Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

I found this interesting when looking through some of the emails.

> Chick Keller wrote:
>
>> Richard and Friends,
>>
>> thanks for the point of view. I'll put some of this into my
>> presentation.
>>
>> However, it won't wash when facing critics head-on.
>>
>> Their latest arguments are more subtle. Their main point is that
>> their counter information hangs together into a logically coherent
>> picture.
>>
>> Models: no real finger print that distinguishes AGHG forcings from
>> others! Models using AGHG forcings predict warming is function of
>> latitude yet the Arctic is hardly warming (north of ~^65°N), and high
>> latitude Antarctic (excepting for the peninsula) is actually cooling
>> slightly.
>>
>> Models: As you say need AGHG forcings to simulate last 30 years of
>> observed warming. But, they counter, UAH satellite reductions show
>> no such warming so don't need AGHG forcing (or at least don't need
>> effects of positive feedbacks and just increases in AGHGs don't cause
>> so much warming).
>>
>> Solar forcing--not able to generate last 30 years of observed
>> warming. Same counter as last one--"See, they say, no increased
>> solar in last 25 years is consistent with no warming!!
>>
>> Also, since no warming since 1945, MWP most likely to have been as
>> warm as now and thus sun can indeed explain (with proper lags)
>> observed warming thus far.
>>
>> Their model--climate varies depending on solar activity. all
>> observations are consistent with this.
>>
>> Models predict that any surface warming will be seen in the
>> troposphere. Since UAH satellite reduction shows no such warming--1.
>> models are wrong and/or no warming at surface just lousy observations.
>> 2. If no warming at surface in last 30 years AGHG forcing predictions
>> by models is incorrect probably due to poor cloud/water vapor
>> modeling--no positive feedbacks to speak of.
>>
>> Sooooo, you can say all you want that all the prestigious societies
>> and folks say it's AGHGs, but they've been bamboozled by a few of
>> elitist scientists. As long as satellites show no recent warming,
>> the entire AGHG hypothesis collapses, not because multi-atomic
>> molecules don't cause the atmosphere to be more opaque, but because
>> there are no positive feedbacks which the models need to get the
>> "right" answer.
>>
>> So, what I need is strong evidence that the surface record is indeed
>> correct (UHI effect is small, and marine boundary layer approximation
>> is correct).
>>
>> Now, Richard, toss in large effects of land use changes and of black
>> soot forcing changing earth's albedo, and you now have additional
>> forcings which may be causing warming but can't be countered by
>> reducing AGHGs.
>>
>> Soooo, it still ain't all that easy to convince an audience that the
>> Singer's of this world aren't on to at least part of the problem.
>>
>> AND keep in mind that increased CO2 is good for us--more agriculture,
>> etc.
>>
>> Nope it just ain't that easy. So any information--graphics, etc on
>> these issues will be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Regards to all,
>> chick

From Alleged CRU Email - 1079108576.txt

This is an email from Chick Keller describing the possible criticism of generally accepted AGW theories. An interesting comment I found was "As long as satellites show no recent warming, the entire AGHG hypothesis collapses, not because multi-atomic molecules don't cause the atmosphere to be more opaque, but because there are no positive feedbacks which the models need to get the "right" answer.

It seems Chick is acknowleding a lot of the the problems that skeptics have raised. What I'm wondering, is what is the ""right" answer" he refers to? Is it to fit the instrumental temperature recordings on land? Or is the right answer simply the need to show AGHG caused warming.

The problem may be because of inaccuracies in satellite data. Or it could be the instrumental temps are affected by UHI effects more than is admitted. Either way, their is certainly no significant consensus here.

The right answer was that the UAH data was biased and the models were fine. Not the first time that's happened.

The UAH guys (Christy & Spencer - known 'sceptics') ballsed their analysis up (no claims of fraud blah blah - stuff happens).

Originally posted by plumranch
But now that their beloved Global Warming is threatened why they have incredible morality! The alternative would be, well, embarassing!

Not really, it called the 'golden rule'.

I'm willing to read what you post. Where's the problem? If I said, 'the emails are stolen, therefore I can ignore them' I might see the point.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Chick Keller said:

Finally, there is a very brief discussion of the societal policy response to the scientific message, and the author comments on his 2-year email discussions with many of the world’s most outspoken critics of the anthropogenic warming hypothesis.link

I wonder if he described what he did in that email...

Yea, I guess if you consider "there is data missing, but screw it we are going to make some numbers up to fill in the holes" "science" then I guess you would have a point.

But missing data, not being able to decipher what was done before and the likes, is the furthest thing from science. Not to mention the computer scientist are having a really good laugh at that read-me and the elementary level mistakes that the programmer made.

Now you put that in with the e-mails, and what do you have? Context, and what do you get from the context? The data that was collected is unreliable. But as the "deniers" have mention before AGW, CO2 driven at least, is nothing more than a religion.

Nothing I have seen even begins to resemble science, much less for the "science to be settled". Sure having problems with the models is to be expected, but making up data to fill in the wholes is the most un-scientific thing to exist.

Take it or leave it, I'm preaching to the choir at this point. Between people that want everything put on a silver platter in front of them, to people that are trying to spin this as legitimate science, it is clear that CO2 driven AGW has elevated to nothing more than a religious debate.

The BBC published an article from Paul Hudson:

'Climategate' – CRU hacked into and ins implications

... I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

One implication Hudson fails to mention: If some of the e-mails were already leaked on the 12th October, the BBC was sitting on these e-mails for over a month without doing their job. This strengthens the claim, that the leaked material was not the result of a “random hacking attack”, but was instead forwarded by a whistleblower from the inside. After the BBC (and other news publishers?) failed to publish or investigate, the whistleblower used the blogosphere as alternative way to spread his information.

This should be a warning to all whistleblowers. The MSM cannot be trusted. How many examples of MSM-organizations sitting on important news, without releasing them to the public do we need?

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

I don't think anyone thought it was a 'random' hack, it was certainly targeted with a specific purpose. UEA say they were hacked, and RealClimate was also hacked.

RealClimate say they were hacked the same day the emails were released. The hacker created a post with a link to the files. The hacker was using an open proxy server in Turkey. And posts were also made in other places (climate fraudit and another) from proxy servers in Russia.

Also, he says he received them on the 12th October. Did he? Someone told me some of the emails he says he received are from the 14th October - he receives emails from the e-time machine!

Is he telling porkies?

And its just a BBC blog from some regional weatherman who has a poor understanding of climate science (hence the discussion in the emails).

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

From Wall Street Journal:

online.wsj.com...

Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails

By KEITH JOHNSON and GAUTAM NAIK

Congressional Republicans have started investigating climate scientists whose hacked emails suggest they tried to squelch dissenting views about global warming.

An aide to Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said investigators are studying the documents, which unknown hackers stole last week from the computer of a prominent British climate-research center.

Investigators are focusing on the correspondence of White House Science Adviser John Holdren, he said. Dr. Holdren, a point man for the Obama administration on climate change, sent one of the hacked emails. In the 2003 email, Dr. Holdren, then at the Woods Hole Research Center in Woods Hole, Mass., defended research by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a scientist who believes global warming is man-made and who also sent some of the hacked emails.

On Monday, Dr. Holden said: "I'm happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and balanced treatment of the question of 'burden of proof' in situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute."

The aide said investigators are also probing the contributions of dozens of climate scientists to reports published by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Environmental Protection Agency, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, based its conclusions on IPCC reports.

The IPCC has said the climate is heating up and humans are almost certainly to blame. Those who disagree that the globe is warming, or on the cause or extent of any warming, complain that their views have been excluded.

The documents, hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

Separately, Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), an outspoken critic of the view that humans are causing global warming, said that in light of the emails, he will call for an investigation into the state of climate science if the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works doesn't act soon.

Amid the furor over the released documents, more than two dozen climate scientists will release a report Tuesday arguing that the effects of man-made global warming have intensified in recent years.

One of them is Dr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State. In a 2003 response to an email complaining about a paper in the journal "Climate Research" which questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Dr. Mann wrote, "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Dr. Mann said Monday that he didn't think there was anything wrong in telling his colleagues that "we shouldn't be publishing in a journal that's activist."

Police in the U.K. are continuing to investigate the attack, and the university there said Monday that it is conducting its own review.

Hans von Storch, editor at the time of "Climate Research," had his own objections to the paper mentioned by Dr. Mann, and resigned shortly after it was published, citing a breakdown in the peer-review process. But Dr. von Storch, now at the University of Hamburg's Meteorological Institute, said Monday that the behavior outlined in the hacked emails went too far.

East Anglia researchers "violated a fundamental principle of science," he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable," he added. "They play science as a power game."

Original article

And AP:

www.google.com...

Key scientist says politics behind stolen e-mails

By P. SOLOMON BANDA (AP) – 2 hours ago

BOULDER, Colo. — A leading climate change scientist said hackers breaking into a university's computer server and then posting documents online show the nasty politics of global warming.

Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, said the hackers' intentions may have been to influence discussions in an upcoming global climate change summit in Denmark.

"It comes down to politics at sort of all levels, and some of it's nasty and some of it is trying to destroy the message or even kill the messenger so to speak," Trenberth said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said hackers last week stole about a decade's worth of data from a computer server at the university's Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change.

About 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents have been posted on Web sites and seized on by climate change skeptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.

"The messengers in this case are the scientists who are putting forward a basis for this, the basis for the climate change based on, and founded upon the facts, the measurements and the observations and our best interpretation of those," Trenberth said.

Trenberth said he's identified 102 e-mails stolen from a British university's computer server. Hackers distributed only documents that could help attempts by skeptics to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Many of the exchanges were between him and Phil Jones, the British research center's director. The two men worked on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, which articulated the scientific community's consensus on global warming in 2001 and 2007.

"What you see in those e-mails are exchanges among a whole bunch of scientists on issues," Trenberth said. "What you will find is that there is a tremendous amount of integrity, vigorous discussion about issues and exactly how to handle issues... So it's far from a whole bunch of scientists agreeing and colluding to do things. They're actually arguing, vigorously, about the science."

Trenberth, a well-respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the Internet by the hackers.

At least 65 world leaders will attend the Copenhagen climate summit in December as representatives of 191 nations seek agreement on a new global treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.

Original article

[edit on 2009-11-24 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Shirakawa


It's apparent that the "scientist" don't exactly know what science is.

I think a quote from Einstein is appropriate here:

"A thousands experiments can prove me right, but all it takes is one to prove me wrong."

Also another one and I forget who said it, but it goes something like:

"It isn't the conspiracy that gets you caught, it's the cover-up."

The cover-up so far isn't very convincing, the whole people that are buying it are the people that already have their minds made up.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
It effects ALL STUDIES.

If the data is not reliable...

Which data?

Show me why the data in every single study in climate science is now not reliable. You do understand how ridiculous that claim is?

Well I thought Mann and friends were the authority on the debate. I know I spent maybe an hour reading thru portions of the code files, including Mann's, and saw numerous descriptions of averaging out data that was incomplete. With what I know about with surface station data I've long already assumed this to be the norm inalarmist science.

Figured I'd post some of the striking code comments that I and others have found so far that I've noticed:

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 documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
;

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE AGE-BANDED (ALL BANDS) STUFF OF HARRY’S
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
;

recon_mann.pro:
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE Mann et al. reconstruction
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
; IN FACT, I NOW HAVE AN ANNUAL LAND-ONLY NORTH OF 20N VERSION OF MANN,
; SO I CAN CALIBRATE THIS TOO – WHICH MEANS I’m ONLY ALTERING THE SEASON

briff_sep98_e.pro:
;
; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

frs_gts_anom.PRO:

; calculate 1961-1990 synthetic normal from adjusted tmn
print,'Calculating synthetic frs normal'

for iy=nor1,nor2 do begin
tmpfl=strip(string(tmp_prefix,iy))
dtrfl=strip(string(dtr_prefix,iy))
rdbin,tmpgrd,tmpfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet
rdbin,dtrgrd,dtrfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet

tmn(nland)=(tmpgrd(nland)-(0.5*dtrgrd(nland)))/10.0
frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)+frscal(tmn(nland))
endfor

frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)/(nor2-nor1+1)

for im=0,11 do begin
temp=frssyn(*,*,im)
nfin=where(temp gt 0)
temp(nfin)=(temp(nfin)/100.0)*days(im)
frssyn(*,*,im)=temp
endfor
frssyn(nsea)=-999.9

; Calculate synthetic frs from tmin, convert to anomalies
; relative to synthetic mean frs, and apply to normal frs
print,'Calculating synthetic anomalies'

Mel, could you explain for us what "frs" & "tmn" refer to, so we might be able to understand the meaning of "sythethic"?

mann\abdlowfreq2grid:

; HUGREG=Hugershoff regions, ABDREG=age-banded regions, HUGGRID=Hugershoff grid
; The calibrated (uncorrected) versions of all these data sets are used.
; However, the same adjustment is then applied to the corrected version of
; the grid Hugershoff data, so that both uncorrected and corrected versions
; are available with the appropriate low frequency variability. There is some
; ambiguity during the modern period here, however, because the corrected
; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest
; scales of observed temperature over recent decades - so a new adjustment
; would be unwelcome. Therefore, the adjustment term is scaled back towards
; zero when being applied to the corrected data set, so that it is linearly
; interpolated from its 1950 value to zero at 1970 and kept at zero thereafter.

Hmm. This could explain what some of this 'artificial' language has been about, which could cool things over, or add to the damnation...

mann\mxd_combine_calpcr:

; Combines the directly calibrated MXD data set with the PCR-based
; reconstruction of gridded temperatures. There are various PCR models to
; use, according to period and spatial coverage of MXD data. We always
; use the later model (based on most MXD data), but we have to decide whether
; a grid box that was successfully reconstructed using an earlier subset of
; the MXD should be used throughout (or at all) if later subsets failed to
; successfully reconstruct it. **For now, I'm using them throughout.**
;
; Restore MXD gridded dataset
;
print,'Reading in MXD data'
restore,filename='calibmxd5_abdlow.idlsave'
; g,mxdyear,mxdnyr,fdcalibu,fdcalibc,mxdfd2,timey,fdseas
;
; Use the "corrected" calibrated version
;
fdcalibpcr=fdcalibc
timeyr=mxdyear
nyr=mxdnyr
;
; Now process each PCR version in turn
;
for iper = 0 , 6 do begin
;
case iper of
0: perst='14001976'
1: perst='14531976'
2: perst='15831976'
3: perst='16601976'
4: perst='16971976'
5: perst='17431976'
6: perst='18221976'
endcase
;
; Restore the next PCR-based reconstruction
;
fn='calibmxd5_abdlow_pcr'+perst+'.idlsave'
print,fn
restore,filename=fn
; Gets: mxdyear,mxdnyr,nx,ny,xlon,ylat,fdstatus,recontemp
;
; Check that the grids match
;
abserr=total(abs(g.x-xlon))
if abserr ne 0. then message,'Grids do not match!'
abserr=total(abs(g.y-ylat))
if abserr ne 0. then message,'Grids do not match!'
;
; Identify period of overlap
;
ist=where(timeyr eq mxdyear(0)) & ist=ist(0)
;
; Put in the reconstruction, replacing any data already there
;
for iyr = 0 , mxdnyr-1 do begin
fd=reform(recontemp(*,*,iyr))
kl=where(finite(fd),nkeep)
if nkeep gt 0 then begin
oldfd=fdcalibpcr(*,*,ist+iyr)
oldfd(kl)=fd(kl)
fdcalibpcr(*,*,ist+iyr)=oldfd
endif
endfor
;
endfor
;
; Finally, replace the original calibrated MXD values, since these are
; preferable to the PCR-based reconstructions

mann\mxd_eof_rotate:

;
; Computes EOFs of infilled calibrated MXD gridded dataset.
; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
; Do not usually rotate, since this loses the common volcanic and global
; warming signal, and results in regional-mean series instead.
; Generally use the correlation matrix EOFs.

mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp:

;
; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don't do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won't be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are "manually" removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.

mann/oldprog/hovmueller_lon:

; Plots a HovMueller diagram (longitude-time) of meridionally averaged
; growing season reconstructions. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

mann/oldprog/calibrate_correctmxd:

; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

Alright, Mel, this is could be your big chance to clear some of this up. Please explain what these acronyms are, and how to make sense of this.

And what exactly is this 'decline'? I've always wondered why Mann used the tree rings for the past but switches to satellites / ground stations, or whatever in more recent years. It always seemed to me that if tree rings are supposed to be reliable for 'ancient' times then they should be able to accurately tell us the temp for 2004 or whatever.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Here is Glenn Beck's coverage in higher resolution:

WUWT has offered a compelling theory that the data was accidentally left in an open ftp server, and then the right person came along and found it.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Many have begun to think that the zip archive FOI2009.zip was prepared internally by CRU in response to Steve McIntyre’s FOI requests, in parallel with attempts to deny the request in case the ability to refuse was lost. There are many reasons to think this is valid and it is consistent with either of the two theories at the beginning of this post. Steve McIntyre’s FOI appeal was denied on November 13th and the last of the emails in the archive is from November 12th.

It would take a hacker massive amounts of work to parse through decades of emails and files but stealing or acquiring a single file is a distinct possibility and does not require massive conspiracy. The same constraints of time and effort would apply to any internal whistle blower. However, an ongoing process of internally collating this information for an FOI response is entirely consistent with what we find in the file.
...
So this is my theory is and this is only my theory:

A few people inside CRU possessed the archive of documents being held in reserve in case the FOI appeal decision was made in favor of Steve McIntyre. They shared it with others by putting it in an FTP directory which was on the same CPU as the external webserver, or even worse, was an on a shared drive somewhere to which the webserver had permissions to access. In other words, if you knew where to look, it was publicly available. Then, along comes our “hackers” who happened to find it, download it, and the rest is history unfolding before our eyes. So much for the cries of sophisticated hacking and victimization noted above.
wattsupwiththat.com...

They suggest that the FOIA.rar file was meant to be if McIntyre's FOI request was forced. But if this theory is the case, I dont know why they would have included everything in it. It seemed more like a cleanup and tuck away collection. McIntyre was even told on the 13th that they lost the data, while we all know about Phil Jones' emails about deleting data. So if he did scour the archive looking for things to clean up, the following email that they recieved would be an remarkable item to include:

From: Earth Government
Subject: Press release from Earth Government
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:05:07 -0800
Formation of Earth Government for the good of all

March 27th, 2003

To all Peoples of the Earth,

Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal values, human rights, global concepts and democracy. Earth Government might as well be created now, there is no longer any reason to wait. We are the Earth Community, and we will form the Earth Government. Earth management is a priority and is a duty by every responsible person. A democratically elected Earth Government will now be formed, and we want you to reflect on future effects of such an event on the history of humanity. Certainly one will expect extraordinary changes: a reorganizing of human activities all over the planet; participation by all societies on the planet in solving local and global problems; new alliances forming; north meeting with south (eradication of poverty will be the price to pay to get votes from the south) in order to gather more votes within the newly created Earth Government to satisfy power struggles between European, Asian and Western countries; adoption of democratic principles, human and Earth rights, global concepts, and universal values by every human being; expansion of consciousness; gathering and coordinating of forces to resolve social and political problems in a peaceful way (no more conflicts or wars); gathering and coordinating of forces (technologies, scientific research, exploration work, human resources, etc.) to resolve global problems such as global climate, environment, availability of resources, poverty, employment, etc. Thousands more changes!

Let your heart and mind reflect on 'the good' of a democratically elected Earth Government. Everyone is part of Earth Community by birth and therefore everyone has a right to vote. Everyone should be given a chance to vote. Decisions will be made democratically.

Earth Government is proposing that:

a) different nations may require different political systems at different times
b) a democratic system is not a "must have it" to be a responsible member nation of the Earth Government
c) all democracies are to be upgraded, or improved upon, to be a responsible member nation of the Earth Government. The Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of the Earth Government are the newly added requirements to all democratic systems of the world.


In today's Earth Government it is important for our survival to cooperate globally on several aspects such as peace, security, pollution in the air, water and land, drug trade, shelving the war industry, keeping the world healthy, enforcing global justice for all, eradicating poverty worldwide, replacing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, and entrenching the Charter of Earth Government as a way of life for the good of all.

Earth needs urgently a world system of governance. The United Nations fail to satisfy the needs of the people of the 21st Century. It has never improved upon the old ways and thinking of the middle of the 20th Century. Its voting system no longer satisfy the 6.157 billion people on Earth. The challenges are different and require a world organization up for dealing with the needs of all these people.

The most fundamental requirement of a world organization is a democratic system of voting. Democracy must be a priority. The right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) is a human right. It should be respected. The actual UN system of voting is undemocratic, unfair and noone likes it. It does not work! Earth Government has proposed a voting system based on democracy.

Of the 190 Member States of the United Nations, it takes only one of the five permanent members to overthrow any decision or proposal during a meeting. This means 1/189 or 0.5% of the membership is more powerful than the remaining 99.5%. If that is not a dictature, what is it? It does not say much about democracy at the UN. More like a dictature of the five permanent members. In the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, it says "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS " but in fact it should say "WE THE FIVE PERMANENT MEMBERS".

The voting system for Earth Government is very simple and practical. One representative per million people. If all countries in the world had decided now to participate with this process we would have today 6,114 elected representatives to form Earth Government. They would form the Legislative body of Earth Government. They could actually all stay home to govern or from some place in their communities. Today communications are more than good enough to allow voting and discussing issues, etc. through the Internet and video conferencing. That would cut cost of governing down to a minimum, at least administrative costs. The Executive body would also govern in this way to cut cost down to a minimum. Ministers can administer their Ministries from where they live if they wish to. There will be a place for the Headquarters. We will show that it costs very little to administer Earth Government, and that we can achieve immense results. There is no limit to the good the Earth Government can achieve in the world. Think! What can do a unified 6.114 billion people determined to make things work to keep Earth healthy?

For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has proposed a benchmark:

* formation of Earth Government
* formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
* the Scale of Human and Earth Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
* an evolved Democracy based on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of the Earth Government
* a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
* the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and Mangement of the Earth
* a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade
* more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business, religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the good and well-being of all
* the event and formation of the human family and the Soul of Humanity
* proposal to reform the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the IMF, NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Earth Government
* the Peace Movement of the Earth Government and shelving of the war industry from humanity
* a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of human and Earth rights, the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and sustainable consumption aspects
* the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich or industrialized nations to the developing nations
* establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Regarding that, there's also this blog post from The Air Vent

Thoughts from a Computer Climate Guy

So who got the files. There is a bunch of interesting stuff to speculate about, first Dr. Gavin Schmidt left this on SurReal Climate:

There seems to be some doubt about the timeline of events that led to the emails hack. For clarification and to save me going through this again, this is a summary of my knowledge of the topic. At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server. They then created a draft post that would have been posted announcing the data to the world that was identical in content of the comment posted on The Air Vent later that day. They were intercepted before this could be posted on the blog. This archive appears to be identical to the one posted on the Russian server except for the name change. Curiously, and unnoticed by anyone else so far, the first comment posted on this subject was not at the Air Vent, but actually at ClimateAudit (comment 49 on a thread related to stripbark trees, dated Nov 17 5.24am (Central Time I think)). The username of the commenter was linked to the FOIA.zip file at realclimate.org. Four downloads occurred from that link while the file was still there (it no longer is).

So from Gavin we have Turkey.

From Steve McIntyre we have a Russian link left several hours before the Air Vent.

The IP address of the commenter at CA was Russian 82.208.87.170.

From the Air Vent we have a Saudi Server 212.116.220.100

So here’s my take on it:

There are plenty of possibilities within a narrow range. I’m a bit of a computer guy and a bit climate science so I can tell that this was done by someone or a group with significant knowledge of both computers and the issues. The hacking of a server (RC) took a bit of doing but the collation of the files took a great deal of time (and understanding). Someone knew the issues skeptics have been focused on, and this file set seems to have been associated with the skeptic FOIA requests.

Another possibility is the FOIA was compiled by someone else and when blocked (illegally by government officials), one computer guy released them. Apparently there were FOIA requests for all of this information revealed so you can imagine the time and understanding it takes to sort through this much scientific info and pick the relevant bits. – which they did “perfectly”.

Then we have the release of the info from proxy servers in less than friendly countries. This is not unsophisticated and made me think of a government agency first. Someone with resources and knowledge. Who’s going to be able get a proxy link from Russia, Saudi Arabia or Turkey and which proxy sent the email to those? They knew what they were doing.

So if we have absolutely perfect sorting of data for FOIA info– it almost had to be compiled during the investigation (removal of all email header info and renaming) was almost certainly done by a computer guy and despite the rejections of FOIA (through corruption – I would like to see more MSM coverage of this)perhaps some govt employee wasn’t thrilled. The total is compiled into a single zip file with all relevant code and details and emailed.

It all seems to me like a whistle blower who got ticked that FOIA was ignored (illegally). Perhaps someone who heard the conversations between Phil Jones and the Govt. officials. I doubt very much that this was a simple hacker, while busting computers is revered amongst movie fanatics, it doesn’t seem particularly amazing to me however it is not unskilled. Knowing which issues to deliver though is the result of someone with real knowledge. If it were a hack, the file had been prepared by FOIA officials and the contents must have been known by the hackers – headers removed and all. If it is a whistle blower, they were the CS guys working with the climate scientists who got ticked off at the asinine discussions of what was going on.

What do you think?

Well then...

There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are shown on the same graph. The issue of why we dont show the proxy data for the last few decades ( they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained.

camirror.wordpress.com...

Oh, dear... and I was just commenting to melatonin about the issue of why they dont use the tree ring data for the past few decades.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

All so incredibly convenient, now all we need is a similar set from the opposing side. Big business is laughing all the way to the bank. (Your Bank) Meanwhile the importance of looking after resources for future generations disappears.

reply to post by prof-rabbit


Typical. Rejection of insane environmentalist anthropogenic global warming somehow equals lack of conservationism and/or care of the environment. Explain it to me. Enron created Cap & Trade, with Al Gore. I've criticized the neocons to all ends over crony capitalism, yet Gore the messiah is himself a crony capitalist.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by prof-rabbit

 

Typical. Rejection of insane environmentalist anthropogenic global warming somehow equals lack of conservationism and/or care of the environment.

Well we know where you stand on the issue.

When any scientist, doctor or medical group uses manipulated computer programming source code in such a manner to manipulate the truth on such a scale as to declare a planetary crisis is without a doubt a crime of huge aspects.

Manipulating data in such a criminal fashion to comit fraud and to distill the end result is a crime that should be brought to justice.

Originally posted by melatonin
RealClimate was also hacked.

RealClimate say they were hacked the same day the emails were released. The hacker created a post with a link to the files.

Which is it?
Were they hacked, or did someone post a link to the files in the comment section?

Can you post the link showing the claim that RealClimate was hacked?

Thanks.

Ah, nevermind, I see Shirakawa posted above Gavins claim that they were hacked.



[edit on 11/24/09 by makeitso]

Alright, Mel, this is could be your big chance to clear some of this up. Please explain what these acronyms are, and how to make sense of this.

Don't know much of the coding they have there, but as I mentioned elsewhere 'PCR' (principal component regression) is a statistical method, one which I know is used in dendrochronology. 'mxd' is the particular proxy data (maximum latewood density).

And what exactly is this 'decline'? I've always wondered why Mann used the tree rings for the past but switches to satellites / ground stations, or whatever in more recent years. It always seemed to me that if tree rings are supposed to be reliable for 'ancient' times then they should be able to accurately tell us the temp for 2004 or whatever.

This code isn't related to Mann's data. This is CRU data. But why the move to observational data is pretty obvious - it's more reliable than using an indirect measure (proxy) of temperature. So for the proxy reconstructions they present proxy data and overlay modern observations to bring them up to date and to provide context.

The second question you ask is related to the decline issue. Much modern dendro data has begun to diverge from modern temperature. Which is where the talk of the decline comes from. So all the comments in that code related to 1960+ are doing exactly what Briffa's studies have been saying about that proxy data (1960+ divergence problem, removed from data). Not a surprise to see the researchers treating the data like they said they would.

It's pretty well-known and has been noted in all of Briffa's studies using these proxies (1998+). The proxies are correlated well with modern temps until 1960+ (applies mostly to certain proxies). The reason why is a currently open question in the literature. For a tree to be a reliable proxy its growth must be highly dependent on temperature (not moisture/precipitation etc), and for some reason some proxies begin to diverge from temperature dependence in the 1960s. A number of studies have focused on this phenomenon.

Bit of a crap fraud, though. Pretty well-known and discussed in the Briffa articles and wider literature. Even McIntyre has known about it for years.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]