Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 1, 2009

CRU’s Phil Jones will step down from his position as director of the unit that cooked climate change data to hide global cooling. Britain’s East Anglia University says Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review.

The CRU scandal emerged after anonymous persons gained access to 160 MB of emails and source code. It is uncertain if the evidence implicating Jones and the CRU came from hackers or whistle-blowers.

Lord Monckton, the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and adviser to Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit in the 1980s, went on the Alex Jones Show last week and called from criminal prosecution of Jones and his crew of climate change fraudsters.

In a blog entry posted prior to talking with Alex Jones, Monckton noted how Phil Jones and his co-conspirators “have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings.”

Phil Jones and the CRU have stonewalled FOIA requests demanding access to the data. It is alleged he destroyed evidence in an effort to cover-up the fraud.

On Sunday, the Times Online reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. The CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

On Saturday, the University of East Anglia said that 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been made available to the public for “several years” and that all data will be released as soon as they are clear of non-publication agreements.

Phil Jones told the science journal Nature that he was working to make the data publicly available with the agreement of its owners but this was expected to take some months.

He has called the charges that the emails and source code involve any “untoward” activity “ludicrous.”

Monckton and others dispute the usefulness of this data. “As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up.”

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma has called for an investigation of the CRU and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to Inhofe, the IPCC “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”

Alex Jones and Monckton addressed the climate change fraud and talked about how it will be used to create a global carbon taxing scheme and world government.

Lord Monckton talks with Alex Jones, November 26, 2009:

Further Research

Climategate: CRU Source Code Confirms AGW Fraud From Hacked Documents

CRU Commented Source Code Tells Story

Search the CRU Climate Fraud Emails by Keyword

BBC Climate Correspondent Was Forwarded CRU Emails Five Weeks Before They Were Made Public

Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research

Alex Runs Down Man-made Climate Change Hoax Exposed in CRU Emails

Dr. Tim Ball On the Significance of the CRU Hacked Documents

Climategate Exposes the Alarmist Machine

Lord Monckton: Prosecute the Climate Change Criminals

ClimateGate For Dummies

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Climate Alarmists Finally Admit The Debate Is Not Over

Global Warming Meltdown: Climategate!

Climatic Research Unit Hacked E Mails & Data

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

Climategate Mashup

A Message to the Environmental Movement: Your Movement Has Been Hijacked

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-ringleader-phil-jones-to-step-down/

Jeff Greer
US News & World Report
November 30, 2009

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Among other things, the Watergate scandal of the 1970s gave us a great naming convention for future scandals. Take “Climategate” at Penn State. That’s what people are calling the controversy surrounding leaked E-mails among climate change researchers that climate change opponents say expose the researchers’ falsification of data. One Penn State professor is involved in the scandal.

The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university’s climate change researchers were illegally obtained from a server and posted online, the report says.

Climate change opponents say the E-mails indicate that climate change researchers—including Penn State Prof. Michael Mann—exaggerated or fabricated global warming data. And, according to the report, some E-mails indicate that the director of the research unit in question may have contacted researchers and asked them to “delete certain E-mails.”

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate/

A lot of SME’s (Small to Medium-sized Enterprises) have already embraced the idea of e-marketing, and are welcoming it with open arms. In this post, I am going to tell you why I think that SME’s should invest in e-marketing.

Firstly, a lot of SME’s are tight on cash, and are pouring half of their marketing budget into advertising or direct mail. E-marketing is cheap, and, in my opinion, a lot more effective. Nearly everyone is now using the internet, and that is why companies have started to take advantage of the internet to market their products/services.

The second benefit of e-marketing over traditional marketing is that it is so much easier to track; if you send out an email, you can see who opened it, who clicked which link, etc. If you choose PPC, you can track how many people clicked that. In e-marketing, because you can track your marketing campaigns in more detail, you can see where you are going wrong, and change it.

The third point I am going to discuss with you, before I give you some examples of e-marketing, is the reach of your online campaign. If you were doing a direct mail campaign, for example, how many people do you usually reach? With e-marketing, you have the potential to reach BILLIONS of people; for very little cost.

So, let’s have some examples of e-marketing. First, Social Networking. Social Networking is sites like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, where you interact with people from around the world, and all of these people are potential customers. The idea of a Social Networking campaign is literally just to interact with your prospects, give people some advice, and direct them to your website/blog.

Which brings us onto our second example; blogging. The word blog originated from web log, and that’s exactly what a blog is. Some people use it as an online diary, others to make money, and others use it as a marketing tool. Basically, you write posts, and if you are doing it for marketing purposes, you write about your industry, establishing yourself as an expert. Once your readers start to trust you and consider you an expert in your field, then you start including links to your website in your posts.

Hopefully you found this post helpful, and if you would like any more information on any form of e-marketing, have a look around my blog; if you can’t see what you’re looking for, leave me a comment and I’ll write a post about it.

The recent public fracas over Hone Harawira’s email (read it at tvnz.co.nz) raises a number of interesting issues in relation to Netiquette, the most fundamental being “you should not send heated messages even if provoked.” http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855.

Mr Harawira’s email is now legitimately in the public arena “if you want to take this to the press, go right ahead”  This invitation set aside another piece of netiquette which protects the content of a private email being shared without the sender’s permission… although there may be debate about whether someone in public office responding to a member of the public, has this protection.

Whilst most of us exercise reasonable caution when using email or posting information, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that cyberspace is public space and in a public space people can view and even more importantly copy and manipulate your material in legitimate and not so legitimate ways. Your lack of caution may come back to bite you…hard. So be careful what you post in public and Google or Pipl yourself regularly to check that if there’s anything ‘out there’ about you, that you are not comfortable about it.

 Check for previous articles on this topic in our archives.

It’s painful when your past comes back to bite you in the ass.  What I mean is when past experiences affect current situations.  We all have baggage.  When you pass the ripe old age of 30+ you probably have a lot more baggage.   My ex was a piece of shit. A liar, cheater and a huge manipulator.  Yes I dated him for 2 years and we lived together part of that time.  My reasons for even being with him and staying with him could be blogged about for years, I’ll spare the deets for now, but the lasting affects (is it effect or affects? I can never get it right and I should google it because at least 2 people I know who read this are going to be hella annoyed with improper use of words) are killing me.  When I meet a dude now I immediately give him the 3rd degree about where he works, where he lives, what’s he drive etc….. It’s not because I care whether you lives in a nice place or the projects, whether you drive a bmw or a tercel or even if you work at McDonald’s vs: Intel I simply was lied to for so long that I have a huge problem trusting anyone.   When I read my ex’s, who will now officially be named worst fucking mistake of my life or wfmoml for short, email one day and found out not only had he cheated on me in the past but was currently pursuing several other women I felt like someone had stabbed me in the heart with the biggest fucking knife in the world.  I found out he had a kid.  I found out he didn’t go to school where he said he did. I found out he never worked where he said he worked.  I found out he had a jacked up credit score.  I found out he was fucking other women.  I found out he referred to me as his roommate.  The list is endless.  Even after reading the emails and finding out all the lies I didn’t kick him out for several months.  I made him move to the basement because he begged and pleaded and had no place to go.  I hated coming home.  I hated walking in the door and seeing him on my couch, watching my TV, eating the food I paid for. I fucking hated it.  He ”couldn’t leave” and I wasn’t strong enough to make him leave.  I didn’t believe one word that came out of his mouth.  He could tell me the sky was blue in August and I would still have to walk to the window and double-check.   I violated someones privacy.  I violated MM’s privacy and trust when I read his e/mails.  Who’s to blame?  My ex for making me not trust?  Nope, I am to blame.  I am still giving WFMOML power over me but letting what he did control my behavior in current situations.  I’m working on it.  MM – I am sorry for reading your emails. Apologizing doesn’t make it right or make it go away but I am truly sorry.  - PC

PC

The one thing that kept going through my head this weekend was you reading my e-mails.  I can’t believe you did that.  Those were my private communications with other people.  I wouldn’t even looks at your texts messages when you were writing them right in front of me.  Yet, you felt it was OK to rifle through my e-mails like a prosecuting attorney looking for any semblance of guilt or wrong doing. 
 
It was wrong of you to do that, and then you opine on your blog that you wondered if I was fucking another woman when I was with you when you knew, since you had gone through my e-mail, that I wasn’t. 
 
You have obviously crossed some lines … and I don’t know what to do about all of that.  I’m angry at you for going through my e-mails.  Not angry enough to smash your back window out with a golf club, but angry nonetheless.  
 

MM

I replied

MM

You have every right to be mad at me for that.  I’m sorry.  You didn’t do anything that made me suspicious. It’s 100% my issue and it was wrong.  It was unfair to punish you for past wrongs/hurts done to me by my ex.   I caught him cheating and found out so many lies when he left his e/mail open one day.  You are not him and I did not have the right to do what I did.  I sincerely apologize.  If I could take it back I would.

PC

he replied

PC

Well, since you apologized, it is fine.  I don’t know why I keep them since I never look at them.  I know Thanksgiving sucked for you (per this e-mail … I haven’t looked at your blog and I feel like I shouldn’t, only because you should feel free to write freely without me looking).
 
Anyway, I am putting the e-mail thing in the past.  Life is too short to hang on to anger.  I hope your Christmas is better.

MM

*******  “I hope your Christmas is better.”   (sigh)

This is what a massive scientific hoax looks like.

November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

“Trust us.”  That’s what it all boils down to.

Silly me, but I thought “science” was supposed to amount to something more than that.

Here’s your bottom line: global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is a load of nonsense.  And the only anthropogenic or “man-made” problem is the giant sack of lies that an elitist group of pseudo-scientific ideologues  sold us.

One of the emails simply demonstrates what patently bad “science” global warming has been in the first place.  At its core, science is an endeavor which predicts a certain measurable outcome, and then attempts to determine whether that prediction is verified in nature according to a fair, open, and repeatable process.  Global warming isn’t even close to being science by the very standards of science:

At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:

On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true.

But bad science wasn’t all these global warming alarmists were guilty of.  They were also guilty of making skeptics of their bogus man-caused global warming alarmism modern versions of Galileo (I’ve previously written about this chilling development in postmodernized academia to punish politically “incorrect” academics and scientists).  They used the peer-review process as an ideological club to attack and undermine fellow scientists rather than using it as a means to get at the truth:

Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.

The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.

Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

One article, entitled, how “The Alarmists Do “Science:” A Case Study,” describes just “one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.”  The author provides a fairly lengthy segment of an email conversation that is frankly chilling.

Another article compiles emails under the title, “When In Doubt, Delete,” that documents a pattern of deceptive behavior by people who called themselves “scientists” and yet were more interested in destroying evidence than producing and preserving it.

There are so many emails to go over no single article can do so, but here’s a few tidbits:

From a Powerline article entitled, “Global Warming Bombshell“:

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized “blip” in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). 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.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the “science” up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.

One email from Phil Jones is particularly damning about “scientists” making up their own version of “science” in order to sell an ideology:

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] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

A RealClearPolitics article entitled, “ClimateGate: The Fix Is In” explains what the “trick” is:

Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the “trick” consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature “proxies” from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward “hockey stick” slope.

A “trick” to “hide the decline.”  And these demagogues call US “deniers.”

As loathsome of a collection of frauds as our global warming “scientists” have proven to be, they don’t hold a candle to the mainstream media propagandists who made this colossal hoax possible in the first place – and who are still trying to conceal the fraud even now.

Barack Obama is going to go to Copenhagen to sign some pathologically insane economy-destroying accord because he is a true believer in the religion of liberalism.

And that is what global warming has now been proven to be: a religion.  It is an ideology advanced by religious fanatics.  This latest admission proves they have no raw data; they have no “science”; all they have is a rabid faith commitment that their own self-created narratives must be true because they believe it is true.

I have written a lot of posts about e-marketing, and I realised; I haven’t actually wrote a post about what e-marketing actually is.

So, off we go;

E-marketing (Electronic Marketing) originated in 1995, but has only really taken off this decade. The idea of e-marketing is that you can market your products/services to potential customers over the internet.

Specialists at CESCO came up with a definition of e-marketing;

eMarketing is a generic term utilized for a wide range of activities – advertising, customer communications, branding, fidelity programs etc. – using the internet. More than the simple development of a website, eMarketing focuses on online communications, direct dialog with consumers who thus participate to the creation of new products, finding efficient methods to win customer’s fidelity and ease their business-making process. eMarketing is the sum of activities a company makes with the purpose of finding, attracting, winning and retaining customers.

So; that’s what e-marketing is.

It could be Twitter, where you interact with your potential customers, or using emails, which is again interacting with your prospects, but also advertising to them.

So, there you have it; a brief explanation as to what e-marketing is. Have a look here and here for some examples of e-marketing, and some tips for implementing them.

Logotipo de Google

Los usos y herramientas de Google

La Web 2.0 para acercar a las empresas a su promoción en la red

Las herramientas de la llamada Web 2.0 pueden generar un beneficio para aquellas empresas que deseen utilizarlas y conseguir una adaptación a las funcionalidades de una plataforma que ha conseguido acercar las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TIC) a las personas, instituciones, así como a las sociedades, independientemente de su tamaño, por lo que vamos a analizar sus usos y el beneficio que aportan para darnos a conocer en la red de redes. Por otro lado, como hemos visto a lo largo de la semana, sería interesante cumplir con los requisitos enunciados en las Sesiones Conjuntas, ya que podremos fortalecernos y llegar a nuevos clientes. Los enlaces de interés los iréis recibiendo por correo electrónico y en los diversos Post que publicaremos en el Blog. Y no sólo estamos hablando de posicionamiento, renombrar la marca o mejorar la presencia de los servicios o productos, sino de conseguir crear nuevas vías de comunicación, con el objetivo de coordinar a un grupo de trabajo.

En primer lugar, analizaremos las herramientas y utilidades de Google, aunque no aparecen todas las aplicaciones en la sección de este buscador. Recordemos que esta multinacional ha sacado recientemente otros servicios de posicionamiento, como los que dejamos a continuación:

-Google Search: herramienta para la localización de referencias de personas en Blogs u otras aplicaciones de la Web 2.0.

-Google Knol: actualización de escritos de un profesional con la creación de un perfil en la red.

-Google Wave: aplicación para desarrolladores.

A continuación os dejamos las utilidades de Google:

Buscar

• Académico

Busca documentos académicos

• Alertas

Recibe noticias y resultados de búsquedas por correo electrónico

• Barra Google

Añade un cuadro de búsqueda a tu navegador

• Búsqueda de blogs

Busca blogs sobre tus temas favoritos

• Búsqueda en la web

Busca millones de paginas web

• Búsqueda personalizada

Crea una experiencia de búsqueda personalizada para tu comunidad

• Google Chrome

Un navegador que ofrece rapidez, estabilidad y seguridad

• Desktop

Realiza búsquedas en tu propio equipo

• Earth

Una ventana tridimensional al planeta

• Funcionalidades de búsqueda web

Saca el máximo partido a tus búsquedas

• iGoogle

Añade noticias, juegos y mucho más a tu página de inicio personalizada de Google

• Imágenes

Busca imágenes en la web

• Libros

Realiza búsquedas en libros

• Maps

Direcciones y directorio de negocios

• Noticias

Busca miles de noticias

• Videos

Busca vídeos y carga los tuyos

Explorar e innovar

• Code

Herramientas, APIs y recursos para programadores

• Labs

Prueba nuevos productos Google

Comunicar, mostrar y compartir

• Blogger

Expresa tus opiniones online

• Calendar

Organiza tu agenda y comparte eventos con tus amigos

• Docs

Crea tus proyectos online, compártelos y accede a ellos desde donde estés. Crea tus proyectos online, compártelos y accede a ellos desde donde estés

• Gmail

Correo rápido, con menos spam y con la tecnología de búsqueda de Google

• Grupos

Crea listas de distribución y grupos de debate

• Picasa

Encuentra, edita y comparte tus fotografías

• Google Reader

Recibe los feeds de tus blogs y sitios de noticias favoritos

• Sites

Crea sitios web y wikis de grupos seguras

• SketchUp

Construye modelos 3D de forma rápida y fácil

• Talk

Envía mensajes instantáneos y llama a tus amigos desde tu equipo

• Traductor

Visualiza páginas web en otros idiomas

• YouTube

Ve, sube y comparte vídeos

Apuntarse a la movilidad

• Mobile

Usa Google desde tu teléfono móvil

• Maps para móviles

Consulta mapas y obtén itinerarios en tu teléfono móvil

• Búsqueda

Busca en Google desde tu teléfono móvil

Optimizar el funcionamiento del equipo informático

• Pack

Una colección gratuita de software indispensable

Link en la red:

http://www.google.es/intl/es/options/

A continuación os dejamos las redes sociales más conocidas:

Para más información:

-Herramientas para crear y desarrollar redes sociales:

Ning:

http://www.ning.com/

Social Go:

http://www.socialgo.com/

OpenSocial:

http://www.opensocial.org/

-Redes sociales:

Orkut:

https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=orkut&hl=es&rm=false&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orkut.com%2FRedirLogin.aspx%3Fmsg%3D0%26page%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.orkut.com%252FHome.aspx&cd=US&passive=true&skipvpage=true&sendvemail=false

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/

MySpace:

http://www.myspace.com/

Hi5:

http://hi5.com/

Strands:

http://www.strands.com/

Keteke:

http://www.keteke.com/index.jsp

Xing:

http://www.xing.com

LinkedIn:

http://www.linkedin.com

Tuenti:

http://www.tuenti.com/

Dejaboo:

http://www.dejaboo.net/

Octopop:

http://www.octopop.com/

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/

Sonico:

http://www.sonico.com/

Delicious:

http://delicious.com/

Digg:

http://digg.com/

Netvibes:

http://www.netvibes.com/#General

Friendster:

http://www.friendster.com/index.jsp

Ryze:

http://www.ryze.com/

-Gennio:

http://www.gennio.com/

-Bitácoras:

http://www.bitacoras.com

-Mapa de la Web 2.0:

http://internality.com/web20/

http://wiki.startup2.eu/index.php/Mapa_Web_2.0

Link en la red:

http://jorgehierro.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/las-redes-sociales-en-internet/

Imagen:

http://www.dwym.com/diseno_web.html (JPG).

Otras utilidades:

Google Maps:

http://jorgehierro.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/las-redes-sociales-en-internet/ (Ejemplo en Internet empleando el servicio de Google).

Informes para saber cómo estamos posicionados:

http://www.vexlan.com

http://www.xinureturns.com

http://www.cuwhois.com/

Jorge Hierro Álvarez

Consultoría de Nuevas Tecnologías e Internet

http://www.jorgehierro.es

http://www.jorgehierro.com

http://www.jorgehierro.wordpress.com

http://www.jorgehierro.blogspot.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/jorgehierro

Unos e-mails robados por «hackers» a algunos de los gurús internacionales del cambio climático han desatado una tormenta mediática que ha cruzado todo el planeta.

A menos de dos semanas de que comience en Copenhague la cumbre que debía rubricar la «pax verde», los negacionistas del calentamiento global han encontrado –más que encontrado parece buscado– munición para desmontar el apocalipsis climático. Los escépticos del calentamiento global han aprovechado algunas de las frases extraídas de los mensajes de los prestigiosos científicos para fomentar la teoría conspiratoria que apunta a que algunos investigadores han manipulado sus propias teorías. Lo cierto es que los e-mails son algo más que comprometedores.

Hay transcripciones literales de mensajes en los que los investigadores hablan de «usar trucos para ocultar el descenso de las temperaturas» o que se dejó de utilizar la medición de temperaturas de los anillos de los árboles «porque no confirmaban los datos de los termómetros».

Especialmente señalados por sus textos, que parecen dejar en evidencia a los autores de los mismos, han quedado Phil Jones y Michael Mann. El primero es el director del Climate Research Unit, de la Universidad de East Anglia (una de las instituciones que más informes ha presentado para demostrar la gravedad del calentamiento global). El segundo es uno de los autores más importantes del IPCC (Panel Intergubernamental de la ONU),  y a él se debe la conocida como «curva del palo de hockey que abría el informe de 2001», explica el  climatólogo español Antón Uriarte en su blog.

Los e-mails indiscretos

Entre los más de 62 megas que los hackers han robado y hecho públicos hay afirmaciones excesivamente comprometidas para sus reputados autores. Como por ejemplo un correo electrónico enviado por Phil Jones a Michael Mann en el que se explica lo siguiente: «Acabo de completar el truco de ‘‘Nature’’ de Mike de añadir a las temperaturas reales de cada serie de los últimos 20 años (por ejemplo de 1981 en adelante) y desde 1961 para Keith para ocultar el descenso».

«El mensaje se refiere a a la técnica utilizada para estimar la temperatura del pasado utilizando registros naturales –en este caso los anillos de los árboles–. Estos registros fueron claves para un importante artículo de «Nature» en 1998 que reconstruía la temperatura de los últimos 600 años.

La técnica se extendió después hasta 1.000 años y produjo el famoso gráfico del «palo de hockey», que demostraba que el registro moderno de temperaturas era poco corriente, explican en el periódico británico «The Guardian».

Otro ejemplo es un e-mail enviado por Michael Mann a Phil Jones. «Éste es el  peligro de haber criticado a los escépticos por no publicar en la literatura de “revisión por pares” (varios expertos revisan los textos publicados).

Obviamente, han encontrado la solución: ¡tomar el control de toda la revista! Y ahora, ¿qué hacemos? Creo que tenemos que dejar de considerar “Climate Research” como una revista seria. Quizá debemos alentar a nuestros colegas investigadores que ya no presenten artículos, o citen textos, que hayan aparecido en este revista». En este caso Mann se refiere a un artículo negacionista que se publicó en la revista en 2003 y que ponía en duda el calentamiento global.

Sistema inadecuado

Uno de los correos que más polémica ha levantado lo envía Kevin Trenberth, del Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Atmosféricas (Estados Unidos), a Michael Mann. «El hecho es que no podemos explicar la falta de calentamiento. Es ridículo que no podamos. Los datos Ceres publicados en el suplemento de agosto BAMS 09 en 2008 demuestran que puede haber incluso más calentamiento: pero los datos son ciertamente erróneos. Nuestro sistema de observación es inadecuado».

El e-mail habla de una discusión por e-mail por un artículo on-line de la BBC sobre la aparente bajada del calentamiento global en fechas recientes, que los científicos dicen forma parte de la variabilidad natural y no afecta a los principios del cambio climático. Según el intercambio publicado, Tom Wigley, de la Corporación Universitaria para Investigación Atmosférica, dice que no  está de acuerdo con Kevin Trenberth.

Por último, aunque los ejemplos son innumerables, hay un correo de Jones a Mann en el que se pone en evidencia los textos  científicos que se han admitido en los trabajos del IPCC. «El otro artículo de MM es simplemente basura (otra vez De Freit). No podría ver ninguno de estos artículos en el próximo informe de la IPCC. Kevin y yo les mantendremos fuera de la literatura de calidad, incluso aunque tengamos que redefinirla». Aquí se refieren e dos científicos (MM) que publicaron artículos escépticos en la revista «Climate Research», de la que Freitas era director.

Tras toda la tormenta desatada, Michael Mann reconoció en el «New York Times» que los e-mails son suyos, pero matizó algunas expresiones. «‘‘Truco’’ no es una expresión negativa, en el lenguaje científico se usa como forma de solventar un problema y no como un secreto», explicó Mann al rotativo norteamericano. Una excepción, ya que el resto de científicos implicados han declinado ofrecer una explicación a los medios. La polémica llega a las puertas de la crucial cumbre de Copenhague.

ANÁLISIS:

Una grave denuncia que no debe ocultar un problema científico muy aceptado

- ¿Demuestran los e-mails que el cambio climático es una farsa?
–No deben confundirse las acciones de un grupo  de relevantes científicos con todo el trabajo hecho por el resto de la comunidad internacional. El calentamiento global ha sido admitido por todos los países, tras un trabajo realizado por miles de investigadores y presentado ante la ONU. Poner en duda la existenica del cambio climático y la influencia del hombre en ese proceso es creer en un gran engaño en el que habrían participado todos.

- ¿Se han censurado las investigaciones negacionistas?
–Parece evidente que sí. Cualquier duda sobre el cambio climático o sobre sus teorías más apocalípticas es considerada una herejía interesada por la mayor parte de la opinión pública. Ningún gobierno podría haberles dado crédito sin haber sido lapidado mediáticamente. Quizá sólo hay que  aceptar que el escenario ha podido moverse (la temperatura no está aumentando como se pensaba, dicen algunos estudios).

- ¿Hay importantes intereses económicos en juego?
–Sin duda. Las negociaciones entre los distintos países se estancan no por criterios científicos, sino por problemas de financiación y desarrollo. En la próxima Cumbre de Copenhague parece que no saldrá un acuerdo que obligue a reducir emisiones de CO2. No hay consenso sobre quién pagará los costes, nadie quiere.

- ¿Hay que actuar ya?
–Los científicos y políticos dicen que sí. Entonces, ¿por qué parece tan difícil un acuerdo en un tema que supone una amenaza global? ¿Se lo creen?

Fuente:    LARAZON

While I have only had about an hour to comb through this mountain of correspondence in the controversial emails, I did happen to come across some very interesting information to say the least. I understand there will be some who say these segments have been “taken out of context”, and for this reason I have linked to the entire package of emails HERE (East Anglia Emails). Below, is some of what I have found so far:

Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced “greenhouse effect” of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the “signal” of human influence.

As I read through the emails I am struck by the overwhelming sense that these researchers are looking only for information that might support the GHG effect on Global Warming rather than searching to understand what is really taking place.

Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that “the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world”. If they are they “might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case.”

This entry was speaking to a piece published in the journal, The Holocene. In this work, Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography points out:

they do not include vital “forcing” mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.

The thing I am most shocked by is how utterly arbitrary the methods seem to be for collecting data. Moreover, how factors like solar cycles, El Nino and volcanic eruptions could be overlooked in the process of understanding and interpreting the previously gathered data.

Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated “the detection of climate change and attribution of causes”. It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. “We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter,” says Barnett. “We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in.” Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline “Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming”.

In this section, Barnett ‘warned repeatedly’ how great uncertainties remained. In addition, Barnett had to fight with the IPCC to keep these warnings from being deleted. Further, I find it amazing that with all these warnings the New York Times still led off with the headline, “Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming”. Did they? Or was no one listening?

Should you have the time, ‘End of Empire-Propaganda and the American Myth’ offers a brilliant perspective on how Americans are longing for the garbage our Government has been serving up at the ‘all you can eat’ buffet of lies. Enjoy, I sure did.

Maybe it was the references to the Deltas and Kappas that got my attention, or the image of cap and trade legislation as a teetering Jenga tower on the verge of collapse.

Regardless, this piece in the New York Post wins Working the Hill’s award for the best “outside the beltway” column on ClimateGate and the scandal’s potential for putting cap and trade into the deep freeze.

It may not be the biggest scandal since Watergate. But what appeared to be a clear path to massive cap-and-trade legislation just a few months ago now resembles a Jenga tower, and the scandal looks like the tile that will bring the whole thing down. 

The British scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University and their correspondents, some of them American, apparently conspired to delete evidence to escape required public disclosure; fudged and buried data; tried to lock out skeptics seeking to publish non-alarmist research; and even wanted to “beat the crap out of” a skeptical scientist. 

“It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow,” said environmentalist writer George Monbiot in The Guardian. The e-mails “could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.”

Adam Murdock, M.D.
Infowars
November 29, 2009

As a physician and as one that has conducted research and published in peer-reviewed journals, I am intimately connected to the scientific world and the scientific process. The scientific process requires a complete objectivity, a complete reliance on the data. It does not rely on what politicians think, or what the supposed majority of other scientists believe, or even upon what was thought to be proven in the past. It requires continual scrutiny and a stubborn willingness to be critical of everything proven and unproven. At times this stubborn willingness to continually analyze and reanalyze established beliefs places the scientific world in disarray as new beliefs replace old. What marks someone as a true scientist is a willingness to let go of previously held beliefs when the facts turn in another direction, even at expense of one’s established research, reputation, and tenure.

A scientific dictatorship occurs when this willingness to follow the data is disregarded and replaced with political correctness, consensus, economic motives, or personal hopes and aspirations. This dictatorship which attempts to suppress alternative viewpoints or theories is merely an attempt to make a scientist’s own selfish view preeminent at the expense of the scientific process and sometimes the truth. Inevitably, this dictatorship uses tactics like vilification, name calling, discrimination, and sometimes even threats of physical incarceration or violence in order to enforce the accepted dogma.

There are no greater examples of this than the ordeal of scientists that challenged the belief that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The scientists that challenged the existing scientific aristocracy or dictatorship of the time were often incarcerated and even sometimes put to death. If true scientists like Copernicus and Galileo and their counterparts lived in a world filled with true followers of the scientific process they might have encountered some initial skepticism but would not have suffered like they did. True scientists would have evaluated the evidence that they presented and quickly have come to the same conclusion themselves. The fact that this didn’t happen was evidence of an over-arching scientific dogma or dictatorship at that time. Their theories threatened the position, theories, and power of the existing scientific elite of their day.

The same type of scientific dogma or dictatorship exists in the world today. There are many examples of modern scientists that have challenged the accepted scientific dogma. Oftentimes, they have had to surmount tremendous obstacles and go to great lengths to prove they were right.

It was only twenty years ago that two Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall implicated a bacteria, Helicobacter pylori, as the causative agent in many intestinal ulcers. Prior to 1982, the predominant theory for the cause of ulcers was overproduction of stomach acid. The prevailing wisdom of the time was that if only stomach acid could be reduced then ulcers could be controlled. Of course, this would lead to lifelong treatments for acid suppression. When these two scientists proposed a simple bacterium as the cause, which could be eradicated with a simple antibiotic cocktail, they were more than met with initial skepticism – they were mocked and ridiculed. It was only because of tireless persistence on their part, which included ingesting the very causative organism in question and testing their hypothesis on themselves, that eventually the established dogma began to subside.

Along the same lines it is within the last twenty years the cyclo-oxygenase type 2 (COX-2) inhibitors like the infamous Vioxx were touted as the new anti-inflammatory medications for this generation. They would replace similar medications like Ibuprofen and Advil. When evidence surfaced that these medications may be causing increased incidences of heart attacks and deaths, they were forced off the market. Unfortunately, because the company and its’ scientists had great reputations, profits, and careers at stake it may have taken 3 years after the associations with heart attacks were discovered before the drug was removed from the market. It is not clear how many people have suffered the ultimate consequence for scientists letting ulterior motives cloud scientific purity.

This brings to me to the most important issue of our day – the debate over whether climate change is related to man-made green house gases or if it is related to natural processes such as sun-spot cycles. While it is not the purpose of this article to discuss the science around this discussion in detail, what can be illuminated is the presence of a dogmatic scientific bureaucratic dictatorship that has one particular view in mind at the expense of all others. This view contends that mankind is responsible for

global warming, the inevitable consequence of which will be a collapse of the earths vital ecosystems. In order to stop man and the collapse of the earth, the global scientific and political dictatorship would have the first world nations dramatically reduce their production of green-house gases. This will be accomplished by the cap-and-trade system, which would de-industrialize, depopulate, and subjugate the peoples of Europe and America and transfer their wealth to the third world and to the sponsors and ministers of the system.

As the EU President Herman Von Rompuy recently put it:

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

It is clear from this statement that the climate agenda goes hand in hand with the plan for global governance. In fact, it may serve as the key stone to the foundation of just such a superstate. It is precisely because the globalists are using this issue as the means for attaining their long sought after dominion that the climate change debate is the most important issue of this generation.

What about the science that is being used as one of the stepping stones to global governance? Has global temperature really been increasing in lock-step with carbon-dioxide emissions?

Climate change skeptics have recently challenged the assumption of climate change fanatics by pointing out that the global temperature doesn’t appear to have continued to rise over the past decade or more, despite a continued surge in carbon-dioxide emissions. In fact, the temperatures may have decreased slightly. Yet, this information has fallen on seemingly deaf ears in the climate community. Fortunately, the question was recently answered by the climatologist global warming alarmists themselves. In emails that were leaked from the bastion of climate activism, the climate research unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, are some really startling yet somehow expected revelations about the real data, propaganda, intimidation, and fraud perpetrated by the climate change scientific community.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

In fact, in response to a recent skeptical article entitled “Whatever happened to Global Warming” by Paul Hudson, a BBC weatherman, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report commented within the private leaked emails:

“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.”

In commenting about Hudson’s piece, climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University added:

“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”

What is clear from the conservations in these emails is that not only is the science not settled but there was a systematic attempt by these scientists to keep any contrary viewpoints out of the media, published literature, and the political arena. Does this sound like people genuinely seeking after truth or just scientists trying to protect their own turf, reputations, and agenda – whatever the cost?

In another email, the director of the East Anglia climate center, Phil Jones, suggested that we:

“will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This email highlights a very important but little understood point outside of academic circles. Central to life of an academic researcher is their ability to publish peer-reviewed papers in to the literature. Often times, the amount of published material they produce correlates with their ability to become tenured and to continue to receive grants. What is particularly disturbing about these emails is they demonstrate a willingness to destroy other people’s lives by making it difficult for them to publish.

An example of this scientific shakedown by these supposed scientists occurs in email by Michael Mann that suggests destroying a journal that dared publish these alternative viewpoints. He writes:

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

In another of the emails, Tim Wigley says that pressure should be applied to a particular journal, Climate Research, to fall in line with the established climate change order. He writes that the publisher needed to be more concerned with how publishing alternative viewpoints, or as he puts it “misinformation,” would be “perceived.” He added: “whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about– it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.”

This scientific witch hunt is vaguely reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. It is not about the truth of their ideas, it is about the opposition. If it takes destroying their opponents’ careers in order to perpetuate their climate fraud, then they seem perfectly willing to do it. Another excerpt demonstrates this career-destroying intention of theirs. In a comment about James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal:

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted”

In response to these vicious attacks, one of the subjects of some of the emails, Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, said in response that: “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

To add insult to injury these very same scientists also write about their attempts to fraudulently distort their own data so they can continue the charade. In another email by Phil Jones the truth about the agenda comes out. It turns out they are more worried about the climate agenda going forward than what their data actually shows. If they have to distort the data then they will do what it takes. He writes:

“In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.”

In another email they write:

“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.”

Here we sit on the verge of subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of global government in the name of protecting the planet. Now that the truth has been established and the hypocrisy and error revealed, let us press our congressman and senators before it is too late. In a matter of a couple weeks the most important conference of our lifetimes will convene in Copenhagen in order to decide our fate. I urge you with all the energies of my heart; let us pull down the global warming false idol worshippers and their climate dictatorship while we still have time.

Adam Murdock, M.D. is founder of The Freemen Institute, www.freemeninstitute.com.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/a-call-to-action-stop-the-climate-scientific-global-dictatorship/

********************************************************************

NEW MMACO MAIL SUBMITTER

********************************************************************

This may be the answer for 2010, what do you think?

Every Internet Marketer, anyone trying to build a business or really, trying to do anything at all on line is ALWAYS after people to view what they have to offer.

This can be the hardest thing for many experienced marketers and newbies alike. Getting their message ‘out there’ to as many new and interested people as they can.

If your fortunate enough to have enough money and spend thousands of dollars on paid advertising and that includes Google, then no-probs.

BUT

If your trying to do it the cheapest way you can, with something that has proven results, a targeted market,  there are  a few different ways to advertise free.

SafeLists are one of the easiest and most popular ways of letting everyone know what you have to offer. They are simple to set up. Can cost you nothing but your time and you have the reassurance that your emails are not going to be classed as spam.

There are so many SafeLists out there.

Which one do you choose and which one’s work the best?

You can join as many as you want to but filling them ALL out, setting up your mail, changing the emails for every new offer, this can take some serious time.

Time that you could be spending else where.

This is why this new offer from AMMACO is just so brilliant.

MMACO is the hosting company to some 600+ Safelists.

They have been accepted to interface with the CFG Databanks (CFG is a well-known, brick-n-mortar, marketing firm well established since 1965 ).

This Databank contains some 50,000,000 email addresses of paid business opportunity prospects. (fifty million!)

Once MMACO Mail is in full launch, there will be THREE such databanks!!

That’s 150,000,000 or (one hundred fifty million if you got lost in the zeroes!)

This is now in PRE-LAUNCH so you need to get you membership in NOW

This will be implemented in phases in the coming months and no emails will be sent UNTIL certain membership levels have been reached.

If you do, you are reserving your spot in the NEW MMACO MAIL SUBMITTER for only $5.

PLUS RIGHT NOW, you will receive a referral link which will pay you $2.00 INSTANTLY to your PayPal account  for every sign-up you bring in!

Price will go to $14.99 monthly once the required membership is met!

So if you get in now you’ll not only be able to save money, – NO MONTHLY FEES – BUT you’ll also be able to Make some $$’s as well !

Then you will be able to send your ads to EACH DATABASE daily!
That’s a TOTAL OF 3 DATABASES!

150,000,000 SafeList members daily !! Now who in their right mind would want to miss this opportunity?

Don’t miss the boat with this one.

It will only save you money because latter you WILL want to join.

Who wouldn’t? Being able to send your emails and business opportunities to over 150 Million double opt in safe list members.

You’ll never need to spend money on advertising again.

http://vur.me/Louise61/150Million

To Your Success

Louise Cardow
MMACO Submitter~Founding Member
Louise.Cardow@Gmail.com

Sending Valuable Information to the Wrong Person can be very Costly, Dangerous, and or cause you to lose your low or high paying Job, and maybe even lose you entire Career.

Sending a Message or Mail to the Wrong Person

Don’t you hate it when you finally realize that you sent someone the wrong information?

This happened to me many times, which included valuable content that wasn’t meant for that particular person to see.

However, it hasn’t happened to me for a while, and will never happen again because I’m now able to retrieve or delete those emails before and after my email arrive or gets to the receiver’s in-box or mailbox by using this new 21st Century Email Technology.

You can find more details about it at http://mailbox.eCa.sh/protectemails