Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable ( Global Warming Hoax exposed....)

anelegantchaos.org ^ | 20 November 2009 | anelegantchaos.org

[azkathy]

I found something on AEI too, (American Enterprise Institute)

This is just mind boggling, but of course it would be, when you think about what it would take to SCAM the whole world.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OK....I just listened to the full hour of the video...and they must have some good stuff in the book....

I think it is worth listening to even though the Graphs shown are rather small but the verbiage gives one some clues.....

Some very good points regarding Greenland....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Link to Amazon:

Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (Hardcover)

Price: $14.93 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Should have included this:

****************************************

Product Description

Is the weather truly getting worse? When it comes to global warming, dire predictions seem to be all we see or hear. Climatologists Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling Jr. explain why the news and information we receive about global warming have become so apocalyptic. The science itself has become increasingly biased, with warnings of extreme consequences from global warming becoming the norm. That bias is then communicated through the media, who focus on only extreme predictions. The authors compellingly illuminate the other side of the story, the science we aren't being told. This body of work details how the impact of global warming is far less severe than is generally believed and far from catastrophic.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

You’re on!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks.

[Just mythoughts]

fyi

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2391893/posts

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Added some links to this thread:

Global Warming Emails May Have Come From Insider

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Before I lose it...want to include this :

CRU Email - 1256760240.txt

Exact match results

You searched for Keiller

There were 1 results for the exact phrase Keiller, see below for more results.

Wednesday, 28 October 2009 20:04:00 : Filename: 1256760240.txt

From: Phil Jones To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009 Keith, There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this person now having seen what McIntyre has put up. You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why ...

[Marine_Uncle]

It is nice to finally see the tide is changing in a big way regarding the assumption anthropogenic global warming is actually true. The dopes (who are large in number) in the Senate must all be shown once and for all they have been quite deceived, and turn from allowing any Cap and Trade Bill to come into existence.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Man ,...keeping up with all of this is getting tough...digging thru the comments from this article at the New Scientist...link supplied on another thread by ;ExTexasRedhead;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18192-hacked-archive-provides-fodder-for-climate-sceptics.html

came across this one....

******************************************EXCERPT******************************

CRU Crooked From The Top

Tue Nov 24 22:50:10 GMT 2009

Here's the UEA Environmental Dean talking about how he's using a leaked paper to get a grant, but for the CRU to keep it hush-hush:

"I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research councils' thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source."

(long URL - click here)********************************EXCERPT***************************************

CRU Email - 925823304.txt

From: Trevor Davies

To: m.kelly

Subject: Re: CRU Board
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 09:08:24 +0100

Mick,

CONFIDENTIAL



I think I'm missing out on something here (refer also to Keith's email
where he talked about "CRU being railroaded by ENV"). My recollection was
that it was agreed that I should approach Reading to see if they are up to
anything & sound out if they might be interested in talking about a joint
bid. The suggestion may have been mine originally, but I do not have
absolute recollection over that. Southampton have approached us via the
Registrar and via Peter Liss. As far as I am aware, nobody from UEA has
approached them (although I have certainly argued with Jean that we should
at least talk with them).

I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research
councils' thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this
document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and
EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will
certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be
2million per year. That might imply that the Councils favour multi-site,
clusters, etc, but they stress they have no preconceptions.

Given some of their requirements, the JIF bid may be useful.

An important requirement seems to be to attract an "internationally
renowned and charismatic scientist" to be overall Director. Do you think we
should sound out Schneider? Watson? ??

Trevor
At 11:17 01/05/99 +0100, Mick Kelly wrote:
>I can't make the re-arranged date so here is my input on some of the items
>I know are on the agenda:
>
>National Climate Centre:
>
>1. I feel even more strongly after learning more of the opposition that we
>should make a single site bid and capitalise on our proven track record as
>the only UK university which has covered and can cover all aspects of the
>climate issue from hard science to policy and philosophy.
>We should
>continue to firm up our links with NERC institutes, Hadley Centre, etc.
>But if we reach out to other universities we will:
>a) reveal what we see to be our sectoral weaknesses - a very bad strategic
>move
>b) have to split what is a limited pot of cash
>c) create a potential adminstrative monster that we know ERSC don't like
>from CSERGE experience
>d) weaken our comparative advantage as the place where all aspects of the
>issue are covered.
>It's my understanding that the CRU 5 have already decided in previous
>discussions that this is the way we should go? Trevor - do you want to
>argue against this? It's notable that we haven't been approached by other
>universities!
>
>2. Kerry reckons that likely limited lifetime of ESRC presence
>(Global Env programme office) at SPRU means it's not worth approaching
>them - so I haven't.
>
>3. I propose a working group be set up to move forward the centre proposal
>and ensure coordination/representation of views. 2 from CRU Bd,
>2 from CSERGE (Kerry and Neil?), Dean. Chair from CRU would be my vote -
>this should not all be loaded on Trevor's shoulders.
>
>Studentships
>To report on situation re my proposals:
>1. Craig Wallace (ex MSc) is reserve candidate (joint with Tim Osborn).
>2. My candidate for my solo topic was switched to the ESRC/NERC
>interdisciplinary bid by the studentship committee even though I'd told
>them we definitely couldn't put him forward for this - so that's
>scratched. They thought my topic was not NERC-friendly - but didn't tell
>me this till after the event. A number of phrases spring to mind but maybe
>they were just having a bad day.
>3. My feeling is best tactic for next year
>if we want more students - do we or are we at saturation point? - is to
>advertise early (now?), advertise applicants must have/be in line for a
>first or MSc with distinction, ensure we get feedback on topics from the
>committee and submit candidates early on in the process. Obvious, really.
>
>CRU 5 employment/salaries situation
>What is the current situation?
>
>AOB: Desk space for students
>Can I repeat that I think we should have policy on registration only ie
>post three year grad. students to be adopted when Nick finishes and before
>we hit the next late submitter? My feeling is a desk for 6 months then
>they move out to our overflow rooms in ENV. We should prioritise desk
>space in CRU for first year students. What does ENV do in this situation?
>
>Regards
>Mick
>
> ______________________________________________
>
>Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
>United Kingdom
>Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I like this one from the New Scientist:

*****************************

In My Opinion

Wed Nov 25 01:32:47 GMT 2009

my opinion, as i have felt this for a long time, beginning to doubt of course, but new surfacing information like this help. Is that, global warming is a natural occurence, and blaming it on ourselves has from the nearly the beginning, developed from an idea, to a global scam, revolved around taxing every known resource, including our own breath (we emit 5ish pounds of CO2 a day), so were all contributing to the 'problem', gradually resulting in a global goverment being established through the guise of a 'climate treaty' it's happening folks, and this is a very small part of the clear evidence being hidden from us, to, well... f*** us all in the A**

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

One more:

****************************************

Better Late. . . . .

Wed Nov 25 03:12:48 GMT 2009

It seems I am a little late to add a comment to this controversy. There is a lot of argument over the word "trick" in one of the e-mails. Personally, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. What concerns me are the e-mails that expose concerted efforts to suppress publication of papers from sceptical scientists, and there is no ambiguity about what is contained in those e-mails. Michael Mann is involved in that correspondence. He was co-author of the fraudulent hockey stick graph. There are several commenters here who expressed the view that this skuldugery does not detract from the scientific efforts of the people concerned. I cannot agree with that. I believe that people who have been shown to indulge in dishonesty and deceit can not be trusted in anything they do. The process of science has always involved creating theories from available data, then making the data openly available to see if others can replicate the results, or conversely find fault in the theory. Open debate then leads to the theory being accepted, modified, or abandoned. This process has been totally corrupted by the participants in this record of e-mails. The only reason I can see for doing that is the knowledge that their theories are wrong, but they don't want to admit it for political or personal gain.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Man ,...keeping up with all of this is getting tough...digging thru the comments from this article at the New Scientist...link supplied on another thread by ;ExTexasRedhead;"
I for one salute your efforts in bringing out various aspects of this scam to light for all to read.

[Marine_Uncle]

I should add. It is high time the United Kingdom start to look into how their universities have been on this scam for so long and sucked huge amounts of monies from the public coffers.
Likewise in the USA and other western nations, similar inquiries must be hatched.
Universities must be put on notice they can be closed down and sued by the citizens of their perspective nations once it is found they participate in deceiving the public on things that effect the lives of millions.
If the said so called places of higher learning do not want to be shut down, then they must point fingers at those within their ranks that must stand trial for crimes against humanity...

[MHGinTN]

Pingalingaling