The Warmergate Scandal

[Ravi]

An interesting question posed at Free Republic - should Al Gore and all conspirators be brought up on charges? Hmmmmm....
___

With the global warming scandal- will Al Gore now be brought up on charges?


Posted on Friday, November 20, 2009 258 PM by sadsacke

With all of the breaking news regarding the global warming/climate change scam- is there a possibility Al Gore could be imprisoned the way Bernie Madoff was? I don't see much difference in what the two men have done.



With the global warming scandal- will Al Gore now be brought up on charges?

Jesus, I should have known you and Dude were idiot freepers.

 

[concept]

It could show that a hacker with an agenda is the one being unscrupulous, and criminal, btw, and if so he should be arrested.

I see you've also failed to read the piece in the OP, where it's clearly stated, and has been reiterated in big red letters, that that it's an insider who rolled over and not an outside hacker who leaked these e-mails.

But I've decided to be a little sensitive and overlook these little failures on your part, and not speculate on why that is.

An insider is still a hacker when he or she takes from his employer, D'uh.

Uhh no.

 

[Annie]

A blog from October indicating a scandal regarding the IPCC collusion to skew the actual temperature data - which in turn skewed the entire man-made global warming debate...

____

The Hockey Stick Global Warming Scandal: Did The IPCC Encourage Scientific Fraud? Did The IPCC Ignore More Comprehensive Research?

Read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for background information on the latest developments of this climate science scandal. Based on available information, are we witnessing a massive scientific fraud endeavor that has UN backing? If you do not have......

...

C3: The Hockey Stick Global Warming Scandal: Did The IPCC Encourage Scientific Fraud? Did The IPCC Ignore More Comprehensive Research?

Unreal. Even I a serious non-scientific sort of person was able to understand those studies.

Dude is right, this is a major scandal for the scientific community in general, climate folks in particular.

 

[concept]

Notice the angle Ravi is going for here?

This must be the talking point/marching orders that libs have so far.


Calling whomever did this a hacker.
Yes hacking is bad. We all know this.

However it is looking like it was a disgruntled employee or sometihng like that.


We'll continue to see this angle by moonbats like Ravi because it is the best way they can think of the deflect from what was actually found.

 

[Sinatra]

A blog from October indicating a scandal regarding the IPCC collusion to skew the actual temperature data - which in turn skewed the entire man-made global warming debate...

____

The Hockey Stick Global Warming Scandal: Did The IPCC Encourage Scientific Fraud? Did The IPCC Ignore More Comprehensive Research?

Read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for background information on the latest developments of this climate science scandal. Based on available information, are we witnessing a massive scientific fraud endeavor that has UN backing? If you do not have......

...

C3: The Hockey Stick Global Warming Scandal: Did The IPCC Encourage Scientific Fraud? Did The IPCC Ignore More Comprehensive Research?

Unreal. Even I a serious non-scientific sort of person was able to understand those studies.

Dude is right, this is a major scandal for the scientific community in general, climate folks in particular.

Indeed - there has been growing opposition within the academic community against the tyranny of the climate change proponents. The Mann hockey stick has been disputed for years - Mann originally refused to release his actual data - then revised his "hockey stick", at which time more and more were able to discover the deception of his calculations.

The frustration for so many was the mainstream media's unwillingness to relay these conflicts going on within the ongoing climate change debate - figures like Al Gore were allowed to state, "The debate is over..." when in fact it was just the opposite. The debate was getting increasingly volatile.

Add to this the hundreds of millions that Wall Street had then invested in the Go Green movement, which was tied directly to the climate change issue, and getting the message of dissention on the actual science was even more difficult to transmit. When GE owns an entire network, with NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC all parroting the climate change mantra in the hopes of an investment of hundreds of millions will result in returns of hundreds of billions, the disparity between truth and manipulation is clear. George Soros, Goldman Sachs, Google, and on and on - these individuals and business entities were, and will remain, working hard to ensure they do not lose their investment. Cap and Trade is the big payoff, with secondary earnings coming from Go Green industries, public relations, etc. The entire industry would collect TRILLIONS in future earnings - to say nothing of the considerable increase in the size of centralized government - which of course appeals to politicians who believe government always knows better than the individual.

These emails may prove not to be just a smoking gun, but an entire barrage of firearms blowing holes in this plan for increased centralized government power and big time profits...

 

[Oddball]

Uh huh...who has access to everyone's emails? Probably the boss and the IT department...and the IT department doesn't have the legal right to leak internal documents. So unless it is the boss, it is a hacker.

Just admit you didn't read the criteria described in the link and that you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's the honest thing to do and you'll look like less of a fool.

Jesus, I should have known you and Dude were idiot freepers.

Feel free to go through my posts and point out when I ever sourced, or even visited, Free Republic.

Take your time...We can wait.

 

[Sinatra]

Uh huh...who has access to everyone's emails? Probably the boss and the IT department...and the IT department doesn't have the legal right to leak internal documents. So unless it is the boss, it is a hacker.

Just admit you didn't read the criteria described in the link and that you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's the honest thing to do and you'll look like less of a fool.

Jesus, I should have known you and Dude were idiot freepers.

Feel free to go through my posts and point out when I ever sourced, or even visited, Free Republic.

Take your time...We can wait.

Don't bother with the likes of Ravi Dude - you are far too mighty to even shrug at the likes of He/She...

 

[Ravi]

Uh huh...who has access to everyone's emails? Probably the boss and the IT department...and the IT department doesn't have the legal right to leak internal documents. So unless it is the boss, it is a hacker.

Just admit you didn't read the criteria described in the link and that you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's the honest thing to do and you'll look like less of a fool.

Jesus, I should have known you and Dude were idiot freepers.

Feel free to go through my posts and point out when I ever sourced, or even visited, Free Republic.

Take your time...We can wait.

You're the one that looks like the fool. Again, if the person that took the information didn't have the authority to do so they are guilty of hacking, at least under US law.

Hacking is the deliberate and unauthorized access, use, disclosure, and/or taking of electronic data on a computer and is covered under federal and varied state criminal statutes. The computer crime of hacking is committed when a person willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has such authorization, attempts or achieves access, communication, examination, or modification of data, computer programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.

Hacking may also occur when a person willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has such authorization, destroys data, computer programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network. Besides the destruction of such data, hacking may also be defined to include the disclosure, use or taking of the data. commits an offense against intellectual property.

Computer Crime Law & Legal Definition

 

[Ravi]

Notice the angle Ravi is going for here?

This must be the talking point/marching orders that libs have so far.


Calling whomever did this a hacker.
Yes hacking is bad. We all know this.

However it is looking like it was a disgruntled employee or sometihng like that.


We'll continue to see this angle by moonbats like Ravi because it is the best way they can think of the deflect from what was actually found.

It doesn't matter to me either way. I'm not convinced on global warming in either direction. I'm just laughing at Dud.

 

[Oddball]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3foXJfWlgoM&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Annie]

Uh huh...who has access to everyone's emails? Probably the boss and the IT department...and the IT department doesn't have the legal right to leak internal documents. So unless it is the boss, it is a hacker.

Just admit you didn't read the criteria described in the link and that you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's the honest thing to do and you'll look like less of a fool.
Feel free to go through my posts and point out when I ever sourced, or even visited, Free Republic.

Take your time...We can wait.

You're the one that looks like the fool. Again, if the person that took the information didn't have the authority to do so they are guilty of hacking, at least under US law.

Hacking is the deliberate and unauthorized access, use, disclosure, and/or taking of electronic data on a computer and is covered under federal and varied state criminal statutes. The computer crime of hacking is committed when a person willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has such authorization, attempts or achieves access, communication, examination, or modification of data, computer programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.

Hacking may also occur when a person willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has such authorization, destroys data, computer programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network. Besides the destruction of such data, hacking may also be defined to include the disclosure, use or taking of the data. commits an offense against intellectual property.

Computer Crime Law & Legal Definition

Ravi, you know I'm not going to agree with your pov. With that said, assuming you're correct and it was an inside 'hack', does the substance make you just a wee bit uncomfortable?

 

[Ravi]

Just admit you didn't read the criteria described in the link and that you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's the honest thing to do and you'll look like less of a fool.
Feel free to go through my posts and point out when I ever sourced, or even visited, Free Republic.

Take your time...We can wait.

You're the one that looks like the fool. Again, if the person that took the information didn't have the authority to do so they are guilty of hacking, at least under US law.

Hacking is the deliberate and unauthorized access, use, disclosure, and/or taking of electronic data on a computer and is covered under federal and varied state criminal statutes. The computer crime of hacking is committed when a person willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has such authorization, attempts or achieves access, communication, examination, or modification of data, computer programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.

Hacking may also occur when a person willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has such authorization, destroys data, computer programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network. Besides the destruction of such data, hacking may also be defined to include the disclosure, use or taking of the data. commits an offense against intellectual property.

Computer Crime Law & Legal Definition

Ravi, you know I'm not going to agree with your pov. With that said, assuming you're correct and it was an inside 'hack', does the substance make you just a wee bit uncomfortable?

Nope...I don't care either way. IMO, pollution hurts the planet and us...I've no problem with limiting it. You don't have to be a global warming believer to know that pollution is bad, and you have to be mildly retarded to believe that we are incapable of harming the environment.

 

[Oddball]

Nope...I don't care either way. IMO, pollution hurts the planet and us...I've no problem with limiting it. You don't have to be a global warming believer to know that pollution is bad, and you have to be mildly retarded to believe that we are incapable of harming the environment.

So, faking evidence, destroying contrary evidence, collusion and destroying the careers of those who differ with your POV is OK, as long as it meets with your particular political agenda.

Just wow.

 

[Annie]

You're the one that looks like the fool. Again, if the person that took the information didn't have the authority to do so they are guilty of hacking, at least under US law.
Computer Crime Law & Legal Definition

Ravi, you know I'm not going to agree with your pov. With that said, assuming you're correct and it was an inside 'hack', does the substance make you just a wee bit uncomfortable?

Nope...I don't care either way. IMO, pollution hurts the planet and us...I've no problem with limiting it. You don't have to be a global warming believer to know that pollution is bad, and you have to be mildly retarded to believe that we are incapable of harming the environment.

No shit! How many do you think on the contrarian pov think pollution is 'bad?' I know I do. I recycle, lots. I also bring my green bags to grocery. I buy environmental friendly products, though I suspect they may not be, but it's 'the thought that counts.' Right?

 

[eots]

You're the one that looks like the fool. Again, if the person that took the information didn't have the authority to do so they are guilty of hacking, at least under US law.
Computer Crime Law & Legal Definition

Ravi, you know I'm not going to agree with your pov. With that said, assuming you're correct and it was an inside 'hack', does the substance make you just a wee bit uncomfortable?

Nope...I don't care either way. IMO, pollution hurts the planet and us...I've no problem with limiting it. You don't have to be a global warming believer to know that pollution is bad, and you have to be mildly retarded to believe that we are incapable of harming the environment.

you are missing the fact they will take your pollution is bad sentiments and use them to control you ..tax you and profit from you..and other than that it will be business as usual

 

[Ravi]

Nope...I don't care either way. IMO, pollution hurts the planet and us...I've no problem with limiting it. You don't have to be a global warming believer to know that pollution is bad, and you have to be mildly retarded to believe that we are incapable of harming the environment.

So, faking evidence, destroying contrary evidence, collusion and destroying the careers of those who differ with your POV is OK, as long as it meets with your particular political agenda.

Just wow.

Where did I say any of that? I made my position clear further up the thread of the two things these emails could mean.

No offense, but you're peeing your pants with glee over a few perhaps unethical scientists and making it sound like their is a world wide conspiracy on climate science.

And you want us to believe you aren't partisan.

 

[Anguille]

And you want us to believe you aren't partisan.

The p word. Thye hate that.

 

[Oddball]

No offense, but you're peeing your pants with glee over a few perhaps unethical scientists and making it sound like their is a world wide conspiracy on climate science.

And you want us to believe you aren't partisan.

First of all, I'm not "peeing my pants with glee".

Secondly, these few "scientists" are in the inner circle of "peers" who review and validate each others' work and numbers. If you have a number of people, however relatively few, supplying faulty information to everyone else, who subsequently base their further efforts on those bogus numbers, you have a BIG problem brewing.

This is what happens when you get your "science" from echo chambers.

 

[eots]

Nope...I don't care either way. IMO, pollution hurts the planet and us...I've no problem with limiting it. You don't have to be a global warming believer to know that pollution is bad, and you have to be mildly retarded to believe that we are incapable of harming the environment.

So, faking evidence, destroying contrary evidence, collusion and destroying the careers of those who differ with your POV is OK, as long as it meets with your particular political agenda.

Just wow.

Where did I say any of that? I made my position clear further up the thread of the two things these emails could mean.

No offense, but you're peeing your pants with glee over a few perhaps unethical scientists and making it sound like their is a world wide conspiracy on climate science.

And you want us to believe you aren't partisan.

it is not as difficult as you think for a realitvly small group of indivduals with control of the media and billions and billions of dollars to create a so -called world wide conspiracy... as jensen said so well.....there is no world wide anymore ...There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

American Rhetoric: Movie Speech

"Network" (1976)

 

[Oddball]

More stuff (Thanks Ame®icano):

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

A zillion of mostly supportive comments after that one. Most notable is the author's right at the top:

Feels like you’re perched on top of a rocket James – thrilling stuff!

Yep. I was feeling that way in Brussels at Roger Helmer’s sceptics conference on Wednesday. It’s a journalist’s dream: having the weight of evidence on your side and the public mood behind you, yet simultaneously being in the position where you’re thought of as some bold, maverick contrarian flying in the face of the Establishment.

And, because we know the wackaloons love them so much, as story from Fox:

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com