Beam me to Planet Gore !
Supplied at post #208 on this thread:
Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released
This is BIGGER than Watergate.
It’s a global multi-trillion-dollar hoax perpetrated by governments upon billions of people. It’s HEGEMONY.
When Socialists “object” to the hacking, tell them:
“Maybe if hackers had exposed it early, the Watergate horror would never have happened!”
Then watch them stand there silent, like Communist stooges.
fyi
Fantastic.
Now I’ve got to get to work on this.
Thanks for posting this. I downloaded the torrent earlier....but this is much easier to read. :)
Beware this stuff, and download and save everything! What was done to get those emails out was likely illegal. Though the release does show that some of those scientists were deliberately fudging data and and covering up issues. Not to mention deleting materials subject to foia documents!!! Also illegal!!!
Long time lurker, first time poster (and bro to Hegewisch Dupa - although I’m not sure that gains me any legitamacy...) Really been enjoying following this today and wanted to make a contribution.
Found this in the pile of info. from CRU. Screenshots from a PR agency, explaining to the “unbiased” scientists at CRU exactly how to sell thier message:
http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16387
I could spend weeks with this site! Thank you!
Morner, the world’s leading authority on sea level, has
been very clear in saying there is very little evidence to justify the IPCC’s sea-level
projections. The IPCC itself forecast up to 0.94m sea level rise in a century in its 1996
report; up to 0.88m in its 2001 report; and now 0.43m in its 2007 report. If one loosely
defines whatever t he IPCC says as the “consensus”, then not only does the “consensus” not
agree with itself: it is galloping in the direction of the formerly-derided sceptics.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=32&pp=25
This illustrates one of the problems bedevilling the
climate-change question: too much of the data and processes on the basis of which we are
trying to draw conclusions are unreliable, incomplete or very poorly understood. This
should not deter scientists from trying to make increasingly intelligent guesses
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=32&pp=25
Yes, that is much easier to search.
Your e-mail addresses are redacted.
I also downloaded it with bittorrent.
Filed for posterity.
BFLR & BTTT !!!!
Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole
process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often
wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these
kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not
always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you
well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed
and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding
the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we
were basically railroaded by Susan.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=32&pp=25
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1045
After reading through the emails, I have reached the conclusion the the leaker was Kevin Trenberth in Bolder.
He “gets it.” - He continually points out the descrepancies, and the others poo-poo him.
Thanks EATB!
This email caught my eye, going to the heart of the AGW industry’s distain for accountability!
“From: “Graham F Haughton” To: “Phil Jones” Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1”
I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we’ve had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I’ve signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, ‘and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!’
Graham”
Found here:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065
Pure gold self ~ping~
From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen
Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00
To: Stephanie Ferguson
Cc: “Peiser, Benny” , Patrick David Henderson
, Christopher Monckton
Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of scientific
‘fraud’ by CRU and Met Office
Dear Stephanie
I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work is based on the data provided by CRU (as
does the work of the IPCC and of course UK climate policy). Some of this, very
fundamentally, would now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and may even face future
legal enquiries. It may be in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good time and
become a little more ‘uncertain’ about its policy advice.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1038
This is good.......
I also think we had to protest when erroneous data like the claim that winter temperature in Abisko increased by 5.5 deg C during the last 100 years. The real increase is 0.4 deg C. The 5.5 deg C figure has been repeated a number of times in TV-programs. This kind of exaggerations is not supporting attempts to save fossil fuel.
Been checking some pro-GW sites. They`re laughing their heads off about this. Not concerned in the least.