UN climate chief: Hacked e-mails are damaging

The UN's top climate official Yvo de Boer, acknowledges not only the veracity, but the significance of the CRU leaks/hacks in advance of the Copenhagen Conference:

"I think a lot of people are skeptical about this issue in any case," de Boer told The Associated Press earlier Sunday. "And then when they have the feeling ... that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say 'you see I told you so, this is not a real issue.'"

(emphasis added)

UN climate chief: Hacked e-mails are damaging

What happened to 'nobody disputes AGW?'

E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world's leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work.

Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.

"This correspondence looks very bad," de Boer said, but noted that the matter was being investigated by the university, police and the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change. He also defended the research — reviewed by some 2,500 scientists — that shows man has fueled global warming by burning fossil fuels.

It "looks very bad?"

You think? It's about time the AGW community gets up the nerve to face the truth. The recent turn of events; the qualifications, resignations, investigations, and admissions all seem to point to a leak, as opposed to a hack.

"Some 2,500 scientists?" When you're pro-AGW you are a "scientist," but skeptics are questioned about their credentials even when they are identical to those of members of the group of 2,500.

Forget the double standard for now, at least the UN has put to rest all the quacks, sheep, faithful and hoaxers who've questioned the legitimacy of the leaked mail, musings, rants and code.

Someone with inside access and information knew what and when to go public with the kernels of truth necessary to initiate objective consideration of the "models" and projections underpinning the AGW hysteria.

Finally, and just in time.

jw

This is more than I expected from someone in that position, but I doubt it will do anything to stop Obama from jumping us into this treaty.
This morning's ABC News had the story along with Obama speech-clips telling everyone how important this (the Treaty) is for the world.
Of course, they threw in the fear tactic: what if China doesn't go along with this wonderful new world order?
I don't think most America even thinks they could understand what is going on, let alone voice an opinion. I'm quite sure that most still believe the "real" scientists about "global warming".

Originally posted by Dogdish
This morning's ABC News had the story along with Obama speech-clips telling everyone how important this (the Treaty) is for the world.
Of course, they threw in the fear tactic: what if China doesn't go along with this wonderful new world order?

Of course this treaty is important for the world!

It will: "Distribute wealth from developed nations, to undeveloped nations."
One of the many sites about it.

How can that be a bad thing? You know, the idea. Its kind of Communistic!? No....Socialistic. Yeah thats the word. Distribute the wealth around.

My local paper covered the story on Saturday with a short article on the 6th page of the paper. In that article, which was obviously being put in a less conspicuous spot in the front section, they went so far as to only quote a Saudi Arabian expert decrying the whole climate scam. Their backs are so far up against the wall on this that they need to bring in the Muslim (which we're all supposed to think means "terrorist") point of view. The manipulation is becoming more evident and more desperate.

I guess this Saudi was the only climate expert in the world that had reservations about global warming. Funny how that works.

Peace

Has anyone seen the new commercial for the Copenhagen Summit? Wow, just saw the it this morning, what a piece of NWO brainwashing propaganda!
Their tag line is "HOPEnhagen" and they have a wesite Hopenhagen.org.
Here is the commercial from this morning.

www.youtube.com...

Thought you might find this interesting, I wonder if they are stepping it up a notch with climategate out there, trying to counteract the amount of negative with their own agenda?

What hacked emails?...Sad,but this is what you should expect from Copenhagen. It's nice to see atleast "some" confirmation regarding global warming on the internets! real life though? nope, Copenhagen will pass without a hitch and the vast majority of folks will be none the wiser. Best get used to it as such ignorance spans more than simply global warming.

Well, the "Comments" go back two weeks, so they've been showing it for at least that long... the comments themselves give me a little bit of hope for this world, though: (a sample)
"Copenfrauden can go to *.

The level of the UN's meaninglessness is comensurate with the level of understanding by patriots of the degree of gangster infiltration of all UN divisions.

To * with the UN & to * with Copenfrauden."

Maybe it will be enough to get people to do some of their own research into this. There is hope, still.

Maybe also, it WAS an insider rather than hackers. Maybe attributed to "hackers" to make the information less savory. Since it's getting harder and harder to dirty the facts, maybe they needed to dirty the source.

*edited to remove bad words.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Dogdish]

reply to post by Dr Love

I saw a similar or the same piece in the San Antonio paper, buried deeply. The lede was supposed to be about India and China's refusal to adopt specific figures for quantifying reduction, but it turned to the Saudi minister as well.

I think your observation of 'radicalization' of skeptics is exactly the motivation of the story.

Since they can no longer ignore the skeptics, they have to be associated with otherwise unpopular groups. "Correlation does not equal causation" remains true, whether in reference to the subject (CO2/warming) or the observer (skeptic/terrorist).

jw