Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

Originally posted by melatonin

Check the act itself. Part II is the bit you want - Exempt Information.

I don't see an exemption there for fraud, deceit, fairy tales, and hiding under mum's skirt.

Nice to know what you think of scientists and those working for public services.

"Public services" are generally parasites. Your idea of scientists must by definition include jugglers and clowns.

Your silence, Hadley, speaks volumes.jw

Deny ignorance!

jw

Just found a document that notice of intent to sue has been filed:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Started a thread on it, but they are going after NASA/Goddard about FOIA stuff. No story, just a pdf of the filing.

Hm. I was on wikileaks checking out the 9/11 postings, and I saw they finally had their link up about Hadley CRU. I clicked on it amd they have a bit bigger file than was released, anyone know why?

Link to page is here:

http://__._/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.
File size in bytes

64936854
File type information

Zip archive data, at least v1.0 to extract

Do they have more information, or is it the file compression type?

reply to post by Libertygal


The zip file is a compressed file which size was 61 megs, when you extract and uncompress it - the actual size of the data is about 161 megs or so. That is why it is bigger.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
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.

This agenda will not stop people being "child", "spoiled", "abusive", "violent" and "greedy"- that is embedded in our DNA- and, as imperfect as we are, how are we more violent than when the Crusades were happening, the Mongols were rampaging or the Barbarians were tearing up the place?

If you wish to subject yourself to control and taxation, fire ahead, I don't.

I work for a 'green' organisation. Unfortunately, most of my colleagues are a brainwashed lot who won't hear a bad word spoken about the AGW theory. I've given up trying to get through to them that they are being spoonfed by TPTB and so, I've decided to start printing off a select few documents from this FOIA zip file.

I've only read through a handful of them - maybe 10% at the most. Can anyone recommend any really good examples I could print off and leave lying about the office? It could cause quite a stir!*

*rubs hands gleefully... also coz it's so bloody cold here - global warming my arse!

Originally posted by morgansolutions
I work for a 'green' organisation. Unfortunately, most of my colleagues are a brainwashed lot who won't hear a bad word spoken about the AGW theory. I've given up trying to get through to them that they are being spoonfed by TPTB and so, I've decided to start printing off a select few documents from this FOIA zip file.

I've only read through a handful of them - maybe 10% at the most. Can anyone recommend any really good examples I could print off and leave lying about the office? It could cause quite a stir!*

*rubs hands gleefully... also coz it's so bloody cold here - global warming my arse!

I'd be careful, honestly, you don't want to loose your job in this climate (sorry for the pun), and for what? ain't worth it IMHO.

Originally posted by jdub297

I don't see an exemption there for fraud, deceit, fairy tales, and hiding under mum's skirt.

"Public services" are generally parasites. Your idea of scientists must by definition include jugglers and clowns.

Deny ignorance!

jw

I'm sure the hard-working nurses, teachers, and other public employees will appreciate your comments.

I think you need to take a time-out again. Take care, dude.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by jdub297

I don't see an exemption there for fraud, deceit, fairy tales, and hiding under mum's skirt.

"Public services" are generally parasites. Your idea of scientists must by definition include jugglers and clowns.

Deny ignorance!

jw

I'm sure the hard-working nurses, teachers, and other public employees will appreciate your comments.

So do the dregs

"If you don't eat your meat, how can you get any pudding?"

Your refusal to address issues is so telling, Hadley.

Deny ignorants!

jw

(hey! cut and paste a graphic, here.)

[edit on 25-11-2009 by jdub297]

This just totally p***es me off! Just one more instance of "follow the dollar" or whatever currency is appropriate! Al Gore should be stripped naked along with everyone else who is blabbing about global warming and forced to parade down Main Street of every town in America confessing their lies and admitting to being money grubbing dumb***es! Aaaargh! I've REALLY had enough of politicians and our Controlled media!!!
There's two things seriously wrong in our WORLD right now- GREED?CORRUPTION, and TOTALL LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY for it!

This is interesting. Apparently IPCC's New Zealand temperature data did not correspond to reality. Have a look at the attached pdf file in the following link:

nzclimatescience.net...

CLIMATEGATE IN NEW ZEALAND? - TEMPERATURE RECORDS MANIPULATED

Posted 25 November 2009

"There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years. But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?" Researchers find records adjusted to represent 'warming' when raw data show temperatures have been stable.
LINK to download pdf file

This image is from the PDF:



[edit on 2009-11-25 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Shirakawa

Being a New Zealander myself, this doesn't suprise me one bit. I remember scorching summers in the late 90's, but the summers just haven't seemed as hot since.

But the last few winters have been exceptionally cold, which personally doesn't bother me. For two years running I've enjoyed what's come to be known as 'Snovember' when the ski field/s on Mt Ruapehu have been able to stay open well into November. This is not common, but welcome to the people who enjoy the superb Spring skiing/boarding Ruapehu has to offer. Last year we had record snow levels set at Turoa on Mt Ruapehu, with a base over 5 metres! Previously, a base over 3m was considred significant.

I realise that snow levels does not correspond exactly with temperature, as precipitation is the main factor, but just thought I'd shed some first hand experience to fellow ATS'ers.

One thing I'd like to know though, is how are the land based instrument recordings adjusted to the urban heat island (UHI) effect?
My reason being that, if they are not significantly adjusted, as the UHI effect can be rather considerable, it would adjust temperatures higher than reality.

Could this be the reason behind the divergence? Is this why they've been able to "hide the decline" of the proxies with instrumental data?

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


I'm not an expert of temperature data adjustment, but if the urban heat island effect is taken into account, wouldn't temperatures be declining or stable as time passes (and urbanization increases) in the adjusted data as actual temperatures would be lower than measured?

The adjusted IPCC data appears to do opposite. If this change was due only the the UHI, it would mean that urbanization has decreased over time instead.

I really don't have much clue of how they did "hide the decline" (quote of the year 2009) in NZ data. Probably we will know more when Watts or McIntyre will check this out in the following days.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

One thing I'd like to know though, is how are the land based instrument recordings adjusted to the urban heat island (UHI) effect?

Your question is what blows my lid for the whole thing. In real science the scientist would relocate the instruments in order to take true readings, without the need to alter the data.

It's all bunk from the top to the bottom.

Originally posted by melatonin
And the apparent deletion of the AR4 emails would fit this comment. No deletion of requested information. Once the request is refused, they could do what they like.

Even these attempts to string him up for his supposed compliance or non-compliance to the FOI act is just political BS. If you want him to step down as head of CRU, I'm sure he won't be that bothered. The admin of heading a department only gets in the way of doing science.

You're still defending their deletion practices?

Here they admit that even the computer code is subject to FOIA, as I do think I recall you claiming it wouldnt be:

Phil,

Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
…
Tom

Tom,
…
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.
Cheers
Phil

Suuuure, oooookay, he can "HIDE" behind certain obligations. But you argue as if there wasnt even intent to keep his numbers and methods secret. And then you talk as if you know what they actually deleted. Breath-taking...

Is this all that's left? I know much of this is just attacks by anti-science ideologues, but you might want to at least try to give the illusion of it being about the science.

Anti-science would be an ongoing concerted effort to stiffle the scientific method, on matters that just so happens to involve policy that begs for a global government / tax.

Your arguments about their ethics and practices are flimsy, at best, yet you argue as if they're 100% justifiable and scientific. They cleary dont have ethics. After Jones faces criminal charges and has to give up the millions in personal wealth he's made during this, he might give a public apology at which point you might finally then admit to his evils. In the meantime, I hope you dont consider yourself a scientist in supporting the unethics of these crooks.

BTW: If they werent secretive, they wouldnt be "harrassed".

And here goes an indepth history of them thwarting FOIA:
omniclimate.wordpress.com...

AND: The first comment on that article says it all:

One of the documents (the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file) is a THREE YEAR journal of a CRU programmer describing everything he tried with the data and models in an attempt to reproduce existing results CRU had published. Comments in the file make it clear that “HARRY” tried FOR THREE YEARS to recreate CRU’s published results AND FAILED.

Do you see the REAL significance of this because it is absolutely fatal to the credibility of anything CRU has produced.

What we have here is a documented THREE year effort by a CRU programmer, who had access to all the data, access to all the code, access to all the people who developed the code and the models and still HE could still NOT duplicate CRU’s OWN results. If he can’t it simply means the CRU’s results cannot be reproduced even by themselves and so there is no point anyone else even trying — CRU themselves have proven it’s a waste of time and so they themselves have proven their own results are plain rubbish. That means any “peer reviewed” document CRU produced along with any other papers that cited the CRU papers are based on data the CRU themselves can’t verify.

Besides, the absolutly sorry state of affairs in the data handling and software managment the HARRY_READ_ME.txt reveals, the utter and total mess of CRU data and software this document reveals is WHY CRU has not released its data and model software.

Given the CRU is one of the most, if not the most cited sources of climate data — upon which trillions of dollars of economic policy is being set, the importance of what the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file reveals becomes scary.

No?



[edit on 25-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by jdub297
Your refusal to address issues is so telling, Hadley.

Deny ignorants!

jw

I'm sure anyone beyond ideological sophistry can see that I addressed your issues (well, those to do with the stolen emails).

Unless you think my responding with the actual facts of FOI laws in the UK, in the face of your moustache curling and denigration of scientists and public workers in general, along with inane responses like...

I don't see an exemption there for fraud, deceit, fairy tales, and hiding under mum's skirt.

...is not addressing your ignorance of FOI in the UK.

Repeat after me:

"I will give my life to serve our high priest,
I will sacrifice my friends, family, and all personal belongings
I will even sacrifice my own mother and father
for my faith and to show my devotion to
Al Gore and the Church of Climatology."

By the way, here is a new video by Russia Today:

Scientists under fire in climate change 'cover-up' scandal

A leading British climate scientist has come under pressure to resign over a series of leaked e-mails, which global warming sceptics say point to a mass conspiracy. The scandal erupted after a research server was hacked into, and private e-mails and documents were released, suggesting that scientists may have colluded to prevent the release of climate data.

[edit on 2009-11-25 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


There's a new blog entry about NZ temperature data at WUWT:

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Follow the link for the full article

[edit on 2009-11-25 by Shirakawa]

Fox News again:
(I'm aware it's a biased news media)

CLIMATEGATE! Fox RIPS Global Warming Advocate! 1000's of Emails / Documents Reveal FRAUD!