From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to navigation Jump to search

See main article at Global Warming

We knew it.

It's official. Climate change is a hoax. The icecaps aren't receding, Siberian permafrost isn't melting and Pacific islands are not sinking. Internet Vigilantes have proven what has always been a nagging suspicion in our minds: that scientists fake results. Now the only two decisions left for us to make is how to lynch the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and if it's the Jews, the Freemasons or both who are using climate change to keep us down.

Stolen Emails

An accurate representation of scientific method.

On November 17, 2009, after a Freedom of Information request regarding communication between scholars at UEA, some Turk hacked the computers at the Climate Research Unit and stole 13 years' worth of email and private data. What the emails show is that the scientists deliberately skewed or otherwise withheld data to strengthen their case for climate change profit. Naturally, as soon as the data was leaked, climate changed skeptics jumped around in glee and supporters of the science screamed that the information was being selectively quoted. At ED, we had 1000 monkeys pour over the data, and here are the best quotes, in the context of the email. A best-of list of the emails can be found here.

How to Skew Graphs

One could, of course, shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don't see that this improves things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.


How do I shift mean?

Fudging Data

Climategate comic cover.jpg
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 from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.


Just like high school!

Mysterious Constant

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.


On fudging data

Science Demands We Lie

Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications? – and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do make their way through the peer review process?


—For censorship, see China

Ignoring Naysayers

This was the danger of always criticising 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...


Faith must trample under foot all reason


Coming soon...

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.


Doing it right

TOW's Reaction


The TOW article on the incident was semi-protected to stop the peanut gallery revealing the truth about climate change. The talk page is inundated with the usual bullshit Wikipedos argue about, such as minute word modalizations and whether or not the title should be "Climategate".

There is controversy surrounding whether they were hacked or leaked. I generally dislike the voting format, but I don't see any other way to demonstrate a consensus for the change.



—Smallman12q on democracy

There is no scandal, unless you are referring to the scandalous press coverage full of misrepresentations, or the scandalous statements of lies made by energy-financed politicians?




Opinion is also "mixed" as to whether Barack Obama is a Muslim or has a forged birth certificate, but these issues are addressed in Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ, on which this page's FAQ is modelled. The bottom line in both cases is that we reflect facts as published by reliable sources, not speculation and myths.



—ChrisO on Obama being a Muslim

Copenhagen's Response

Since the Copenhagen meetings were in the middle of an out-of-season snowstorm and pretty much a failure due to Climategate and the timely release of the fraudulent emails (not that politicians ever would've done something productive anyway),, anti-global warming people are declaring a small victory of sorts. The rest of the world is forced to pay for their own shit (if they want to do anything concerning climate change at all) because no binding agreements were made during the meetings, as always. The European Union threw a temper tantrum, took its bat and ball and went home, while other countries like China, Brazil, and India had to pay for their own beer...finally.

Climategate comic.jpg

Al Gore and Photoshop

As if he could sense that his green empire was going to be attacked by an army of emails and reason, Al Gore rushed his new book to the publisher in an attempt to get it out on the book stands before everything crashed down around him. But rushing things can sometimes produce disastrous results. Like the leaked emails, his book uses faulty data that have now been tossed out as fraudulent by most level-headed people.

Still a naysayer? Read on...

Everybody knows that hurricanes are a sure sign of global warming...whoops, climate change. Warmer waters, caused by greenhouse gasses, make for more powerful and more frequent hurricane activity, so it would seem to be natural to include hurricane data into any report concerning the effect of CO2 on global warming. Former vice-president Al Gore, while writing his latest book "Our Choice; A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis", thought that it would be a nifty idea if he could display hurricanes doing their villainy on the glossy cover once the book was published. But there was a problem! Since hurricane activity is at a thirty year low, the storms were just not cooperating with the satellite cameras. Action was called for!

What to do, what to do! Gore, or more accurately, Gore's publishers, shooped four hurricanes into an existing satellite photograph of the western hemisphere. There are many errors within the photograph, namely that there is no polar ice cap whatsoever, Florida has shrunk and there is a "mini-hurricane" drifting off of its east coast, and finally, there is a monster hurricane right off of the southern California coast. This obvious attempt at cashing in on the post-Katrina fear craze is plainly manufactured science; even the hurricane that lingers near the equator at Peru is spinning the wrong direction. Gore needs to fire his shoopers and get in touch with people who know a little about global weather patterns before he publishes his next book.

Ok...just a few things wrong with the picture on the right. The storm in the Atlantic is rotating the wrong way. For Cuba to be totally submerged the sea level would have to rise almost 6000 feet. Polar ice caps are gone yet Greenland still has ice on it. Finally hurricanes cannot develop on or near the equator as they have depicted. It saddens me to see what's happening to this great country.


Tim is sad because of Al Gore.


Al hasn't been as fired up about "Global Warming" since Climatgate broke loose.

Other Images

See Also

External Links

Portal truth.png

Climategate is part of a series on


Visit the Truth Portal for complete coverage.