Climate change scientists' emails hacked

[DarrinS]

A hacker downloaded over 1000 email messages from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre and published them to an anonymous FTP server.

Many of these emails appear to show climate scientists hiding data or using "tricks" to exaggerate temps.

See these links:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/


http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/#comments

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/


An example:



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. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

[Wild Cobra]

A hacker downloaded over 1000 email messages from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre and published them to an anonymous FTP server.

Many of these emails appear to show climate scientists hiding data or using "tricks" to exaggerate temps.

See these links:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/


http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/#comments

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/


An example:
Well, those of us who are reasonable knew they were doing something shady. Hope this is real proof, and not someone attacking lies with lies.

[Wild Cobra]

I found and downloaded the 61.93 MB zip file. Going to carefully scan it before opening though.

climate audit whistleblower FOIA wuwt FOI2009.zip (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY)

[DarrinS]

I found and downloaded the 61.93 MB zip file. Going to carefully scan it before opening though.

climate audit whistleblower FOIA wuwt FOI2009.zip (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY)


Thanks for the link, but that site tried to dowload some spyware to my PC. AVG was able to block it, so no problem.

[jack sommerset]

Idiots voting for a politicain because of climate control makes me fucking sick to my stomach.

[Wild Cobra]

Thanks for the link, but that site tried to dowload some spyware to my PC. AVG was able to block it, so no problem.
I never trust download sites. My initial scan of the file is clean. As for spyware, I didn't have any alarms, but I have then silenced. Still, I think I'll do an update and scan. Thanx for the note.

[Ignignokt]

Is Cry Havoc appalled?

[jack sommerset]

Is Cry Havoc appalled?

You know he is! He can't believe that there is a thread about this....again.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Is Cry Havoc appalled?

I think he'd be appalled if a leaf came crashing in to the outside of a trash can.

[Wild Cobra]

The first example found, from the extracted zip file, keywords search: "cooling":

from file 0845217169.txt:



The temperature graphs produced at Tornetrask show "pronounced variability on all timescales, from year-on-year variations right up to century-on-century," says Briffa. On the longer timescales, for instance, they show 20 major cooling periods during the past two millenia, including long spells between 500 and 850, between 1100 and 1350 and between 1580 and 1750, the little ice age. There were also long warm spells between 900 and 1100, known as the medieval warm period, and 1360 to 1560. [ed: show graph from NERC paper].

Further back, early results suggest a strong warm era from 4000 to 3300 BC, and a cool period ending around 5070 BC.
Must have been the Flintstones causing all that warming that far back?

[Yonivore]

As this story explodes, I'll be curious to see how many of the Environmental Religionists, in this forum, renounce their articles of faith.

[Ignignokt]

Wow.. Total complete silence by the liberals.

[clambake]

hi

[Yonivore]

I think this should pretty much drive the final nail in the coffin of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change but, alas, Algore and others have too much invested to go down without a fight.

Copenhagen should be a bit more interesting that it was shaping up to be, eh?

[clambake]

why?

[ChumpDumper]

I never really cared a whole bunch about the climate change debate. I'm more concerned with pollution, and some of the remedies for the former happen to be apply to the latter as well.

[Yonivore]

why?
I think the scandal will be fodder for discussion.

[clambake]

I think the scandal will be fodder for discussion.

what will happen?

[Ignignokt]

why?

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

[Yonivore]

I never really cared a whole bunch about the climate change debate. I'm more concerned with pollution, and some of the remedies for the former happen to be apply to the latter as well.
Except for the most costly...Kyoto and reducing CO2, a non-toxic gas necessary for life to exist...and, neither of which addressed pollution.

[Yonivore]

what will happen?
Who knows...but, while I hadn't planned to pay any attention since everyone was pretty much lowering expectations, I might actually check out some of the outbound media to see if there are fireworks.

You don't think this will come up?

[mogrovejo]

Well, those of us who are reasonable knew they were doing something shady. Hope this is real proof, and not someone attacking lies with lies.

They have already admitted the e-mails are genuine.


As this story explodes,It's hilarious to see the attempts of the liberal MSM to brush aside the scandal:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/


Some stuff is completely bizarre:


http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg


...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.


The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !




rom: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK

rom: Gary Funkhouser <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (520) 621-2946
fax: (520) 621-8229

Neil [Plummer, Australia],

There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature.

Regards, David

From: Mick Kelly ([email protected])
To: ([email protected])
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.

MickAre these guys (and basically the most prominent climate change "scientists" are involved) going to be allowed to keep their scam? Are politicians keep being allowed to give taxpayers moneys to these charlatans?

[mogrovejo]

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

If the data doesn't fit the theory, than the data must be wrong.

[mogrovejo]

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/
Collusion, Corruption, Manipulation and Obstruction (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/)



The more I read the more speechless I am.

Do you want to check how much of your money one of this charlatans got? Here it is:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWW UE&hl=en

$22 millions!!

And the way they talk about the money they've fleeced:

From: Tatiana M. Dedkova, Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500 (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1&filename=826209667.txt)
Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.

From: Mick Kelly, Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt)
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN. How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious. Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!

This is something of epic proportions. Isn't there any apologist of this Climate Change Scam in this board? I hope not, not after this.

[mogrovejo]

This is simply amazing:

The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study

http://cdn.powerlineblog.com/archives/twitter16.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=Reading:%20The%20Alarmists%20Do) Share Posthttp://static.powerlineblog.com/img/blank.png (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php#) Printhttp://static.powerlineblog.com/img/blank.png (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php?format=print)
November 21, 2009 Posted by John at 8:18 AM
A fascinating, hot-off-the-presses story emerges from the emails that were hacked yesterday (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024993.php) from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre. It is one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.
The story began when Steve McIntyre, the same researcher who was largely responsible for destroying Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph purporting to show unprecedented warming in the 20th century, turned his attention to a famous article published by Keith Briffa of East Anglia's CRU in 2000. This article analyzed the diameters of tree rings, including rings from an area called Yamal in Siberia, and conveniently generated another hockey-stick shaped graph. You can read an account of the ensuing controversy here (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html). McIntyre's work appeared to show that Briffa had cherry-picked trees in order to get the result he was looking for. One fact that this story highlights is that global warming alarmists publish their results in scientific journals, but refuse to make the underlying data publicly available so that the validity of their analyses can be checked.
McIntyre's revelations caused a firestorm of controversy, in response to which the alarmist community circled its wagons to fend off the threat from an outsider. This process can be clearly seen in the East Anglia emails.
The alarmists' effort to respond to McIntyre was complicated by the fact that Briffa had been ill and undergone surgery, and was then recuperating. So several of them wrote to Briffa's co-author, Tim Osborn, for advice on how to respond to McIntyre's critique. Osborn replied on September 29, 2009:

Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month ....
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil....
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this....
So: these scientists don't really have any idea whether McIntyre's critique of Briffa's work is correct or not. Even Briffa's co-author professes ignorance. There is one person they could approach who could "shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal." But they don't do it. Why? Because "he can be rather a loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted...." In other words, his loyalty to the cause of climate alarmism may not be absolute. This is much like the case noted here (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024993.php) where Michael Mann, one of the recipients of the above email, warns against sharing information with someone named Andy because he is "not as predictable as we'd like."
Despite having no idea what the facts are, the alarmists don't hesitate to formulate a position. Thus, on the next day, September 30, Osborn writes:

Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc. in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
That's good enough for Osborn's fellow alarmists. Michael Mann replies:

great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues, i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.
Note that the alarmists are willing to denounce McIntyre's work as "not legitimate science" even though, at this point, they still have no idea whether his analysis was right or wrong. That is not, however, what they tell the outside world. On September 29, Andrew Revkin, environmental reporter for the New York Times, wrote to Mann asking about McIntyre's critique:

needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct?
Mann, ignorant of the facts, responds by slandering McIntyre:

Hi Andy, I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.

It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method), let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming is anomalous in a long-term context.
So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual information content of these data.
Given what is said in the other emails, that last attack on McIntyre appears to be simply fabricated out of whole cloth. Mann concludes by buttering up Revkin:

Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
Of course not! Revkin replies, "Thanks heaps."
At the same time they were issuing these assurances to outsiders, however, the alarmists' internal communications were much more equivocal. On September 30, the day after he corresponded with Revkin, Mann asked Tim Osborn to confirm that a key 2006 paper co-authored by Osborn and Briffa was untainted by what is implicitly acknowledged to be Briffa's bad Yamal data:

And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?).
Osborn's reply is hedged at best, and includes a rather insouciant admission that he is "amazed" that the journal Science agreed to publish his paper in the first place:

Mike,
yes, you're right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It's attached.
I wouldn't say we were immune to the issue -- results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3 out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies.
Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we're just counting proxies -- I'm still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!
:-)).

But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is 100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just "likely" that modern is warmer than M[edieval] W[arm] P[eriod]. ...
So, this Yamal thing doesn't damage Osborn & Briffa (2006), but important to note that O&B (2006) and others support the "likely" statement rather than being conclusive.
Cheers
Tim
Another member of the climate alarmist cabal, Tom Wigley, gave this darker assessment of Briffa's errors with regard to the tree ring data on October 5. Note in particular his concern about the alarmists' practice of withholding data from public review:

Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. ...
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less often that M&M say -- but where did they get their information? I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of[f].
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
This strikes me as a damning commentary on the entire alarmist enterprise. Meanwhile, not only are Briffa's data flawed and seemingly cherry-picked, the assumptions on which the tree-ring studies are based may be bogus in the first place. The email collection includes these two messages from a plant scientist, both within the last 60 days:

Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell. However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers.
As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009). As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the "Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner.
Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers. As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science.
There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller.
Tree ring studies are vitally important to the conclusions reached by the U.N.'s IPCC report, which is the main foundation for the claim that anthropogenic global warming has been "proved." That being the case, one would think that Briffa, one of the two or three primary authors of the tree ring studies, would have a ready response to these very basic questions. But no: he did not reply to Dr. Keiller's email. That prompted this second inquiry from Dr. Keiller:

Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology; ([5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm) and the chronology itself; ([6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/)
Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre ([7]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588) Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions
1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?
2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low individual weighting?
And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my initial email.
Dr. D.R. Keiller
Again, one might assume that if the science surrounding global warming is settled, the alarmists would have good answers to such basic questions, and certainly would be willing to engage in debate in a spirit of open-minded inquiry. Such, however, is not the case. Phil Jones of East Anglia advised Briffa against trying to respond to the plant scientist on October 20:

Keith,
There is a lot more there on CA now. [I'm pretty sure CA is Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org/), a web site where McIntyre posts.] I would be very wary about responding to this person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.
You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now. [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments
This is what happens - they just keep moving the goalposts. Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.
Cheers
Phil
As far as I can tell from the email archive, Briffa never did respond to the plant scientist. Jones's email warning Briffa to be "very wary about responding to this person now having seen what McIntyre has put up" was written just three weeks ago. It, along with the rest of the email archive, makes an utter mockery of the alarmists' claim that the science of global warming is settled in their favor.
On the contrary, the conclusion an observer is likely to draw from the CRU archive is that the climate alarmists are making up the science as they go along and are fitting facts to reach a predetermined conclusion rather than objectively seeking after truth. What they are doing is politics, not science. When I was in law school, this story was told about accountants: A CEO is going to hire a new accountant and summons a series of candidates. He asks each applicant, "What is two plus two?" The first two candidates answer, "Four." They don't get the job. The third responds, "What do you want it to be?" He gets hired. The climate alarmists' attitude toward data appears to me much the same as that fictional accountant's attitude toward arithmetic

[sabar]

This was a long time coming. Data never agreed from different sources and the political stakes were huge. You are talking about billions of dollars that impact a ton of areas. Grants to universities, the "green" industry, wind/solar contractors, battery manufacturers, etc. Not to mention the loss in efficiency by swapping coal/oil for wind/solar.

You can't put a bunch of scientists in positions of political power and expect them to be truthful.

[symple19]

Completely hilarious that so many people have bought the Global Warming sham for so long (and many will continue to buy it). Those e-mails are an amazing read. It's amazing how arrogant people can be, and how often that arrogance muddies the water.

[Wild Cobra]

This was a long time coming. Data never agreed from different sources and the political stakes were huge. You are talking about billions of dollars that impact a ton of areas. Grants to universities, the "green" industry, wind/solar contractors, battery manufacturers, etc. Not to mention the loss in efficiency by swapping coal/oil for wind/solar.

You can't put a bunch of scientists in positions of political power and expect them to be truthful.
What really pissed me off was the NASA/GISS data proves the opposite of what these alarmists would say, and some of them worked for these agencies!

Should I tell everyone...

See... I told you so?

[Yonivore]

I suppose they could be waiting for Algoracle to issue the talking points but, I'm encouraged by the lack of apologetics from the Envirowhackos of this forum.

Maybe this is just a bridge too far for them. We can only hope.

[Wild Cobra]

I suppose they could be waiting for Algoracle to issue the talking points but, I'm encouraged by the lack of apologetics from the Envirowhackos of this forum.

Maybe this is just a bridge too far for them. We can only hope.
You have to remember. Their marching orders haven't been issued yet.

[mogrovejo]

What do you want them to say? They're trying to make this about violation of privacy. But there's very little to argue when we're all reading this kind of stuff:


From: Keith Briffa To: [email protected] Subject: Re: quick note on TAR Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007 Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan*. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes
Keith

And from what I've read so far Keith Biffra is actually the "good guy" there - the only one showing some restraint (there are even displays of a "heavy conscience", genuine interest in science and trying to act reasonably). The other guys are complete scum.

In any case, the big problem for them is going to be the FOIA issue. Conspiring to not comply with FOIA can - and should - be subject to criminal procedures.

Still, I hope people finally start to understand that, whatever they believe about GW or MMGW, these guys aren't worthy the label of scientists - and were in fact hurting scientific knowledge. Science is always a co-operative process - no science is made when people simply don't put the data available for others to replicate their results. It will never cease to amaze me that people wanted to reshape the world economy due to studies made by guys who simply wont' provide the raw data on which they based their alleged findings.

[xrayzebra]

Hey Wild Cobra......wonder where old RufNReady is at. At the BS that
wannabe scientist put out. Wonder if he is still peddling his ass on his
bicycle to save the world......:lol

[Crookshanks]

This is from Breitbart

US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved "one step closer" to a "strong operational agreement" on climate change at next month's Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders.
======================
So he's just going to ignore this huge scandal? Where are all the media outlets? Shouldn't this be breaking news on CNN? Do all the global warming kooks really think we're going to believe them on anything? This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

[ElNono]

What scandal? This is hardly news. This feud has been going on for a long time now.

Now, i completely agree that making policy decisions with these theories is bad news. But it's been bad news for a long time now.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Wild Cobra......wonder where old RufNReady is at. At the BS that
wannabe scientist put out. Wonder if he is still peddling his ass on his
bicycle to save the world......:lol
Not a clue, but he claims to be an expert at the subject, so why does an amateur scientist like me run circles around him?

[Wild Cobra]

This is from Breitbart

US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved "one step closer" to a "strong operational agreement" on climate change at next month's Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders.
======================
So he's just going to ignore this huge scandal? Where are all the media outlets? Shouldn't this be breaking news on CNN? Do all the global warming kooks really think we're going to believe them on anything? This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
One step closer and money well spent would be to put USA pollution technology on Asia's coal power plants.

[mogrovejo]

What scandal? This is hardly news. This feud has been going on for a long time now.

Now, i completely agree that making policy decisions with these theories is bad news. But it's been bad news for a long time now.

Really? That's odd. Have you read the e-mails and files available? The feud may have been going for long, but the recent events are of no minor importance.




This is from Breitbart

US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved "one step closer" to a "strong operational agreement" on climate change at next month's Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders.
======================
So he's just going to ignore this huge scandal? Where are all the media outlets? Shouldn't this be breaking news on CNN? Do all the global warming kooks really think we're going to believe them on anything? This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Heh, they've been trying to downplay the issue and counting on the "prestige press" (to quote one of the e-mails) to pretend never happened. They remind me of Nixon in the "I'm not a crook" stage. Anyway:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html


When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn’t work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. “The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this,” he wrote. “IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”


It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren’t averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,” goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Mr. Mann’s main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.


For the record, when we’ve asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he “won’t dignify that question with a response.” Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he “did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,” but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn’t to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann’s work, much less his right to remain silent.


However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

And:


Key GOP Senator Pushes for Probe Into Climate Change Research

by
FOXNews.com

Sen. James Inhofe told the Washington Times in a radio interview Monday that he will press for a probe into whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "cooked the science" to make global warming appear real.


~

A Republican lawmaker is calling for an investigation into whether a U.N. panel "cooked the science" on climate change following the publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails that global warming skeptics say proves the threat is overstated.


Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, told the Washington Times in a radio interview Monday that he will press for a probe into whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (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."


"This thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," the Oklahoma Republican said. (...)

"If these e-mails show there is collusion between scientists, a manipulation of raw temperature figures and pushing out scientists in the process, that would undermine the IPCC," Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Inhofe, told FoxNews.com.

[MannyIsGod]

So scientists are capable of data manipulation too? That's some ground breaking thought - I always considered them saints incapable of doing things that were wrong.

:rolleyes

This should lead to more scrutinization of the work those scientists did and pretty much nothing more. Its far from an indictment on science.

[mogrovejo]

So scientists are capable of data manipulation too? That's some ground breaking thought - I always considered them saints incapable of doing things that were wrong.

:rolleyes

This should lead to more scrutinization of the work those scientists did and pretty much nothing more. Its far from an indictment on science.

Who's saying it is? The point is precisely that these scientists - the most prominent and important proponents of the MMGW model - don't deserve to be called so and haven't been making good science.

Of course, given the fact that public policies were and are, as of now, being designed sustained in the work of these same scientists, the consequences must be more than a deeper scrutinization of the work of these scientists - a re-examination of the policies being pursuit is needed.

[mogrovejo]

stij8sUybx0

[ElNono]

Really? That's odd. Have you read the e-mails and files available? The feud may have been going for long, but the recent events are of no minor importance.

Certain policy has been dictated by sketchy science for a long time now. Not just in the 'global warming' field.

Important? Sure.
New? Not really.

Did you really need to read any of those letters to know that the two camps were doing this? That's why you simply don't base policy on theories.
Something I've been telling anyone that wants to hear for a while now.

[MannyIsGod]

Who's saying it is? The point is precisely that these scientists - the most prominent and important proponents of the MMGW model - don't deserve to be called so and haven't been making good science.

Of course, given the fact that public policies were and are, as of now, being designed sustained in the work of these same scientists, the consequences must be more than a deeper scrutinization of the work of these scientists - a re-examination of the policies being pursuit is needed.

Those scientists are far from a lynch pin in climate change theory. You could easily remove the work they've done and still have a huge collection of work supporting climate change theory.

[mogrovejo]

Certain policy has been dictated by sketchy science for a long time now. Not just in the 'global warming' field.

Important? Sure.
New? Not really.

Did you really need to read any of those letters to know that the two camps were doing this? That's why you simply don't base policy on theories.
Something I've been telling anyone that wants to hear for a while now.

The two camps were doing this?

Do you have any reason to equate - from an ethical and academic perspective - the two camps?

Let's not confuse things: yes, the academic world - even out of high-profile fields like this - can be ruthless and cruel (and generally is). Yes, people can be very mean. Yes, many times we become over-defensive about our models. Yes, often that leads us to not comply with the protocol. Yes, the peer-review system has been broken for awhile. However, these guys went WAY OVER that. Let's not fall in the temptation to make a moral equivalence. Whatever the spin they want to put on it, this isn't "business as usual".

[Spurtacular]

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/076/669/962/original/8253f949aa0c7968.jpg