Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

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...

Greenie
Love it!

Update: The Competitive Enterprise Institute is preparing to file suit 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 evidence in the face of a FOIA requests...

Quote:

---

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. 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:

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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.’ As noted before this is a relatively new position they've take on secret information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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/ima...arming_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]

Quote:

---

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

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...ectid=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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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, 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 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) 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 to earn a license to teach in public schools.

Quote:

---

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 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

But, I found an article at Wired blog Threat Level 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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.