concede that perhaps the word is getting warmer and that HUMAN BEINGS are the cause? When the asphalt in front of your home spontaneously combusts? When the squirrels in the trees melt like marshmallows?"
Asphalt combusting and squirrels melting would cause someone to concede that "the world is getting warmer" but wouldn't cause someone to concede that "HUMAN BEINGS are the cause." The fact that you can't seem to distinguish between the two in your own mind is quite telling.
If we refuse to buy phones and such from companies that run mandatory twelve hour shifts and force college students to "intern" doing manual labor for a pittance, that doesn't mean that all those jobs will come back to the US.
Or, more likely, it will mean that no one makes the gadgets at all and there are no jobs.
What a surprise, he denies it. I guess if that's proof enough for you...
At what point do you concede that perhaps the word is getting warmer and that HUMAN BEINGS are the cause? When the asphalt in front of your home spontaneously combusts? When the squirrels in the trees melt like marshmallows?
None of the those things have anything to do with the cause of the heat. Can you not tell the difference between cause and effect?
You mean like this:
Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income
Sort of like James Hansen receiving $1,600,000 to promote global warming.
Here's the thing: Real scientists don't write or say things like this.
So I guess Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (just to name two of the many politically outspoken climatologists) aren't real scientists either? Or, are they still real scientists because you like what they say?
The pattern that I notice is a plateau, as in, warming has stopped increasing.
Dr. Lindzen is. I know it's only one, but geez, there's only 16 to look at, you could at least get that right.
The +2c rise "in the last decade" is actually relative to the 1850s (and it's not quite +2c). There hasn't been a rise within the last decade, which is what the article is referring to. It's called a "plateau" and it's something that a surprising number of ./ readers don't seem to understand.
Somalia is to libertarianism as North Korea is to socialism.
Why not be intelligent about how you do it?
You know of some intelligent politicians that will take care of that for you?
"Deny the holocaust" I understand what that means.
"Deny that the earth is round" I get that one, too.
"Deny the climate" Not quite sure what that means. Who is are these people denying the climate?
"Poisoning the well" is another good term for it.
What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?
You really don't think that any technology is going to be replacing fossil-fuel? Or that those technologies won't earn anyone any money?
Really?
You're absolutely correct. There is no $$$ at all in solar, wind, wave, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, and other forms of power. Plus carbon trading, there's no money there. CFLs and battery technology? Nope, all free from the taint of money.
The people who stand to gain from these things are far too honest and upstanding to try to push their agenda. There's just something about carbon based fuels that makes people act bad, maybe they're drinking the oil?