Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

Originally posted by rizla
That about sums it up for the Deniers. Not just for this thread and this story, but for the whole non-debate.

For most rational people, the fact that private and personal emails from a group supposedly involved in a conspiracy of thousands of scientists over decades provide nothing but a load of hot-air and quote-mining would be pretty indicative of the situation - just a group of scientists attempting to go about their business (whilst under siege by politically motivated hacks and shills).

But, yeah, I'll be patient, the crack ATS denier squad are on the game. Perhaps they'll find something. Keep digging guys! The map to Soros' secret bunker must be in there, lol.

CRU Files Betray Climate Alarmists Funding Hypocrisy

It seems that while scientists who accept funding from oil companies are branded as bought-and-paid-for shills, those financed by renewable energy interests remain unchallenged authorities in their fields. Words can’t adequately express my astonishment

How much funding did the CRU receive from these sources?

But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of “energy agencies” they might put the bite on.

From the American 'Thinker' link

Oh, OK, none. Just potential sources for whatever purposes.

Geez, this is hilarious.

Originally posted by john124
You intend to argue over that issue because that's what the sceptics do - attack climate scientists with baseless arguments intended to draw people's attention away from the fact that they cannot explain themselves why the earth is warming, and so resort to attacking climate scientists instead.

If I'm not mitaken, the emails show those indicted colluding to do the same thing. tisk tisk.

How much has the earth warmed again? Should the climate always stay the same?

Please do read all the way into this instead of just reading RealClimates response and then running with the talking points.

And good job AGAIN dodging the part where to you its ok for climate 'scientists' to jump to conclusions but not their critics.

Originally posted by melatonin
I'll defend them from unfair criticism. That's all. If they have been involved in cooking data I'll help you throw them to the wolves.

Somehow I doubt you or most others would ever admit they did wrong. Further, even if you did have to admit it you'd still support their works aka 'claims', perhaps.

But, yeah, I'll be patient, the crack ATS denier squad are on the game. Perhaps they'll find something. Keep digging guys! The map to Soros' secret bunker must be in there, lol. -Melatonin

Is that all you can come up with? "Keep digging guys!" You sound like a young, rather ignorant person spouting off here. Whatever your reasons to keep sitting in front of your computer and knocking anything that may point to conspiracy here, they aren't because you are just oh so much smarter than the rest of us, that is just plain obvious. Dude, people know business practices and business ethics, and these emails don't fit in that catagory. If I or anyone I know in the science world at our corporations were to write these kinds of emails, we'd be fired. Emails are monitored these days, and even if they weren't, these are just not professional. The lack of professionalism in itself in these emails points to the unethical posibilities these scientists practiced. You should really be "Doing Stuff that Matters" like your location says instead of just asking others to all the work for you.

edit to clarify who I was speaking to. Still figuring out the quote button.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by SunnyDee]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

How much has the earth warmed again? Should the climate always stay the same?

There are causes for climate change over long and short periods of time - both natural and man-made.

Here's some new information for you to ponder:

East Antarctic ice began to melt faster in 2006-study

East Antarctica's ice started to melt faster from 2006, which could cause sea levels to rise sooner than anticipated, according to a study by scientists at the University of Texas.

In the study published in Nature's Geoscience journal, scientists estimated that East Antarctica has been losing ice mass at an average rate of 5 to 109 gigatonnes per year from April 2002 to January 2009, but the rate speeded up from 2006.

The melt rate after 2006 could be even higher, the scientists said.

"The key result is that [we] appear to start seeing a large amount of ice loss in East Antarctica, mostly in the long coastal regions (in Wilkes Land and Victoria Land), since 2006," Jianli Chen at the university's centre for space research and one of the study's authors, told Reuters.

"This, if confirmed, could indicate a state change of East Antarctica, which could pose a large impact on global sea levels in the future," Chen said.

Previous estimates for East Antarctica projected anywhere between a 4 gigatonne per year loss and a 22 gigatonne per year gain, according to the report.

The full study is available at www.nature.com/ngeo.

Climate change is turning Antarctica's ice into the one of the biggest risks for coming centuries. Even slight melting could drive up sea levels and could affect world's cities.

Rising temperatures are thought to be the main cause of melting ice, and world leaders are under pressure to agree on a new climate treaty at an upcoming U.N. summit in Copenhagen to curb global warming.



MELTDOWN

The scientists used satellite observations of gravity change over the period April 2002 to January 2009 to calculate the rate of the ice loss in East Antarctica's coastal regions.

The ice sheet's mass has long been difficult to estimate.

"At various times, estimates have disagreed on the sign of the mass balance, as well as its magnitude," the report said.

The whole Antarctic region could be losing ice at a rate of 113-267 gigatonnes a year, with 106-158 gigatonnes coming from West Antarctica, the scientists estimate.

A separate study on Thursday found that melting ice from Greenland and Antarctica will lead to a much sharper rise in sea levels than previously thought. [ID:nN19173377]

Climate change will cause a rise of at least 1 meter in sea levels by the end of this century, according to a review of scientific data by environmental group Clean Air-Cool Planet.

The projection is in sharp contrast to a 2007 study by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said world sea levels could increase 18-59 centimeters by 2100.

Please do read all the way into this instead of just reading RealClimates response and then running with the talking points.

It's called quoting a reliable source with a plausible explanation, if you don't like RealClimate's reponse then take it up with them.

And good job AGAIN dodging the part where to you its ok for climate 'scientists' to jump to conclusions but not their critics.

I haven't done any of that.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by john124]

Sorry to just jump in here, I haven't read all the comments here, but could anyone explain me if I'm right on this:

The climate is not changing, it's shifting.
But how can the climate's shift? Because the poles are walking!

So the ice would indeed melt, but also start growing somewhere else.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Is that all you can come up with? "Keep digging guys!"

Nope, perhaps you missed the rest of the posts.

Just keeping you all motivated, there's a supposed conspiracy here. I have better things to do than to trawl through stolen personal and private correspondence trying to make a case for unethical scientists, so I'm hoping you guys will find the 'smoking gun'. Or something at least resembling one when squinting from 100 yards, maybe a moldy banana.

I know the trawl has been pretty disappointing so far, but keep ya pecker up.

Originally posted by john124

How much has the earth warmed again? Should the climate always stay the same?

There are causes for climate change over long and short perioids of time - both natural and man-made.

We might be getting somewhere. I've never seen anyone claim that humans dont contribute to it. But usually all I ever see from alarmists is that humans are CAUSING it. Any rational being (intelligence doesnt equal rationality), especially familiar with such a thing as a logical fallacy list, will look at UNTRUE language like CAUSE (and effect) and laugh.

SO the issue becomes 'how much are humans contributing', and so far the lists of GHG's humans add versus what nature adds is marginal. And the things is there are other forces at work besides GHG's, like solar / cosmic rays, urban heat island effect, etc.

Does anyone agree we should destory all the cities / roads and dump the asphalt into the ocean?

Does anyone agree we should pollute the air with cloud seeding chemicals to block the sun?

If humans GHG's are marginal, how much should we really be taxed? And does it mean we should also have a potentially tyrannical global government to enforce theglobal policies?

India challenges Western data linking climate change, Himalayan melt

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a report last week that says there is no conclusive evidence that climate change has caused the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. The report says that not all of the glaciers are receding at alarming rates and that a few are even advancing.

“So far, we have been depending on research conducted by the West on what is happening to our glaciers and environment,” he said after releasing the report, which was prepared by a former scientist with the Geological Survey of India and included a disclaimer that it did not necessarily reflect the government’s view.

www.infowars.com...

The funny thing about this whole deal is that right now the debate about the leak is centered around the e-mails. There is still computer model code, climate data, etc. that are contained within the documents that were leaked.

From what I understand of the situation and the way it has played out, these documents came from and insider, which makes it a leak and not a hack. If my assumptions are true on where the data came from, then it means the leak probably has gigs of info all zipped up and split into chunks to release.

Right now there is a decade of data and code to go through. As we have seen the "faithful"(for lack of a better term) will spin all information from the document into a good light for the sake of damage control. It might be easy for them to spin the e-mails(it isn't working by the way) and white-wash it, what they won't be able to white-wash is the data and computer codes used for their models.

When the people that are examining the code and data finally release their articles, papers, etc. on what they have found along with the methods that they have used to come to their conclusions then the "faithful" won't be able to defend themselves.

No matter how much people want to defend and try to white-wash the e-mails, the fact is the hard proof has yet to be dissected fully, which is happening right now.

The e-mail's are extremely damning and rational thinking people will see them as exactly what it is. That is why the MSM is not running with the story and the few outlets that have are trying to white-wash the story. The damage has been done and in a few months time the only people that will continue to believe in the current theory of CO2 driven man-made global warming will be the "faithful".

That doesn't mean though that the people that stand to make billions off of it won't stop pushing it though. They will continue to push it and even harder now, but the game is up.

reply to post by john124

I see you've jumped back in to defend your beloved scienctists without replying, so I'll re post this from the a previous page.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Originally posted by john124
It's pretty obvious that a lot of comments have been added to the hacked emails. The hacker doesn't exactly have credibility or ethics, as to resort to hacking, so it seems obvious to me that sceptics are the one's with an agenda that ain't science.

How is it obvious that they have been "added to"? Does simply going against what you believe automatically make it false? Because that's what you seem to be implying. I haven't seen anyone saying that any files have been conclusively proven to be altered, yet some have have been confirmed as genuine. So I don't know how it's so obvious to you that they've been altered. Care to elaborate?

And you can hardly use the fact that they were hacked, as justification to dismiss them. If these emails are in fact genuine, which there is no reason to doubt at this stage, there are potentially damaging conversations that go right to the core of AGW "science". If that's the case, then IMO, this hacker has done the people a favor, no matter how much you cry about ethics. Laws are meant to protect the people, not crooked or corrupt interests who are intentionally deceiving us.

If you're claiming they have been altered, you must think there are some malicious intents or at the very least un-ethical text (supposedly) from these scientists. What if they're shown to be genuine?

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

From The Wall Street Journal website

Under Top Stories in US


Climate Emails Stoke Debate - Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming

Snips

"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "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."

John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who was attacked in the emails, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested -- but rather orchestrated."

In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "very tempted" to beat up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to American climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.






[edit on 22-11-2009 by TrainDispatcher]

Originally posted by TrainDispatcher
From The Wall Street Journal website

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to American climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by TrainDispatcher]

Peer-review what a joke.
when the only peer-review is scientists that are all pro AGW its not peer-review.

This is something i have long suspected and at lest these email now prove that there peer-review is bogus.

reply to post by TrainDispatcher

Originally posted by TrainDispatcher
From The Wall Street Journal website

Under Top Stories in US


Climate Emails Stoke Debate - Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming

Snips

"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "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."

John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who was attacked in the emails, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested -- but rather orchestrated."

In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "very tempted" to beat up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to American climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.






[edit on 22-11-2009 by TrainDispatcher]

Hey thanks for that post, turns out John Christy is a quite solid critique of the CRU, he seems to have no conflicts of interest (correct me if im wrong peoples) so as I'm no climate expert I'd take his word as quite solid..

as for pat michaels = political think tank (Cato institute)

and i am a little critical of this vilification of Santer: as Seitz (former president rockefeller university) a guy famed for saying "there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation(of tobacco smoke) is truly dangerous", has been trying to defame this guy since 1996.

The SEPP (Science and environmental policy project) was founded by Fred singer, a consultant for GE, Ford, GM, Exxon, Shell, Sun Oil and Lockheed Martin, Seitz became president of SEPP whilst president at rockefeller uni, and accused Santer of deleting phrases from his 1995 IPCC report.

Forgive me for suggesting all this but could it be possible that the guys at CRU have been tweaking data, AND there are groups with vested interests using the issue to influence political outcomes?

A different view from the Examiner:

www.examiner.com...

Climate change skeptics use hacked emails as propaganda

November 22, 5:35 PMPortland Progressive ExaminerMichael Stone


Climate change skeptics are using hacked emails as propaganda in their campaign to suppress and deny knowledge of anthropogenic climate change. The emails were stolen from a climate research institute in Great Britain. The utilization of hacked emails is just the latest ploy of right wing nuts and other outliers who refuse the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.

The emails were hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. It is one of the United Kingdom’s leading climate research centers and has been a strong proponent of the position that global warming is real and has human causes.

More than 169 megabytes worth of global-warming emails and related files were hacked. Climate change deniers are at this very moment pouring through the data, pulling quotes and numbers out of context and cherry picking facts and statements in order to make their case against climate change, a case that stands not on science, but on propaganda and denial.

Most U.S. politicians, most citizens, do not question whether humans are changing the world's climate. It is simply accepted as a truth, a truth that is at once both intuitive and unavoidable given the activity of humanity in the last 500 years.

It is sad, and a curious fact of human nature, that a minority of humans, given the opportunity, wind up wearing the proverbial "tin foil hat", and deny what science gives as fact. Public debate will persist. The theft of the emails will simply fuel the delusions and confusions, and perhaps even postpone action that is required now in order to minimize the damage we are doing to our planet.

Original article

reply to post by Shirakawa


I thought you gave up on us!

Talk about propaganda with that one. The irony of pointing out propaganda activities of others while engaging in it throughout the entire hitpiece. Propaganda = The science of persuasion and or diversion. That's balanced journalism folks! I thought examiner was one of the original sources pointing out the 'scandal'?!?

Evidence of artificially altered data is also in the code used by programmers:

From Climate Audit (Mirror site):

“these will be artificially adjusted”

2009 November 22
by stevemcintyre


The emails are only the start of this. The zip includes data and code. Reader Neal writes as follows (SM Note: Anthony reports below that he has verified these comments in the following location /documents/osborn-tree6/mann/oldprog
in the files maps12.pro maps15.pro maps24.pro):

People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;

pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

From Watts Up With That:

CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story

When the CRU emails first made it into news stories, there was immediate reaction from the head of CRU, Dr. Phil Jones over this passage in an email:

From a yahoo.com news story:

In one leaked e-mail, the research center’s director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

Dr. Jones responded.

However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward,” he said in a statement Saturday.

Ok fine, but how Dr. Jones, do you explain this?

There’s a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents from CRU. A commenter named Neal on climate audit writes:

People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:

Here’s the code with the comments left by the programmer:

[Follow the link to the original article for the code]

You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.

Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.[...]

The complete article continues here

Wow! This is what, day 4, day 6? And Pat Michaels said the emails were a "mushroom cloud" compared to a smoking gun. Oh, dear...

And think of how many of the climate elite have viewed this code. That, ladies and gentleman, is what we call CONSPIRACY! And this thing just got going...

People, you've got to read the comments in McIntyre's post:
camirror.wordpress.com...
!!!

[edit on 23-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]