[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[N0help4u]

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.

[tomder55]

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 .

[N0help4u]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

[N0help4u]

Greenie
Love it!

[speechlesstx]

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...

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:

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.

[tomder55]

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 ?

[speechlesstx]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[TUT317]

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.

[Catsmine]

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.

[TUT317]

"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.

[Catsmine]

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.

[tomder55]

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]

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.

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.