Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

Well statements are finally being released from UEA and CRU, and so far there is no denial that the data, computer code, and e-mails are not authentic. Which means all the data in the leak is authentic.

They are in damage control mode and the ship is sinking. Next up are the lawsuits. For Example

"Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA

Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK's East Anglia University.

More at the link

As we can see this thing is just getting started. This is just the start of what is to come. Not only does the data give Context to the e-mails, but the back-story of the whole ordeal gives context too. Take it or leave it, but at this point the gig is up.

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists


WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Is there really a
"consensus" on global warming among the scientists participating in the
United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? To find
out, DemandDebate.com conducted the first-ever survey of the U.S.
scientists who participated in the most recent IPCC report.

"Our results indicate that the notion of a meaningful scientific
consensus on global warming is ludicrous," said Steve Milloy,
DemandDebate.com's executive director.

During the month of October, DemandDebate.com polled each of the 345
U.S. scientists listed as contributing authors and reviewers of the IPCC's
"Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis" with a six-question survey on
climate change. Fifty-four IPCC scientists completed the survey, including
several of the most prominent global warming alarmists and several IPCC
lead authors.

Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global
temperature of 1-degree Celsius is flatly undesirable. Half of the
respondents said that such a temperature increase is either desirable,
desirable for some but undesirable for others or too difficult to assess.

"Among survey respondents, then, there's no consensus on desirability
of 1-degree Celsius of global warming -- twice the level of warming that
occurred during the 20th century," observed Milloy.

When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal
climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that
there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

"So if there's no agreement on what the target climate should be, what
precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the
climatic goal at which we are aiming?," Milloy asked.

Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said
that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.

"So was there no climate change before mankind?" Milloy asked. "And if
there was natural climate change before man, why not now also?" he added.

Forty-four percent didn't think that the current global climate was
unprecedentedly warm.

"The survey results indicate that when asked routine questions about
the climatic role of manmade CO2, the IPCC scientists responded for the
most part with the Pavlovian manmade-CO2-is-bad view seemingly demanded of
them by the IPCC," Milloy noted. "But when you ask questions that are off
the IPCC script, the supposed consensus seems to readily fall apart,"
concluded Milloy.

pdf

I think this survey conducted in 2007 shows without a shadow of a doubt that there is no consensus, even within the pro camp.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by quackers]

I would like to point out - in addition to my previous post showing that the levels of greenhouse gases have been increasing for the last 10 years and are now higher than ever before - this post showing the drop in global temperatures

www.dailytech.com...

and further - this article in February 2007 linking warming in England with global warming.

news.bbc.co.uk...

And now how many times have supporters of the Global warming theory pointed out that local weather is NOT representative of global temperatures but here is a news article pretending that local weather IS representative of global temperatures (just to make sure the public gets good and riled up)

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by jdub297
That's a good start, I'd say. Investigations have been undertaken on far less.

Just a bunch of opinions which are being bounced around the echochamber.

If you want to make a claim of scientific fraud/malpractice:

1. Specify the exact problem with a particular dataset and study.
2. Specify how and why it is fraudulent.

I know you might be big on trial by blog and forum opinion, but generally any charges need to be more than based on the quote-mining of emails.

You're just smearing a number of scientists. Much like the good old swiftboat tactic.

Got specific evidence? No? Ya got nothing...

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by FellowTraveler


Thank you for your well written response. I to recognize that ultimately someone like myself can not expect to fully understand the content of these emails/data and we are at the mercy of the scientific community to put it out there is simpler terms. I do also think that CRU has already had a negative effect. This incident has caused me to even further question the validity of man's effect on global warming and I'm sure that I'm not alone. (If CRU did if fact skew data, it proves they have no way to legitimately prove their theory and were resorting to misleading the people who count on them.)

What I do however understand human nature and I found several aspects of the emails very telling;

-CRU felt threatened enough to actively seek ways to silence Global Warming/Climate Change detractors.
Why seek ways to silence the opposing view if you are sure of the validity of your own view? This demonstrates to me that a certain amount of insecurities exist.

-At least one of the scientists involved has voiced his embarrassment over the emails being seen by the masses.
Why be embarrassed by his own words if you have done nothing wrong? This demonstrates shame on the part of at least one of the scientists.

-At one point a scientist resorts to threatening violence against a detractor.
Even if this threat was in jest, it once again shows an amount of insecurity existed.

-Several emails clearly show CRU was actively seeking ways to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests.
Why hide your data if you are confident that it can stand up to outside scrutiny? again, what we are seeing is insecurity.

My point is, I may not be capable of understanding the data, but raw human emotion is something that even a layman can see. What I see is insecurities and shame. IMO, these are not things expressed by scientists who have faith in their data, it shows a group of scientists clinging to what they may truly believe, but ultimately, can not prove. Take into account that they may have skewed data and it then begins to cause me to question their motives. Do they believe in their theory enough that they were willing to "fix" the data to support what they believed or did they "fix" the data for something far less respectable; like maybe money? (money always seems to be the simplest of motives)

Regardless of motivation, with so much money and our very future at stake, I think the emails and the data leaked should be enough to call into question every piece of research CRU has had their hands on. At the very least, a full investigation should be conducted IMO.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by jdub297
That's a good start, I'd say. Investigations have been undertaken on far less.

Just a bunch of opinions which are being bounced around the echochamber.

If you want to make a claim of scientific fraud/malpractice:

1. Specify the exact problem with a particular dataset and study.
2. Specify how and why it is fraudulent.

I know you might be big on trail by blog and forum, but generally any charges need to be more than based on the quote-mining of emails.

You're just smearing a number of scientists. Much like the good old swiftboat tactic.

Got specific evidence? No? Ya got nothing...

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

im starting to think your just being contrary...the emails are clear and they show there has been...at times....clear manipulation of the true nature of the results and 'clever' presentation...no matter what you claim to be arguing against...you cant change this..sorry....any organization or group of persons that claims there is consensus amongst the scientific community wouldnt need such things....thats whats suspicious here..and you know that..you dont appear to be stupid..
[edit on 24-11-2009 by alienesque]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by alienesque]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by alienesque]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by alienesque]

Washington Times Editorial

I never thought i'd see this editorial in that newspaper... People are starting to see the lies and the perps behind them. We need to put a stop to this. We need to say no to these globalist elites, we need to say no to the b******s who are trying yet again to fill our minds with fear, in hopes of better dominating mankind!

[edit on 24-11-2009 by lagenese]

reply to post by alienesque


I've been trying to refrain from commenting on this, but I concur. At this point, melatonin, you've lapsed into just repeating your disagreement over and over. What's worse is continued commentary in light of a flat refusal to examine the information. I understand that you have ethical concerns -- that is fine. But you have reached a point where your lack of information will no longer allow you to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, as you have already made the last point that you can really make without further examination of the material. The right thing to do is to hold off commenting until you have more information or can add value to the discussion. Regardless of whether you think members are smearing scientists, many of these scientists DIRECTLY admit to COOKING data. They have smeared themselves.

To be clear, I share your concern that due diligence has not yet been done on this matter, but it does feel as if your contributions to the discussion have peaked at constantly reminding people that we haven't determined a conclusive truth value in regards to this situation. Those of us who are paying attention, actually reading the things in the archive, and thinking critically about them are very aware of that -- more aware than even you are, technically. Anyone else will never be convinced otherwise that their current positions are incorrect.

-FT.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by FellowTraveler]

Originally posted by countercounterculture
Thanks for that info, it has definately helped me understand climatology a little better.

It's really paleoclimatology/dendroclimatology. Just my (very) basic knowledge, but you're welcome.

So far this is how I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong:
Dendroclimatology is the study of tree ring widths, with the argument being that generally the widths are wider when conditions favor growth and narrower when they don't.

As I see it this science would have major limitations, for instance there would have to be a point when the model fails, ie at 1 million degrees the rings dont grow a foot per second... the tree burns. Also there would be many other conditions other than the temperature which effect the data, ie if you increase temperature but spray the tree with round up the model fails.

Some trees and areas are good proxies for temperature, some aren't. Of course they would burn at 1,000,000'C. But then they wouldn't be useful for proxies anymore, lol.

The tree growth is often dependent and limited by particular factors (temperature, precipitation ect). And some species are better than others. So proxies are selected to be most correlated with the variable of interest. Some best for drought, other temperature etc.

So for any particular tree, or any region there may be other factors which effect the data, however dendroclimatology counters for this by averaging the data from various regions all over the world to get an estimate of the conditions at that time.

As mentioned the proxies are selected to be suitable for the variable of interest. Many factors are suggested to be important (even insects). But averaging multiple samples over an area will help reduce noise.

When they have multiple temperature proxy series from various regions, then you get what Briffa, Jones, Mann, Esper, Overpeck et al provide. They do tend to be limited to the northern hemi, though. Keith Briffa had a nice page on the process, it's down, lol. It'll be archived on google, I would think.

So during the 60's there was a divergence with what was measured instrumentally and what dendroclimatology predicted using its model?
Perhaps this could have been due to wide spread DDT use at the time, which was banned in the early 70's?

I'd like to see a study, perhaps you know of one, in which the divergence is explained. If there is a reasonable explanation then I think the ommition of that data by CRU is waranted, if not then I find it hard to believe CRU findings.

But if the data is clearly shown to diverge from the variable of interest (x), then whether you can explain it or not is not really the issue. If you want reliable measures for x and that particular data/datum is clearly shown to not be, you don't want to use that data/datum - which is what Briffa has said about this particular proxy data from 1960 (would be like using a broken thermometer). The specific explanation of the divergence problem is really a different issue. Interesting nonetheless.

Anyway, here's astudy that notes the issue. I'm sure there's many more articles noted in it.

As for claims of cover up, you said that CRU had already said that they would treat the data this way, i know it's annoying to dig up stuff when your trying to argue ignorance, but in this case where you made a claim, i hope you can indulge me! (not everyone makes up their mind before seeing all the evidence).

lol, errm, yeah....

It was really referring to the emails people are parading around about the 1960 'decline'. The email talks of 'hiding' the 'decline', so it's no surprise that the code for the data does so.

Briffa's (1998) study noting the issue is here:

Letters to Nature
Nature 391, 678-682 (12 February 1998) | doi:10.1038/35596; Received 14 May 1997; Accepted 11 November 1997


Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes
K. R. Briffa1, F. H. Schweingruber2, P. D. Jones1, T. J. Osborn1, S. G. Shiyatov3 & E. A. Vaganov4

1.Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
2.Swiss Federal Institute of Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Zürcherstrasse 111, CH-8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
3.Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 8 Marta Street, Ekaterinburg 620219, Russia
4.Institute of Forest, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Krasnoyarsk, Russia
Correspondence to: K. R. Briffa1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to K.R.B. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).

Tree-ring chronologies that represent annual changes in the density of wood formed during the late summer can provide a proxy for local summertime air temperature1. Here we undertake an examination of large-regional-scale wood-density/air-temperature relationships using measurements from hundreds of sites at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this proxy to portray mean temperature changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere. During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated. Moreover, the recent reduction in the response of trees to air-temperature changes would mean that estimates of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, based on carbon-cycle models that are uniformly sensitive to high-latitude warming, could be too low.

And he clearly notes the need to account for this divergence problem. Again, not a surprise that he did account for it. Indeed, would be remiss not to.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


My apologies. It appears you still have value to add after all .

-FT.

Originally posted by alienesque

im starting to think your just being contrary...

I asked you earlier to point out whatever issue it was you were talking about. It was quote about 'truth' or something.

You gave me nothing. No point parading around claiming fraud etc. Show me the facts. Show me why they are important. How they relate to the issue, to the data, to the science.

Otherwise it's just bluster and smear. I'm willing to listen.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by FellowTraveler
reply to post by melatonin

 

My apologies. It appears you still have value to add after all

.

-FT.

Aww, shucks. Thanks.

I've been asking people to outline the issue. But then they 'uhm' and 'ahh', post the same old opinion articles with quotemines, posture and bluster, or disappear.

Just quote-mining isn't helpful. For instance, I just asked alienesque to show me where a limited phrase came from - the whole email....

Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by alienesque

im starting to think your just being contrary...the emails are clear and they show there has been...at times....clear manipulation of the true nature of the results and 'clever' presentation...no matter what you claim to be arguing against...you cant change this..sorry....

what he probably means is that if planning went well, there won't be even a single paper which contains provable intentional fraud. they will f-ex. claim their data (supplied by guess who?) came from a reputable source, too bad it was forged, that their particular work was performed dutifully, awhich can be easily argued for, as their results are often very unspectacular and limited to one region or mechanism at a time, so they do not have to include any doomsday scenario in the papers themselves....


That doomsday part came in later, by other means, so everyone will be able to explain their part of the responsibility away. limiting access to journals might lose them a few lawsuits, but by and large, they are still in a potent position and won't be de-throned by their friends - unless lots of preparations turn out to be misguided or insufficient.

[edit on 2009.11.24 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by alienesque

im starting to think your just being contrary...

I asked you earlier to point out whatever issue it was you were talking about. It was quote about 'truth' or something.

You gave me nothing. No point parading around claiming fraud etc. Show me the facts. Show me why they are important. How they relate to the issue, to the data, to the science.

Otherwise it's just bluster and smear. I'm willing to listen.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

i dont really feel the need to try to convince anybody..sorry...the mails are there...if you cant be bothered or dont want to look for yourself you cant really discuss the subject objectively...

reply to post by melatonin


Part of it is an issue with the sheer amount of data involved, though I have my suspicions as to how many people posting in this thread have actually taken the obscene amount of time it takes to go through the emails, much less the data/code/papers that are included in the archive. In other cases, the time it takes to prepare an analysis of this information is likely a huge factor. In my case, other than time constraints, one problem is obscenely bad note-taking during my read-through of the emails. I am personally most concerned about my ability to validate results. As a computer scientist, I completely understand the code that is included, but I am ignorant of the intricacies of climatology and related disciplines. I feel that a truly comprehensive examination of this material is beyond my current capabilities, and that attempting to do so may only further the problem. As such, I have done the lazy thing and taken an agnostic stance so far as warming itself is concerned. The only real stance I have taken insofar as the CRU scientists are concerned is that their own comments have cast doubt on the truth value of their results and the efficacy of their methods. This leaves open the possibility that despite such shortcomings, they could *still* be right, if only by sheer accident.

There are instances that I can clearly recall of scientists mentioning altered data or altered code responsible for performing projections on data, but it is difficult to find them in 1079 different email files having no idea the name of the file in which I read it. It is also flatly impossible for me to suggest that these alterations were unnecessary. Sometimes code has to be changed to correct bugs, but in this particular case, it appears as if someone changed the code just to make it more agreeable. There is no sufficient proof of that and it is intimated in email but not explicitly stated.

This (inability to immediately recall where a certain statement was made) would not be a problem had I been diligent in my note-taking. At the moment, I have roughly 15 minutes of free time left this afternoon and it is unlikely that I can present something thorough today.

That being said, one solution is to consume the data yourself (much as you previously directed a member to search out a link for himself), and form your own opinions on the source material rather than opinions/summaries/random quotes presented here on it. I understand that your ethical dilemma prevents this. Until a proper treatment can be released, I can only advise patience with other members here (myself included). I truly do understand your angst regarding the fact that no one has yet done such a thing.

-FT.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by FellowTraveler]

Originally posted by FellowTraveler
I truly do understand your angst regarding the fact that no one has yet done such a thing.

-FT.

Not really, angst, tbh. Just challenging flaky claims. These are actually serious charges people are making. Career destroying for a scientist.

If the evidence of malpractice in the science is there, fine, lets throw him under a bus. Otherwise, it's just smear and slander. And most of the opinion articles are exactly that.

I've said I won't seek and read the emails, but I'll read people's posts - it's fair position. Considering they are the main basis of the accusations people here are making against Phil Jones, me say: show me the money.

Just a short entry:

camirror.wordpress.com...

Denying Email Deletion

Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008:

About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.

Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009 Guardian

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

Original article here

[edit on 2009-11-24 by Shirakawa]

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Commonly, people opposed to the proposition of man-made global climate change completely neglect the core principle.

Whether it is man-made or not, whether it exists or not, the Human race has been a child, spoiled and abusive, violent and greedy.

So-called human caused global warming and pollution are two separate issues. Unfortunately, there are many that try to use one - pollution - to justify taking action for the other - so-called human caused global warming - when there is absolutely no correlation.

I do not care what the climate change truth is, all I care about is that Humans now have the chance, misinformed or not, to start being responsible for the way we treat our environment.

Here we see the real problem. People like this poster freely admit that they care nothing about the truth, only in furthering their agenda.

Going on a crusade to debunk the very idea in a complete form is not the way to do it.

It is exactly the correct thing to do if it debunks a myth that would cost the world's economies trillions of dollars on "fixing" a global warming problem that humans didn't cause and don't have the technology to fix.

By all means, debate the truth and get the facts, but acting so irresponsibly as in this case does nothing to promote the idea of responsibility amongst the populations truly responsible for supporting the raping and pillaging of this planet.

Debate the truth and get the facts. Just don't bother people like this poster with any of that.

Basically, screw both sides of the argument, we have a responsibility to this planet and future generations. This act, regardless of "truth" does nothing beneficial.

Except, as I said, stopping us from wasting trillions of dollars on an "eco-nazi" boondoggle.

[edit on 11/24/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by melatonin


I absolutely understand. Phil Jones in particular has no real future in academia if the more severe charges against him are proven (along with any of the 4 scientists who destroyed data/email at his direction). No one will trust him again. Mike Mann is in hot water as well. I thought Tom Wigley came out looking better than just about anyone else. Though the volume of emails in which he participated is low, he was consistently challenging certain approaches, and noting shortcomings of them.

While I find your position personally somewhat amusing (you'll read what's posted here even if it is a direct quote from the source material that you won't read), I do agree that it is at least a much more fair position than it could be. I guess my point is that your position implies the need for patience because it may be several weeks before a proper treatment of all this information can be done.

-FT.

It isn't just global warming. The same pattern of "causes" supported by very shaky science but slick unrelenting media campaigns, dissenters allowed no voice and blocked from debate by a declaration of "concensus", dissenters smeared and having their careers destroyed and through it all - the government seeking to "solve the problem" with the twin tools of excessive taxation and regulation to intrude on our private lives.

Tired of Control Freaks