Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?

posted at 8:48 am on November 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line.  The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt’s Up With That):

The internet is on fire this morning with confirmation computers at one of the world’s leading climate research centres were hacked, and the information released on the internet.

A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents, has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones.

In an exclusive interview with Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition, Jones confirms his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to have come from his organisation.

“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

One of the most damning e-mails published comes from Dr. Jones himself.  In an e-mail from almost exactly ten years ago, Jones appears to discuss a method of overlaying data of temperature declines with repetitive, false data of higher temperatures:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Jones told Investigate that he couldn’t remember the context of “hide the decline,” and that the process was a way to fill data gaps rather than mislead.  But when scientists talk about “tricks” in the context of hiding data, it certainly seems suspicious.

Andrew Bolt points to a couple of other suspicious entries in the database as well for the Herald-Sun.  For instance, here we have scientists discussing how to delete inconvenient data in order to emphasize other data that supports their conclusions:

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.

Hmmm. Sounds like “hid[ing] the data” once again.  And here we have them privately admitting that they can’t find the global warming that they’ve been predicting:

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data.  That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

Dr. Jones has confirmed that these e-mails are genuine.  Whether the work represented by these scientists is as genuine seems to be under serious question.  Tim Blair says, “The fun is officially underway.”

Update: These e-mails may explain this:

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Or maybe it didn’t exist at all, except when scientists at Hadley were “hid[ing] the decline[s].”

Update II: This follows on a more mundane controversy over competence at Hadley that erupted in September:

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

James Delingpole has even more on the scandal in the Telegraph.co.uk, which I blog about at StopGlobalCoolingNow.com

Ordinary1 on November 20, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Can someone answer three questions for me? Please.

1.What is the average temperature of the Earth supposed to be?

2.How and where do you measure it?

3.What brought the last ice age to an end?

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Can someone answer three questions for me? Please.

1.What is the average temperature of the Earth supposed to be?

42

2.How and where do you measure it?

Rectal thermometer

3.What brought the last ice age to an end?

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Baalam. He was tired of skiing, and wanted to go windsurfing for a change.

(Answered with all the seriousness those questions required.)

hicsuget on November 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Wow, even Salon.com is piling on (though unintentionally)

Scientists baffled by global warming’s time-out

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/11/19/cooling/index.html

MechEng5by5 on November 20, 2009 at 4:45 PM

The space race encouraged the R&D of earthbound tech that was in its infant stages,

Dark-Star on November 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Can you name one?

Wasn’t micro-electronics. IBM was investing way more than NASA did, and their products were sold to earth bound companies.
Maybe remote medical sensors, but most of the major universities were already working on that stuff anyway.
The best that can be said of NASA is that it slightly accelerated the development of a few technologies.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM

1. The Earth is not supposed to have an average Temp. People who say that are personifying the Earth or Mother Nature. Not that I have a problem with believing in Gods, but it is foolish to claim a rock orbiting a Sun must have a specific global temp.

2. Al Gore’s Rectum

3. The Milankovitch Cycle seems to be responsible for the Ice Ages followed by Interglacials that we have gone on over the past several million years.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 4:46 PM

hicsuget on November 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM

They were asked with all the seriousness that the subject deserves.

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 4:46 PM

It’s pretty settled that the abiotic oil theory is true

Tim Burton on November 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM

It is? Where?

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 4:47 PM

If one of the admins can trace his IP back to his physical location, I really think we should put in a call to the guys in white coats.

Dark-Star on November 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Is there a rule about someone who’s been banned, re-registering under a new name? This guy used to be StOlaf, until he himself banned.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Kudos to gwelf for admitting that the sun is at the center of the Solar System…
Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Oh, Gropin’s, Gropin’s, Gropin’s… if you’d only paid attention in science class when Copernicus, Kepler and Isaac Newton were discussed then surely you’d know that the Sun is located at one of two focii that characterize each planet’s elliptical orbit.

You are confusing their scientific findings with those of your favorite scientific information sources: Nickelodeon, the Keebler Elves and Fig Newton. Now go ask your Mom for another cookie.

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 4:50 PM

There’s a documentary out there called, “Not Evil, Just Wrong” but I wonder at times.

Yakko77 on November 20, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Ok, now I understand your problem. Your answers to questions 1 and 3 contain actual coherent thought. That’s a mistake when discussing faux theories with psuedo scientists like Algore and his minions. Actual facts don’t matter only that you believe and comply…and of course send money. Your answer to number 2 however has promise. We can build on that! :-)

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Why don’t look at actual satellite data from the last 30 years?

We do. Very little warming, and cooling over the last decade.

Why don’t you look at ground-records from the last 100 years.?

We do. We also look at the data that shows how the ground base record is so contaminated that it can’t be used to figure out the temperature of the earth within 5C, much less the hundredths of a degree claimed by the alarmists.

Or geological records from the last few million years?

We have. The geologic record shows that the earth has been much warmer than today, even in low CO2 periods. It also shows that there have been periods where CO2 was 20 times greater than today, yet the temperatures were similar and sometimes cooler.

Why don’t you see if temperature tracks solar activity or CO2 levels better?

It tracks solar activity almost perfectly. It doesn’t track CO2 levels at all.

Saying that the last decade has cooled is to simply ignore the facts.

Paying attention to reality is now ignoring the facts?

And 1934? Seriously? You guys are still on about that? 1934 was the warmest year in the US

About 90% of the temperature sensors used in the historical record are located in the US.

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM

This guy used to be StOlaf, until he himself banned.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Are you sure about that? StOlaf was pretty stupid but I don’t think he was in this guy’s league. Of course StOlaf had Apacalyps and Redpill to prop him up.

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM

hicsuget on November 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM

In other words, you don’t know.
You know that other alarmists don’t know either.
So you seek to distract attention from your lack of knowledge by being flippant.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 4:59 PM

I’m not a fan of publicizing hacked emails. There are legitimate ways to get information like this.

Methods are important.

hawksruleva on November 20, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Are you sure about that? StOlaf was pretty stupid but I don’t think he was in this guy’s league. Of course StOlaf had Apacalyps and Redpill to prop him up.

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM

I’ve asked him straight up 3 times, and he’s never denied it.
He also pushes the notion that the Orthodox church is the only true church, all Jews are going to hell, and he likes to get involved in real deep theological discussions so he can throw out obscure theological references.

If I didn’t know better, I would think he’s a prelate at some Orthodox university somewhere in Europe.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM

I’m not a fan of publicizing hacked emails. There are legitimate ways to get information like this.

Methods are important.

hawksruleva on November 20, 2009 at 5:02 PM

People have been requesting this information for well over a decade. Nothing but stonewalls.

They have refused to even publish the data behind their so called studies, much less the methods used to “massage” the data so that it showed what they wanted to show.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 5:05 PM

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

Wait, I thought global warming was going to be “catastrophic”, and we have to stop it. So… why would it be a “travesty” if it stopped on its own? No trillions spent and quality of life sacrified… Wouldn’t this be something to cheer?

No, because for scientists they need to push this crap to get their funds, and the true goal is a New World Order, which as always I have to say isn’t a conspiracy theory, it a phrase uttered by leaders all over the world and people at the UN. Again, SARS and Bird Flu didn’t get the job done, but global warming has them so close to their goal they can smell it. Or maybe Obama just passed gas when he bent over so far to bow to the world.

RightWinged on November 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Wait a minute, isn’t that polar bear illustration proof positive for global warming?

cjk on November 20, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Nope. That’s proof positive that that bear saw that chunk of ice as either a good resting place, or a higher vantage point from which to hunt prey in the water below.

But I love how the emotional implication is that it has been sitting there since the ice chunk was the size of a mountain and it’s melting so quickly that the poor wittle bear will be left with no ice (home) at all.

I am SO thankful to finally see this scam start flying apart at the seams. LONG time coming. The goracle should have to pay back every bogus ‘carbon credit’ he has ever sold and be put on trial for the fraud he so obviously is.

Don’t drop the soap, Al.

techno_barbarian on November 20, 2009 at 5:11 PM

The whole thing is a boondoggle, designed to rip people off.

Terrye on November 20, 2009 at 5:11 PM

I’m not a fan of publicizing hacked emails. There are legitimate ways to get information like this.

Methods are important.

hawksruleva on November 20, 2009 at 5:02 PM

I agree with you there. I noticed, however, when Sarah Palin’s account was hacked by someone looking for dirt, they couldn’t find any.

There seems to be plenty of dirt here.

Lily on November 20, 2009 at 5:14 PM

The Procrustes’ Bed of Bad Science and Rotten Sceintists:

~if it doesn’t fit, stretch it- or chop it off- until it does.

My computer models say they’re a pack of lying, self-serving scumbags

profitsbeard on November 20, 2009 at 5:17 PM

If you don’t like facts and want to live in fantasy I can’t help with that.

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 12:04 PM

That’s your proof? A serious voice and creepy music? A claim of cutouts against a window?
HAHAHAHAHA! They have your mind, they have seized your mind. Stop, listen, they will tell you what to do.

Try this information about the belts (3 or 4 of them)
You will notice that they spent about 30 minutes total in the Van Allen belts, the amount of radiation is just under 350mRem, less then if you lived in the Rocky Mountains.
Sorry to burst your bubble Max…
Oh, and to disappoint you even more, the space station orbits above the belt, so every person ever to occupy the space station has passed through the belt…(cue the creepy music), but they are still aliiiivvvve…

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 5:18 PM

There are numerous references to amipulating data – but in fact I think the main point here is this:

There is conversation between Mann, Jones, and Keith Braiff (sp?) where Keith it is suggested to Keith to ‘manipulate’ his data to fit a propsed graph with Mann and Jones work.

All 3 of these guys want their work used – but Keith’s data is a little too stubborn and raises more questions than it does prove a point they wish to make.

So Keith ‘manipulates’ his data and Steve McIntyre (their Bush/Palin most hated figure) finds that Keith’s data is suspect and publishes at ClimateAudit.

This elicits immediate denials and smears by Jones and Mann who scoff that Keith’ds work could have been ‘manipulated (even though they suggested it to him).

This document drop details the e-mail exchange that show this is a coordinated effort to reach agreed upon conclusions thru some very suspect methods.

It also has all the ‘tree ring’ data McIntyre and others will need to see exactly how the data was manipulated.

There is a lot of documentation and e-mails in the files released – but there is definitely a bit of an effort here to give McIntyre exactly what he needs to prove his accusations and severely hurt CRU.

Mr Purple on November 20, 2009 at 5:24 PM

In other words, you don’t know.
You know that other alarmists don’t know either.
So you seek to distract attention from your lack of knowledge by being flippant.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 4:59 PM

I never claimed to know–I’m a global warming agnostic. The whole debate reminds me of the debate that goes on in investing circles whenever the market pulls back after a rally. Is it a retrenching before another upswing, or is it the first in a series of downswings, is the question asked. Shysters, charlatans, and fools analyze the past data statistically hoping for clues to the market’s future behavior, and the debate takes a partisan tone with investors concluding the market is about to skyrocket/tank because the party they like is in/out of power.

Climate studies are different in one important way, though–climate is driven not by herd psychology, but by physical causality. In the field of climate, herd psychology and political partisanship drives, not the underlying phenomenon, but rather the conclusions derived from the data. Valid methods are possible for making determinations regarding the future direction of climate, but I don’t observe either side using them (the methods used by deniers are worse than those used by scientifically-minded supporters of the theory, and are equally as bad as those used by alarmists).

What galls me even more than the methods of the alarmists, who simply wish to “prove” AGW so that they can achieve their long-term goal of destroying industrial society, is the mindset of the deniers. They, of course, say not that global warming isn’t happening, but rather that it is impossible for it ever to happen. Their rationale is: 1) God wouldn’t do that to us, and/or 2) it would imply the need to enact government policies that we don’t like, so therefore we have to pretend to attempt to refute it. Oldnuke’s questions clearly were originated in this mindset, and were not an attempt at cognition.

A better solution would be to remain agnostic on the data itself while denying that, should GW be proven true, draconian remaking of the economy is the way to solve it. (Why not, for instance, lobby for more and better air-conditioners? Stronger sea-walls? Tax credits for relocating out of the south?)

hicsuget on November 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM

but they are still aliiiivvvve…

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 5:18 PM

No, they’re now zombies and they’re wandering around eating brains. MaxCon is proof, there’s consensus on that and the debate is over.

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Finally, these morons are revealed for what they are… not scientists, but posers. Just trying to create a biological disease model is challenging enough. In order to test for a significant effect, a real scientist would use a model in which he/she can control for as many variables – so that if there is a difference between a control group and a test group – he/she can then evaluate if the difference is significant, or not.

However, when these experiments are performed, the necessarily disclosed caveat that preclude huge assumptions from being presented as real conclusions – is the acknowledgement of what differences exist between a model & reality. E.g. cell culture or animal model do not translate into significance in humans. One even needs to be cautious drawing conclusions when looking at an intact human organ (e.g. piece of liver) ex vivo… becase this lacks the fact that the liver may function or respond differently in he intact human because the liver ex vivo lacks endogenous chemicals etc. that it responds to in an intact person.

Now, to the point. These idiots are not scientists – rather they are shams, politicians pushing an agenda that isn’t wholly based upon science. They create computer models that only as good as their creator(s). How is it possible that they can control for the variables they know of (what is their control model?) if they can’t control for the variables they omit, either deliberately, or due to ignorance? They can’t. So now it comes to this – the truth is out – real investigation of widespread academic fraud should be performed, and these people should be formally discredited. Additionally, these people, whose behavior is a disgrace to science everywhere, should be prosecuted in a court of law for damages inflicted upon society due to passage of laws based upon a pile of shit conclusions – that affects the lives of millions upon millions of people – simply for no other reason to achieve widespread control – and eliminate debate based upon the evidence, or lack thereof.

Everyone should call for Congress to dump Waxman-Markey and, in light of this information – reevaluate the impact of any damages upon citizens based upon any similar laws that have already been passed.

The most amusing thing about this is it discredits the Nobel committe -for awarding an award to Al Gore. Additionally, this also discredits the recent award given to our current President – based upon nothing.

If liberals are so worried about global warming – and were honest – then they should consider the following points:

- rather than being vegetarian & eating the resources which convert CO2 to oxygen – to eat meat.

- environmentalists like Al Gore – as obese as he is – should lose weight – because every ounce of fat on his body – and in his head – produces CO2

- rather than promote population control, to limit CO2 production, if they are so worried about it – to quit their fearmongering and bloviating – put a plastic bag over their heads – and end our misery – so that the rest of us can enjoy living on this planet in freedom. If not, then these women should have their tubes tied – these men should have vasectomies – and set examples for the rest of us. We’ll wait for a few years, collect data, and probably will find that temperatures cycle (remember these idiots were crying about the coming ice age in the ’70s & ’80s), and that there will be less governmental control of our lives.

Now, I’m going to eat steak with baked beans, pass a lot of gas, turn all of the lights on in my house, take a really long shower, and try to get my wife pregnant.

Danny on November 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Mr Purple on November 20, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Your post disappointed me, severely disappointed me. I thought sure you posted a word I had never seen…amipulating. and spent a little time trying to find the definition. Darn, just a simple typo…
I say the bad information came from: Mr. Purple, in the science lab, with wrong data…

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 5:39 PM

In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

The notion of “peer review” is vastly overrated unless its done in public by thousands of people.

It often works like this:

“Oh crap, I was supposed to get this back to them by tomorrow, so I’ll just say it looks OK”.

Purple Avenger on November 20, 2009 at 5:41 PM

I have been telling people that this is bogus for years. I was a voice crying in the wilderness*. Now I am VINDICATED!

(*I am not John the Baptist, however)

DuctTapeMyBrain on November 20, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Man made global warming is a hoax by big government socialists in an effort to create new revenue streams to governments. Don’t be fooled, tax hikes can’t change the weather.

Dollayo on November 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM

I love it when Reality slaps Liberalism upside the head!!!

Now that the Lib “scientists” have been forced to recognize that the sun has much more to do with temperature than SUV’s, what’s next?

Will they suddenly discover that carbon is essential to life (and not “evil”)?

Will there finally be the discovery that windmills are, in fact, an OLD technology which was discarded 50 years ago as uneconomical? Farmers used to use them everywhere to power wells, etc, but you don’t see many of them in working condition anymore. Why? The same wind which powers them also periodically destroys them.

Will there be a recognition that, in fact, oil and gas are renewable resources?

Will there be a discovery that the solution to the “trash problem” is to simply repeal the laws which foolishly prevent the best and most time tested solution: burning it?

Will someone suddenly discover that nuclear power is safe and economical, and that it would be much more safe and economical if the foolish legislation which outlawed recycling of nuclear fuel were repealed?

Will a new history book come out which puts “environmentalists” in a separate chapter entitled “Give me your money and I can control the weather: Snake Oil Salesmen in the 20th Century”?

Free entertainment every new day!!!

landlines on November 20, 2009 at 6:04 PM

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/20/climategate/

Ed!

Another badge of honor!

Joe Caps on November 20, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Purple Avenger on November 20, 2009 at 5:41 PM

As a co-author on a number of scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals, I was startled in recent years when the lead authors of these papers asked for names of other researchers who could ‘we’ would recommend to perform the peer review. Apparently some journal editors have handed off this key responsibility to authors of papers thereby eliminating an assumption that the peer review process is objective and impartial.

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 6:14 PM

This is what happens when environmentalist whack job scum put humans last:

Cumbria floods: Cockermouth flood defence plan rejected ‘because fish were spawning’, claim furious locals

Furious Cockermouth residents have complained that fears over disturbing salmon spawning has made the flooding problem far worse this year.

Residents had called for the river bed to be dug into by 10ft in order to prevent flooding following discussions about the problem with the authorities earlier this year.

But they claim their plan was rejected by the Environment Agency because it would interfere with salmon laying their eggs in the River Derwent.

Today residents reacted with fury and complained that the authorities are treating salmon as being ‘more important than people.’

Sharke on November 20, 2009 at 6:34 PM

In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

The notion of “peer review” is vastly overrated unless its done in public by thousands of people.

It often works like this:

“Oh crap, I was supposed to get this back to them by tomorrow, so I’ll just say it looks OK”.

Purple Avenger on November 20, 2009 at 5:41 PM

If you’re the same Purple Avenger from over at Ace’s, I just wanted to thank you for some of the most interesting and intelligent posts I’ve read in a long time.

Thanks to you, I discovered personality types and it really answered a lot of questions and opened many doors.

So, thanks a lot.

techno_barbarian on November 20, 2009 at 6:55 PM

MaximusConfessor is really Archimedes Plutonium; engage him at your own risk

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM

MaximusConfessor is really Archimedes Plutonium; engage him at your own risk

ya2daup on November 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Great, just what the world needed, a second incarnation of that glue-sniffing dingdong!

Dark-Star on November 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Put on your rain slickers. heads are exploding at a certain colored futbol blog.

princetrumpet on November 20, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Here’s exactly how terrified the warmers are. This is the NYT blogger Andy Revkin horrified that “purloined documents” are on the internet and he won’t publish them (this from the NYT!!!!!!)

And, then not allowing comments on his post!!!!!

So, one thing we do know, these things are cutting close to the bone

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

r keller on November 20, 2009 at 7:18 PM

princetrumpet – do tell.

I suppose I could just go over there, but of late I can’t get much past the first couple articles’ headlines before I end up ROFL, and I’m a little overdressed for that right now.

Oh, WTF. I clicked over to Thinkprogress, and that’s almost as bad. Let me see what the Lord of the Goddamn Flies is up to…

JEM on November 20, 2009 at 7:19 PM

The LGF folks still refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room, the conspiracy to pervert the process in order to prevent discussion of work critical of the alarmist position.

JEM on November 20, 2009 at 7:25 PM

princetrumpet – do tell.

I fight the urge to not go and watch the traffic accidents over there but you now how that goes. At any rate, the down-ding-death squads are out in full force and inflicting the deathly down dings with derring-do upon anyone who dares deny the undeniable.

In other words, their info is ALWAYS better than anyone else’s and that’s just that, dontcha know?

princetrumpet on November 20, 2009 at 7:26 PM

I am SO thankful to finally see this scam start flying apart at the seams. LONG time coming. The goracle should have to pay back every bogus ‘carbon credit’ he has ever sold and be put on trial for the fraud he so obviously is.

techno_barbarian on November 20, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Agreed, and thank heavens these hacked e-mails have been published before the December gathering of heads of state to consider an newer version of the disastrous Kyoto Treaty.

The question is: Will this revelation reach Obama’s ears before he flips us the bird once more and actually signs on to the new treaty, despite what appears to be new hesitation on the part of other countries?

KendraWilder on November 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Agreed, and thank heavens these hacked e-mails have been published before the December gathering of heads of state to consider an newer version of the disastrous Kyoto Treaty.

KendraWilder on November 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Even if AGW is true, Kyoto is a terrible treaty. It would delay Global Warming a total of 6 years.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Now, I’m going to eat steak with baked beans, pass a lot of gas, turn all of the lights on in my house, take a really long shower, and try to get my wife pregnant.

Danny on November 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM

WINNER.

Dominion on November 20, 2009 at 7:39 PM

KendraWilder – Obama can sign anything he wants to, but under our Constitution it’s the Senate that ratifies such agreements.

Homegrown cap-and-trade nonsense is another matter; it’s fun to watch Lindsey Graham picking apart Holder on matters where (as a JAG) Graham knows his stuff cold, but I hate to see him mucking around in climate nonsense where his goal is just cutting a deal no matter whether it’s the right thing to do or not.

And of course the Obama administration runs the EPA, and this administration is stuffed full of people like Jackson, Chu, Browner, and Holdren.

JEM on November 20, 2009 at 7:41 PM

The space race encouraged the R&D of earthbound tech that was in its infant stages,

Dark-Star on November 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Can you name one?

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Those penis-tubes the astronauts use for urinating in zero-G.

WarEagle01 on November 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Um, Investigate is a monthly magazine in New Zealnd, not Australia. Like Forrest Gump said “Its this whole other country”.

Get the book by Investigate’s editor Ian Wishart caled “Air Con: The seriously Inconvenient Truth on Global Warming” from Amazon. Brilliant, well researched, exceptional reviews. Strips the clothes off the stupid Emperor nicely.

All the best from Noo Zealand ;)

Liam1304 on November 20, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Your post disappointed me, severely disappointed me. I thought sure you posted a word I had never seen…amipulating. and spent a little time trying to find the definition. Darn, just a simple typo…
I say the bad information came from: Mr. Purple, in the science lab, with wrong data…

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Sorry, it should be ‘manipulating’.

At least it’s just a typo and not an intentionally fudged word.

Mr Purple on November 20, 2009 at 8:52 PM

hawksruleva on November 20, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Consider this:

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents

That is what was written on the email with the zip file attachment.

And yes, you’re right. Methods do matter. And the person who wrote that passage above agrees with you.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

CPT. Charles on November 20, 2009 at 9:35 PM

I’m surprised Drudge doesn’t have anything on this yet. This is a huge story.

Django on November 20, 2009 at 9:49 PM

I expect the response from the left to be:
“ignore the man behind the curtain and continue to fear the wizard”

conservativecaveman on November 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM

JEM on November 20, 2009 at 7:19 PM

Check out reddit.com if you want to see some Olympic-class swimming in De Nile and more spinmasters than a weaver’s convention. It’s hilarious.

Dark-Star on November 20, 2009 at 10:40 PM

Django on November 20, 2009 at 9:49 PM

3rd Column at Drudge’s the last I looked. It has been a big bad week for Obama and the left.

journeyintothewhirlwind on November 20, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Ah good, thanks. I’ll go have a look.

Django on November 20, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Just up at at WUWT.

Here’s Mike’s Nature Trick.

And there’s more to come kiddies!

CPT. Charles on November 20, 2009 at 11:06 PM

cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

As a Christian, I go around rejecting all sort of data every day!

You know us so well AP!

foucaultsvac on November 20, 2009 at 11:17 PM

The question is: Will this revelation reach Obama’s ears before he flips us the bird once more and actually signs on to the new treaty, despite what appears to be new hesitation on the part of other countries?

KendraWilder on November 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM

He’s always known this was a kamikaze mission. That’s why he and clintoon are encouraging the rest of the progressive marxists to follow them over the edge.

Do as much damage as deeply as possible before the American People wake up and put a stop to it.

Only hope we wake up quick enough and in large enough numbers.

techno_barbarian on November 20, 2009 at 11:46 PM

I’m not a fan of publicizing hacked emails. There are legitimate ways to get information like this.

hawksruleva on November 20, 2009 at 5:02 PM

There’s substantial evidence of destructions or attempted destruction of records related to FOI requests, and successful suborning of FOI-related officials.

“We” requested this evidence, and they hid it. Someone took the extra step to pull this out into the light. Maybe it becomes “tainted” evidence and there are no trials. Fine, but the alternative is to let them steal hundreds of billions, cripple economies, and create needless suffering for billions because of their policies, which are driven by lies.

So no, you’re wrong. If you sit and watch someone cheat and do nothing, they get away with it, and you get boned.

From ACORN to the IPCC, we’re just sick of getting boned. If you want something to worry about, the gloves are still on, these are love taps from a historical perspective.

Merovign on November 21, 2009 at 2:05 AM

BREAKING NEWS!

Climatologists have advised that a lack of public health care in the US is feeding a Global Cooling cycle that will kill us all in the next decade.

They state that they could explain the reasons for this phenomena but it would undoubtedly be “over the head” of you poor stupid wretches.

The science is complete….The debate is over!!!

conservnut on November 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM

I think everyone should send this to Sen. Graham and anyone else on the Right who has bought into this garbage.

Cindy Munford on November 21, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7