Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/21/2009 9:04:07 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The University of East Anglia mail server was hacked earlier in the week and a string of private correspondences between esteemed climate scientists were published. In addition to some juicy internecine gossip becoming embarrassingly public, a few of the messages seem to reveal doubts about the evidence for global warming and at least one refers to a statistical “trick” being used to hide lower-than-predicted surface temperatures in recent years. James Delingpole dubs this “Climategate” and pronounces it “the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming.’” Andrew Bolt calls it evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. Michelle Malkin terms it “The global warming scandal of the century.”
Andrew Revkin of the NYT — himself a subject of some of the emails in question — summarizes the controversy:
The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.
In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”
Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at outsidethebeltway.com ...
Ping
bump for later read
Global warming quit being a science a long time ago and facts just get in the way of the movement.
“Climate scientists”—code-speak for grifters.
The real item of interest here...is if everything is displayed and the public comes to believe the fraud...then tens of thousands of climate scientists...with degrees in this field...are going to find projects and programs as targets for funding cuts. They will be unemployed. Where exactly can you employ a global warmer? Where can you hire a guy whose chief occupation yesterday...was fraud? Where can you put a guy who was pulling in $130k a year with some university...but the best you arrange now is a Channel Nine news staff slot in Boise that makes $55k a year?
If this whole thing falls apart...there are thousands of these guys left without ample employment.
Then toss in alternate energy businesses...the solar panel crowd. Why would I waste $15k fixing up my house with solar panels....when it’s not necessary to save anything?
Looks like their scam is getting busted.
It’s another cash cow, no doubt. And the conceit that the weather can actually be changed if mankind changes behavior in accordance with UN resolutions...
Never mind.
>>Where can you hire a guy whose
>>chief occupation yesterday...was fraud?
You mean like the techie folks who Empower(tm)ed Enron and then went on to Empower(tm) the sub-prime mortagage industry?
Conveniently for the fraudsters, LEO is busy chasing terrorists....
Warminggate
The party’s over. They burst your pretty balloon...
Most all scams eventually fall apart, some more quickly than others.
Its a bit like watching the old Amway and Quixtar scams unravel again...
Good.
Or both?
I am looking to see where the connection lies that cause the decision to hold off on this supposed earth saving treaty. Maybe somebody decided they could not economically live UP to cutting emissions because the data says this is going to be one ‘energy’ requiring winter.
To me a ‘if’ this started with a hacker, given how much data there was to get through to find the ‘goodies’, the hacker had to be hacking for a while.
I do not know where the beginning or the end of this yarn is.
Politics seems the obvious choice.
As another Freeper said on a different thread--the emails are irrelevant (though they provide juicy gossip, which is all that interests the "news" media). What matters is the DATA and computer methodologies which were also released, and which the CRU folks have vehemently refused to release to other scientists, despite attempts to use the British equivalent of the Freedom of Information laws to force them to. The data will FINALLY enable a REAL peer review of the scientific evidence based on data that hasn't been "cherry-picked" to build up the AGW case.
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=125688
Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]
I note, ironically, that their sub-forum for this:
“Global Warming and Other Junk Sciences” was created many years ago— they called it from the first.
Actually that story by Joyner seems a little biased to me.
The emails do show corruption, cover-up of facts, attempts to “blacklist” scientists who oppose the view of the Warmers and Joyner needs to read and study more of the emails if he doesn’t “get it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html?hpid=topnews
This article has a little meat to it quoted here,
“But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.”
Quoting Ronald Bailey:
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Joyner and Bailey might want to look in the documents folder, for a file named jones-foiathoughts.doc. It's short and to the point.
It doesn't appear, when taken together with his emails and denial of the FOIA request, that Jones chose option #1."Options appear to be:
- Send them the data
- Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
- Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them."
_________________________________________________________
Joyner and other “Green Reporters” might also learn from this site,
http://camirror.wordpress.com/
Where Steve McIntyre has posted the FOIA request denial, quoting an interesting part in that denial below,
“Regulation 12(11) requires that we provide as much requested information as is possible outside the coverage of any applicable exception. After consultation with Phil Jones and other relevant staff in regards the nature and composition of the requested dataset, I have concluded that the data is organised in such a way as to make it extremely difficult and time-consuming to segregate the data in the manner that you suggest and would indeed, in our view, amount to an unreasonable diversion of resources from the provision of services for which we, as an institution, are mandated. Further, we would maintain that where no such segregation has, or will occur, we should not release any of the data for fear of breaching such restrictions as do exist.”
Most interesting that the person who sent Steve the FOIA follow up consulted with the master manipulators, “After consultation with Phil Jones and other relevant staff”
Also, if you look at the #3 option in the word file I posted (which the file properties indicate was created in April, 2007), Jones writes:
"Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s."
According to this NRO article by Patrick J. Michaels in 2009:
Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
So it appears that Jones, in the word doc written in April 2007, is contemplating removing the 1980's data that he claimed in 2009 was never "kept" due to lack of "storage availability," (which in itself is nonsense as Michaels points out).
Well...that about says it ....quality controlled and homogenized
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable ( Global Warming Hoax exposed....)
Book Title is Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.