Someone has seemingly hacked emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit that appear to show a conspiracy to hide data (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657) that doesn't fit the climate change rhetoric. And yes, the director of the unit has said the emails seem to be genuine. (http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html)

Some samples:


From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa @XXX.osborn @XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich


From: Tom Wigley [... ]
To: Phil Jones [... ]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [... ]

Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.

Hiding and removing data? Someone has got some 'splainin' to do.

I was rather interested in the e-mail to Jones regarding the Surface Sea Temperatures ( as posted by Speechless. See above)

How to euphemistically correct the 1940's Surface Sea Temperature data by reducing it 0.15 degs. C. That is the problem, or so it seems to be.

Why would any scientist consider this type of data from the 1940's accurate? There was no thermal imaging , no systematic network of locations to compare reading. The sea temperature measured on any given ship at any given location would depend on such things as how long the bucket was left on the deck, in the sun while someone ran and got a thermometer.

How accurate was a 1940's thermometer? I would suggest that if it was read within 1.5 degs. Accuracy
They were doing well.

Given these circumstances would it not be easy to explain away any small blip? In fact it would be easy to explain a large blip.

Yes, something is not quite right.

This is a beautiful thing . The left loves whistle blowers... don't they ?

Steve the die is cast . The locust are converging on Copenhagen and many of them like the Goracle have a financial stake in the outcome.



Carbon traders will also be at the meetings, and hungry for the expansion of their business. … “If you had to pick one industry that is most 'leveraged' to an agreement in Copenhagen, it would be this industry that develops, finances or buys credits from greenhouse gas reduction projects internationally, outside the U.S.” … “If there is an agreement in the near term with the U.S. as a partner, domestic projects and investments to reduce emissions could well be eligible for the international carbon market,” Mr. Rau said. “That would spawn a whole industry here.”

As usual ;since their lead ballons won't float on there own these guys see government funding as their mother's milk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/business/energy-environment/19CLEAN.html?_r=1


“After 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, Mr. Rau said, the value of the investments in developing countries will be uncertain, and if the uncertainty is prolonged, it can hurt investment.”
I can just see the Goracle on an infomercial now hawking carbon credits like those gold hucksters . "Buy your carbon credits now before it's too late" !

That these scientists are lying sacks of human excrement isn't no big thang according to Greenpeace.

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth.
Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails)

They don't even attent to hide their true motives anymore. Green taxes =more socialist programs.
Herman Van Rompuy, front-runner for presidency, wants EU-wide tax - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6919380.ece)
It's the same reason why the Democrats here are suddenly embracing VAT taxes. Nanny's breasts are running dry.

Yes they love whistleblowers and are especially fond of dissent, too. The administration recently told two EPA lawyers (who face possible disciplinary action) to yank videos they posted critical of cap-and-tax and they silenced EPA researcher Alan Carlin for his criticism of the EPA for using outdated data to reach their "public endangerment" finding. And as I noted earlier, John Kerry was for correct data before he was against it (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/climate-facts-can-so-inconvenient-414725-2.html#post2090947).

"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

My favorite quote from Mr. Gore was on last night. He stated that the earth's core was molten. Something like a million degres. Phew! Sure glad he didn't become President if he thinks the earth's core is a million degrees. Just how stupid can this man get with his facts? I'm on tenterhooks waiting for his next pronouncement in unreality.

Dan Quayle must be feeling pretty smart by now.. Actually the Goracle said it was "several million degrees " .Maybe on planet Gore it is ;but not here.


CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about ... you talk in the book about geothermal energy...
AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah.
O'BRIEN: ...and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth ...
GORE: Yeah.
O'BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy? GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...

He must've come back from watching '2012' .

It's plenty hot down thar of course ;estimates vary averaging about 4000 degree C . Hot enough to make a valid point about geothermal energy . But you would thing the Nobel Prize winner for junk science would be more schooled about the facts.

Quote from Tomder55
"That these scientists are lying sacks of human excrement aint no big thang according to Greenpeace.

Ok, you have got me. I was a small part of this world wide conspiracy. The only problem was that it was during the 1970's and we didn't realize there was a conspiracy. This was a good trick considering a world wide conspiracy is next to impossible to achieve.

We changed data because during that time no computer revolution had taken place. All reading (land and sea) were done manually. There was always the possibility of human error. Land based reading were always regarded as being more accurate, but errors still were a reality. Ship based reading during this time were regarded as less accurate because there was a greater possibility of things going wrong.

When faced with recording data there were always a number of choices. Use the data even though you suspected it was inaccurate. Reject the readings altogether. Change the readings so it fitted in better with what had already been recorded. It was left up to the individual to decide.

Perhaps I should keep quite because some "climate change expert" might take this information and make it into a fake e-mail.

Are they covering up the findings or not ? Greenpeace doesn't seem at all concerned that this is happening . It appears to me that these scientists have a predetermined conclusion they are trying to support .

are they covering up the findings or not ? Greenpeace doesn't seem at all concerned that this is happening . It appears to me that these scientists have a predetermined conclusion they are trying to support .


Yes, I think that is the most likely reason. What do you do? You have what you think is suspect sea temperature data. You can't just get rid of it because you will have nothing to work with. You think you know the reason for the data being suspect but you can't prove it.

The most attractive alternative, especially when under pressure, is to,'fiddle around with the figures'.

Anyway, that's my best guess as to what has happened.

My favorite quote from Mr. Gore was on last night. He stated that the earth's core was molten. Something like a million degres. Phew! Sure glad he didn't become President if he thinks the earth's core is a million degrees. Just how stupid can this man get with his facts? I'm on tenterhooks waiting for his next pronouncement in unreality.

Yep, the video is at the link I provided in my last post.

Yes, who knows what Mr Gore might do next. He may even jump to conclusions before all the facts are available.

Yes, who knows what Mr Gore might do next. He may even jump to conclusions before all the facts are available.

LOL, I don't think he cares... too much money and fame at stake.

Steve ;this has swiftly been labelled "Climategate" and the IPCC is being compared to the inquisitors that persecuted Galileo. These emails are the Pentagon Papers of our era.

What did the Goracle know and when did he know it?He should be compelled to return his Nobel Prize. The Scientists involved should be drummed out of the ranks much like they do to frauds who fake data on genetics. The responsible scientific journals should expunge from the record anything published using doctored studies . Anyone who stonewalled FOIA inquires should be fired from their positions .

So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html (http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html)

As the crickets chirp I await a call for Congressional and Parlimentary Inquiries into probably the biggest fraud in the last century . Many of these scientists are Americans. They should be called to testify under oath.

The NYT, while having no qualms about publishing state secrets, refuses to print the emails (http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2009/11/paging_the_ombudsman.html):


The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.

In 2006, when the Slimes published information about the SWIFT program, their executive editor Bill Keller said (http://newsbusters.org/node/6229), "one man's breach of security is another man's public relations."

WaPo actually reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html?nav=hcmodule) on the emails:


In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "[Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

So "scientists" are hiding and manipulating data, suppressing dissent, threatening uncooperative journal editors... and revealing their unbelievable hypocrisy:


Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead...


Warming's impacts sped up, worsened since Kyoto (http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20091123/tbs-sci-climate-09-post-kyoto-f8250da.html)
By SETH BORENSTEIN,AP Science Writer - Monday, November 23

WASHINGTON – Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated _ beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.

Hello Steve:

Yeah... Them LYING lefty's... Let's just keep throwing our trash into the air. It don't do nothing. Humph... Them lefy's...

excon

Hello Steve:

Yeah.... Them LYING lefty's... Let's just keep throwing our trash into the air. It don't do nothing. Humph... Them lefy's.....

excon

What trash?

Hello Steve:

Yeah.... Them LYING lefty's... Let's just keep throwing our trash into the air. It don't do nothing. Humph... Them lefy's.....

Ex, this is a really tired and irrelevant line. We've all agreed pollution is bad, now we need to agree that the biggest (global) scientific and political hoax/scam ever is bad, too.

Hello again, Steve:

If you quit smoking because you thought the dollar fairy was going to lay a million on you, would it matter to your lungs that you quit for the wrong reason?

excon

Avoiding the facts that we have been proven right that the science behind GW is a complete fabricated fraud ?

avoiding the facts that we have been proven right that the science behind GW is a complete fabricated fraud ?Hello again, tom:

So, then throwing your trash into the air is GOOD?

excon

Non sequiter

These scientists weren't fudging data about "throwing garbage in the air" .They were fudging data related to human carbon emissions and it's impact on global temperatures.

human carbon emissions Hello again, tom:

So, if we STOPPED throwing our trash into the air, "human carbon emissions" would continue? I didn't know that.

excon

Hello... the data was falsified to support a preconceived conclusion ;and opposing data was suppressed . This has already cost us untold $$$$ and policy makers are about to make decisions based on this that will break the bank.

I thought you opposed this type of thing. I thought you cared about the integrity of the scientific method .

The way to stop "human carbon emissions" is to give out free condoms (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_sc/climate_population_growth) according to the U.N. No word on how to deal with the environmental impact of all those condoms however.

Hello again, tom:

You should excuse me, I'm not talking about global warming or the study or those crooked Democrats and those sneaky scientists. I'm just talking about throwing trash into the air.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

If you quit smoking because you thought the dollar fairy was gonna lay a million on you, would it matter to your lungs that you quit for the wrong reason?

excon

On the other hand, if you quit chewing tabbaco because someone claimed it was bad for the environment, would it really help the environment if you continued producing pollution? What the government is trying to suppress isn't what's causing the problem and stopping it isn't going to fix the problem.

Pollution isn't the issue. CARBON DIOXIDE is what they are trying to suppress, not pollution. Nobody in the global warming community is trying to stop pollution. They are trying to stop carbon dioxide, which isn't a pollutant. Stoping carbon dioxide won't stop pollution. Stopping carbon dioxide won't clean up the environment.

Therefore, your cause-and-effect argument is a false one. Stopping carbon dioxide doesn't stop pollution.

Elliot

Hello again, tom:

You should excuse me, I'm not talking about global warming or the study or those crooked Democrats and those sneaky scientists. I'm just talking about throwing trash into the air.

excon

Still waiting for you to answer: what trash?

Elliot

Yeah we've gone over that every time this topic is raised. No one disagrees that "throwing garbage in the air " is a concern. But it is not related to the hoax being perpetrated by "concensus science"... and now we have smoking gun proof of it.

non sequiter

These scientists weren't fudging data about "throwing garbage in the air" .They were fudging data related to human carbon emissions and it's impact on global temperatures.

Hi Tom,

No, they were 'fudging data' in relation to temperature, not carbon emissions. Carbon emissions can be investigated by taking core samples from ice sheets. They can also be estimated by looking at tree rings.

There are a large number of agencies who use climatic data for any number of reasons. Some related directly to climate change and others indirectly. Depending on what you are trying to prove or disprove you choose the data you think will be most helpful.

I would avoid jumping to conclusions before we know all of the facts.'Fudging data' in this case is only one possibility on a continuum of possibilities. It may also turn out ( as outlined above) that some scientists were being selective in the data that they used.
Again, we don't know the facts.

Just because someone or some organization is involved in the collection of climatic data does no make them part of a world wide conspiracy. If it turns out that the 'fudging' of data has taken place in this organization then other agencies with more reliable data can 'pick up the pieces'. The climate debate will continue. Whether global warming is true or false will not be determined one way or the other by one (albeit powerful) climatic organization.

No, they were 'fudging data' in relation to temperature, not carbon emissions. Carbon emissions can be investigated by taking core samples from ice sheets. They can also be estimated by looking at tree rings.

Even more simply stated ;they were fudging ;doctoring and suppressing data to support a predtermined AWG position. It's like the Catholic Church building a case for the Earth being the center of the solar system after evidence was presented to dispute the dogma.

(albeit powerful )

That is an understatement .This UN organization has been steering the course of policy(with all that encompasses in funding /taxing ) in many countries for a long time based on a premise they have been advocating . Countries are prepared to converge in Copenhagen and steer global policy for the next 50 + years based on what is probably conclusions based on fudged data ; data suppressed and dissenting scientists squeezed out of the peer review process.

I know it is early but a smoking gun is a smoking gun. I have no doubt the UN will stonewall this like they did the Oil for Food scandal and it will eventually be swept under the rug.


And ;destruction of evidence following a FOIA request is a criminal activity here and I suspect in England also.


Just because someone or some organization is involved in the collection of climatic data does no make them part of a world wide conspiracy.
It very well could be because the collection of the data and the reports about eco-disaster that they were generating was being compiled ,steered and submitted by about 50 close knit agenda driven"scientists" even though they boast of having 2,500 scientists .

Meanwhile ,just based on what the emails reveal ;shouldn't the Nobel committee compell the IPCC to return it's Nobel Prize ?

I know it is early but a smoking gun is a smoking gun. I have no doubt the UN will stonewall this like they did the Oil for Food scandal and it will eventually be swept under the rug.

Of course they'll stonewall, there's too much at stake. The spin is beginning to take shape and it's further evidence that the agenda is more important than the facts. The LA Times says the emails won't make a difference (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-hacker22-2009nov22,0,913036.story) anyway and that Congress just doesn't care, it's about economics.


But advocates of action to curb global warming dismiss those claims, and political leaders and analysts say the Senate bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions will sink or swim based on economics, not science.

Six weeks ago - just six weeks - the Times was critical of Bush's EPA for suppressing scientific evidence (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/14/nation/na-epa-climate14) that could affect legislation.


The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by George W. Bush administration officials who had concluded -- based on science -- that the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.

What a bunch of pathetic frauds all around. But at least one prominent activist is showing some character over this, George Monbiot. He believes the emails are genuine and he's "dismayed and deeply shaken by them."


Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyisi ng):


It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…

If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:


I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

I'm waiting for the Goracle to follow suit... could be a long wait.

CBS is taking notice (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml). I'll just offer the last paragraph.


The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.

He's almost right, it should not be that "most of us" should expect such things, everyone should. Now, will they take it to their broadcast news or just stick to Obamacare poetry by Katie Couric (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/health-care-all-how-you-look-418807.html#post2100415)? As of yesterday Fox News was the only network that had covered it (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/11/24/networks-jumped-complaints-about-deniers-conspiracy-silent-about-left-s-) at all... but then they aren't really a news outfit are they?

Hello again, Steve:

So, what am I missing?? Some Yahoo university got caught cheating, therefore the entire body of science is out the door??

Is THAT what you're saying?? Really?

Excn

Hello again, Steve:

So, what am I missing?? Some Yahoo university got caught cheating, therefore the entire body of science is out the door??

Nope, this is the first step to exposing the systematic fraud perpetrated on the global public. All I've ever said in essence is we need an honest discussion and it's clear that the AGW religionists don't want that.

Seems you were all worked up on the Bush administration allegedly fudging on WMD's in Iraq - "fudging ;doctoring and suppressing data to support a predetermined position" as tom would say. One would think you'd be at least a little bit ticked that scientists are "fudging ;doctoring and suppressing data to support a predetermined position" on a global scale in ways that will affect every one of us unnecessarily. But then I know that as long as you get your way you don't care if it was done for fraudulent reasons.


Is THAT what you're saying?? Really?

Sorry buddy, but you suck at putting words in my mouth.

Seems you were all worked up on the Bush administration allegedly fudging on WMD's in Iraq - "fudging ;doctoring and suppressing data to support a predetermined position" as tom would say. One would think you'd be at least a little bit ticked that scientists are "fudgingHello again, Steve:

I don't like cheaters... But, presidents who cheat in order to go to war, are substantially different than scientists who cheat on a report.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I don't like cheaters... But, presidents who cheat in order to go to war, are substantially different than scientists who cheat on a report.

True, scientists who cheat affect EVERYONE.

Yeah yeah Tim Flannery, chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council says this is a desperate attempt by skeptics to discredit AWG before the Copenhagen meeting.
Malcolm Turnbull | Emissions Trading Scheme | Liberal Party | Copenhagen | Kevin Rudd | Australia and Environment policy (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/hackers-show-desperate-timing-20091124-jheu.html)

The dogma of AGW has been established and no 21st century Galilleo is going to roadblock the rush towards enacting new taxes ;destroying the old economic systems ,and reshaping the world under a socialist Green Framework.

Robert Tracinski blisters theses frauds at RCP. It's worthy of a full posting here:


ClimateGate: The Fix is In (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html)
By Robert Tracinski

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168) that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

A hacker-or possibly a disillusioned insider-has gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and made them available on the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine.

Yes, this is a theft of data-but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU.

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html)." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/)" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward " from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward " slope.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt) that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:


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.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt), "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=591&filename=1132094873.txt) that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1003&filename=1249503274.txt) that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt) that RealClimate is in their pocket.


I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html) for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes.[/B] Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

Go ahead ex, tell me it's no big deal.

Go ahead ex, tell me it's no big deal.Hello again, Steve:

Yes, this teeny little university cheated... Does this scandal change the scientific consensus? No, unless, the entire scientific community relied on THIS university's data for their conclusions... I don't think that's so. Therefore, it's no big deal.

It's like you wingers caught a couple people trying to set up a prostitution ring with ACORN. As much as you'd like it to be so, it didn't bring down ACORN... and this little scandal isn't going to bring down global warming.

excon

Yes, this teeny little university cheated... Does this scandal change the scientific consensus? No, unless, the entire scientific community relied on THIS university's data for their conclusions... I don't think that's so. Therefore, it's no big deal.


But they did . This CRU filtered all the data that went into reports the IPCC relied on to build the so called consensus. Have you not been reading what we write ? 53 scientists is all it takes when one organization runs the temple and skeptics get suppressed. That's the way the Catholic Church controlled information in the days before Galilleo and that is how it was done today.

Have you not been reading what we write ?

If he read our posts he couldn't support his predetermined positions. Similar to how the 'science' we've been discussing is handled.

Hello:

I'm old. Connect the dots for me between this university, the IPCC, and the 53 scientists write their reports. Please use little words.

excon

Advocates of the global governance/financial redistribution sought by the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks and the expanded domestic governance/financial redistribution sought by Liberal politicians both substantiate their drastic proposals with the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life – all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports. And the IPCC, in turn, bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists at CRU – largely from tree ring data -- who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html).

Disastrous policy based on fraudulent data in IPCC reports provided largely by CRU scientists caught red-handed in climate change scam. Small enough words?

I have been saying global warming is ANOTHER Al Gore scam from the get go.
I do believe this is at least his third scam... that we KNOW of.

Simply stated this is the Pentagon Papers;the Nixon tapes ,the suppression of the evidence Galilleo presented to the Vatican about the sun being the center of the solar system;the UN Oil for Food scandal and the Lockness Monstor hoax all rolled into one.

This is simply stated the biggest scientific fraud of the modern age . The geneticists who faked cloning are small potatoes in comparison.
Why ? Because the Britain's Climate Research Unit 's (CRU)data, and data from the Hadley Centre is the primary source used by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusions about AGW climate change.These email disclose a systematic manipulation of evidence;conceal their own doubts about their data and conclusions,destroy evidence that did not conform to their conclusions;and a pattern of suppressing the contrary evidence compiled that included colluding with scientific journals to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process .

Unfortunately they realize how wrong they are and the general public doesn't buy it so they changed it from global warming to climate change. Who can deny there is climate change? BUT there has ALWAYS been climate change. I remember in the 50's, 60's and 70's the snow being so deep. Now there isn't much snow but it is in the 0 and below 0 more now than then.
There scam is to eventually charge us for 'our carbon footprint usage while they buy carbon points for themselves. I say IF global warming or climate change is such a threat why should they be allowed to buy extras to use for themselves? If it is such a threat unused ones should be saved for future generations not on greedy scammers.
I heard Obama isn't going to sign the Copenhagen treaty but I don't know what's behind that. Probably something WORSE.

Minnesotans For Global Warming has put the scam to music...

nEiLgbBGKVk

Greenie
Love it!

Update: The Competitive Enterprise Institute is preparing to file suit (http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f) against NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies "for those bodies' refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act."

Update: Email reveals CRU director's intent to destroy or hide (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html) evidence in the face of a FOIA requests...


Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
Trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt). Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
Here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !

Update: The emails apparently weren't hacked at all:


Update: It has become fairly obvious this archive was not "hacked" or "stolen" but rather is a file assembled by CRU staff in preparation for complying with a freedom of information request. Whether it was carelessly left in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer system or was "leaked" by staff believing the FOIA request was improperly rejected may never be known but is not really that important. What is important is that:


1. There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files
2. The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers
3. The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff
4. Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s)

Update: Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183)

This is big stuff, you can't marginalize it any more ex. Well, you can but you'll just look silly.

3. The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff


Told you this was the Pentagon Papers. Wonder if the NY Slimes will praise the whistle-blower involved ?

The Slimes and virtually the rest of the MSM are silent because they're busy figuring a CYA angle for their complicity.

To answer your question, apparently not. Just stopped by their Science page and their concern - quite humorous now - is still ‘Cyber-Terrorism (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/your-dot-on-science-and-cyber-terrorism/).’ As noted before this is a relatively new position they've take on secret information.

But they did . This CRU filtered all the data that went into reports the IPCC relied on to build the so called concensus. Have you not been reading what we write ? 53 scientists is all it takes when one organization runs the temple and skeptics get suppressed. That's the way the Catholic Church controlled information in the days before Galilleo and that is how it was done today.


This is not completely accurate. The CRU did contribute data that went to the IPCC. But they are not the only organization to contribute reports. It takes more than 53 scientists to make a world wide conspiracy. Five hundred thousand scientists would not be enough.

The IPCC would take climatic information from hundreds of difference sources. Some of these organizations would have nothing to do with the CRU

For example. How does the CRU 'fudge' the temperature data from satellite readings? How do they 'fudge' the data taken from core ice samples when these scientists work for organizations other than the CPU?

It is not possible to plant conspirators in every key area of climatic research. Yes,the IPCC
Would make use of reports from CRU . It also receives reports from legitimate research organization. When Mann published his famous 'Hockey Stick Graph' It did receive wide praise from many scientists. However, IPCC was also critical of this data because it was in conflict with other reports.

This is not completely accurate. The CRU did contribute data that went to the IPCC. But they are not the only organization to contribute reports.

They were also the editors of the IPCC report.

"They were also editors of the IPCC report"



Yes, as would be expected considering the contributions made by the CRU. However there would be many editors, reviewers and contributors who would have a final say in how the reports are presented to the public. Politicians might even have a editorial role.

It would be a long and drawn out process of review and analysis. In order for there to be a world wide conspiracy the CRU would need a least one 'plant' in each step of the process. This is simply no possible.

In the reports do they include non suspect data that supports global warming and ignores data which does not support the warming theory? Yes, of course they do because the majority of scientists have already made up their minds. Just because they supported the suspect CRU data does not make them co conspirators.


It is not a case of the CRU being the only body to contribute findings to the IPCC who in turn make up a report using that CRU data which has been diligently put together by CRU editors.

Yes, the reports contain suspect CRU data but they would also contain data from other sources which are not suspect.

How useful is a report that contains suspect data and ignores data which points in the other direction? Not very useful, but I guess that would be subject to pages of debate.

How useful is a report that contains suspect data and ignores data which points in the other direction? Not very useful, but I guess that would be subject to pages of debate.

For scientific purposes, not very. For political purposes, extremely useful. That is the essence of the debate, the motivation.

Speaking of fudging temperature data...
The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit;the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research (NIWA) is under fire for massaging data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. Their figures suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf

Unlike the CRU scandal ,the NIWA data is available.But ;like the CRU ;their data was massaged to support a predetermined position .The Climate Science Coalition (CSC)plotted the data on a graph and... suprise!. the numbers looked nothing like the official figures.
[the scientist who began the graph in the 1980s,
Dr Jim Salinger (who no longer works for NIWA) was at the CRU when he began his work]

Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, and his colleagues requested and obtained the data used to produce the NIWA graph. Using these data, they produced a graph of their own. Their graph, shown here, displays no such decline from 1853 to 1909 and consequently no such steep increase from 1909 through 2008 as that shown on the NIWA graph. Instead, according to the CSC, the linear trend is a negligibly gentle +0.06 degree per century since 1853.

Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted. The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU. Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.

New Zealand climate agency accused of data manipulation (http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d25-New-Zealand-climate-agency-accused-of-data-manipulation)

Instead of a AGW trend the data shows that relative temperatures have remained constant since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850)!!

Salinger is one of the scientists who's emails were hacked. His emails show him to be determined to quash the efforts of global warming skeptics to advance alternative theories.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10611239

I'm sorry TUT ;these revelations cannot be dismissed. If there is no integrity in the scientific method then why shouldn't we conclude that all facts that science discovers is based on subjective and predetermined outcomes instead of the vaunted scientific method ?
All scientists should be alarmed about this because without the integrity of the process then all conclusions are suspect.
From a political standpoint ;how could policy makers trust the information ? What good are their credentials when you can't count on them to provide accuracy but instead deliberate falsifications?

From the link previous cited ,NIWA is denying any manipulations and is claiming to have used internationally accepted techniques . However they appear to be stonewalling when asked to release the raw data.

NIWA chief scientist David Wratt says he has no plans to release data backing up claims of different temperature adjustments between historial weather station sites.
Apparently ;and now I put the onus on the scientific establishment to prove otherwise;internationally accepted techniques include fudging data and cherry picking data to support preexisting conclusions. I now need proof that ALL consensus "official records" related to climate study has not been simularily fudged.

I've always suspected the AGW was a steaming pile of cattle flatulence .But I have otherwise trusted science and the scientific method as a source of truthful information . Most of us take technical matters on faith. Few of us understand the whys and how's .If a doctor tells us something we normally accept that information because the doctor is the expert.

But if someone we trusts says “it's OK” then we accept it as true;and we later learn it's a lie... then how can we trust what we are being told by the experts ? What else has been sold to us this way ?Even someone who believes all the cr@p we've been told about climate change should have their confidence in the theory shaken after these revelations.

I'm sorry TUT ;these revelations cannot be dismissed. If there is no integrity in the scientific method then why shouldn't we conclude that all facts that science discovers is based on subjective and predetermined outcomes instead of the vaunted scientific method ? Hello again, tom:

I've been following... I asked you to connect the dots for me... You didn't. Apparently, you CAN'T. Good for TUT. I thought so...

Now, it becomes clear why... You just don't like science... Some scientist gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and all of a sudden ALL scientists are crooks... Then you have the nerve to tell us about intelligent design... You guys are something else.. No longer will you taken seriously by me, when discussing scientific issues.

excon

Ex you know better. I can produce hundeds of examples on this cite where I have been a strong science supporter... including evolution.

Please honestly depict my positions.

Then you have the nerve to tell us about intelligent design... You guys are something else.. No longer will you taken seriously by me, when discussing scientific issues.

Changing the subject again, we're not discussing ID. Even if we were my position on that is the same as climate change, we deserve an honest debate. You apparently think suppressing and manipulating data to support a predetermined position is science. You should really think again.

You apparently think suppressing and manipulating data to support a predetermined position is science. You should really think again.Hello again Right Wingers:

I don't know how I could be more clear... However, to those of you who aren't listening, I'll give one more go...

I don't like cheaters... Let me say it again... I don't like cheaters... Having said that, my point ALL ALONG is that one little teeny university that got caught cheating, does NOT change the scientific consensus.

I heard tom say something about 53 scientists being able to create a worldwide consensus, and I asked for proof. Of course, none came. On its face, it's ridiculous.

excon

PS> I don't like cheaters.

PPS> Happy Thanksgiving.

Ex, it's not just one little teeny university (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/climate-change-scam-uncovered-417809-5.html#post2102647), these are the most prominent scientists. NASA has been evading FOIA requests for years, Obama's science czar is involved, RealClimate.org is involved. RealClimate players (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/) include:

Gavin Schmidt:climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Dr. Michael E. Mann:Penn State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center

Caspar Ammann: climate scientist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

Rasmus E. Benestad: physicist affiliated with the Norwegian Meteorological Institute (met.no) and the Oslo Climate Group (OCG)

Ray Bradley: Director of the Climate System Research Center (UMass Climate System Research Center (http://www.paleoclimate.org)) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences.

The extent is just beginning to become clear.

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving, be blessed

Deliberate falsification is not part of the scientific method and any conclusions based on deliberate falsification should be suspect by a reasonable person as yourself.

If you can't connect the dots after the evidence supplied in just this op then you are being willfully blind.

Michael Mann ;the author of the discredited 'hockey stick ' graph is from Penn State ,as Steve pointed out .So it is not confined to a single "teeny university " . But his emails are included in the ones revealed because the CRU was filtering the data for the IPCC .
And this has been a systematic abuse.

In 2005 Dr.Phil Jones of the CRU was asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6ºC temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Well yeah... that's what peer review is supposed to be about.

That work in academia overall has been wedded to a left wing agenda has always been suspected. Even Obama's economic adviser Larry Summers was booted out of Harvard for not being PC enough.
Michael Chricton predicted all of this in 2004 in his novel “State of Fear”.
It is all there, the bending of data, the fusion between ideologue scientists and government. When I read it, I thought he was exaggerating and taking literary license, but it turns out that he captured the deception accurately .

Instead of threatening to destroy the raw data ;why don't they publish their raw data ? Could it be that once they did that anyone could plot it on a graph and reveal the fraud they've advanced like the Climate Science Coalition did in New Zealand ? I think so.

The owness is now on legitimate science to repudiate this lest they lose all credibility. If I was a scientist I would be outraged at this because it reflects negatively on the whole discipline.

That work in academia overall has been wedded to a left wing agenda has always been suspected. Hello again, tom:

You bias's are showing once again. Can't have people being educated too much now, can you?

excon

Hello again, tom:

You bias's are showing once again. Can't have people being educated too much now, can you?

Excon

More willful blindness. I guess you missed my last post on this (one in a long history of similar posts) where the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus is gearing up to demand political allegiance (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/reeducation-camp-minneosta-418720.html) to earn a license to teach in public schools.


The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the "overarching framework" for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.

The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize -- and confess -- their own bigotry...

What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment? The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must "develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan."

And what if students' ideological purity is tainted once they begin to do practice teaching in the public schools? The task group frames the danger this way: "How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?"

Its answer? "Requir[e] training/workshop for all supervisors. Perhaps a training session disguised as a thank you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year?"

When teacher training requires a "disguise," you know something sinister is going on.

Before, this bias was at least cloaked to some degree, now they're coming right out and demanding conformity to their ideology or face reeducation under the ruse of an appreciation banquet.

The climate religionists are responding to this the same way, the science doesn't matter, we're pushing forward.

Hello again,

Since this is such a scandal, I wondered why I didn't see more of it in the media. Of course, you'd say that the leftist MSM wouldn't report stuff like this..

But, I found an article at Wired blog Threat Level (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/) that says "Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion."

Given your predisposition to distrust ANYTHING science does, you'll forgive me if I look askance upon your "scandal".

excon

Since this is such a scandal, I wondered why I didn't see more of it in the media. Of course, you'd say that the leftist MSM wouldn't report stuff like this..

You're either way behind, haven't kept up with our posts or again being willfully ignorant. We've been asking the same question.


But, I found an article at Wired blog Threat Level (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/) that says "Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion."

This meme has already been covered as well.


Given your predisposition to distrust ANYTHING science does, you'll forgive me if I look askance upon your "scandal".

Back to just plain misrepresenting us and willfully ignoring the evidence. Again, I've always asked for an honest debate, and in the face of clear evidence of fraudulent "science" you're the one refusing the honest debate. That's OK, it's not going to go away that easy.

We are challenging the orthodoxy and now we find that the scientists who created the orthodoxy rigged the data in a very unscientifc method .Yet we are the ones who are accused of being anti-science.

It's hard to debate when I have to spend so much time defending against positions I don't support. There has been no greater defender of legitimate science on these boards than I.

The broad brush of equating AGW skepicism with anti-science and off topic issues like Intelligence design may be a clever diversion ;but it does nothing to further this discussion.

Therefore I will no longer respond to ad hominum's along that line .

Hello again,

Since this is such a scandal, I wondered why I didn't see more of it in the media. Of course, you'd say that the leftist MSM wouldn't report stuff like this..

But, I found an article at Wired blog Threat Level (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/) that says "Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion."

Given your predisposition to distrust ANYTHING science does, you'll forgive me if I look askance upon your "scandal".

excon

Media want news, ex, global warming, impending catastrophy that is news, scientist lying, that's not news. We are not provided with truth, we are provided with sensation. I am a skeptic about many things but that's not news. Most of all I am skeptic about what our leaders tell us

60 megabytes worth of incriminating emails being taken out of context ?

Yeah that's the ticket !

Trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us ;and it's all a lie.

The truth cannot be silenced by a thousand lies.I predict that there are many scientists who knew the science behind AGW was a hoak . Now that there is proof of it more of them will come out and challenge the theory .There will be an accounting for this fraud.

60 megabytes worth of incriminating emails being taken out of context Now that there is proof of it more of them will come out and challenge the theory .There will be an accounting for this fraud.

One can only hope.

The scientific method I use can predict events correctly. Has AGW theory?

Using the theory of diversion I can safely predict excon will change the subject when the facts don't support his conclusions.

Hello again, Righty's:

You got YOUR facts, and I got MINE. They aren't the same. They never were the same. They never will be the same.

excon

Quote of the day on Climategate by Melanie Phillips (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5565331/green-totalitarianism.thtml):


All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged.

Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally?

I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.

The White House climate czar's reaction was a shrug. So much for science and transparency in the age of hopenchange. But you stick to your facts, ex.

Scientists once concocted the theory of eugenics . There was once a theory based on sound scientific theory that proved blacks inferior to the white race.

The scientific method I use can predict events correctly. Has AGW theory?

Nope and it will not because sound scientific method allows for replication and reproducability of results by someone else working independently.

Since these scientists fudged data and suppress the release of the raw data their results cannot be reproduced in a laboratory environment . When such attempts have been made ;like the New Zealand attempt... different results happened.