Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]

by **styky** » 11/ 20/ 09 9:37 pm

Mark Fournier wrote:I don't think there are even any guesses about who the hacker is and there is also a theory that it was a whistleblower. But you're right, if the hacker is Canadian he deserves the Order of Canada and the thanks of honourable people around the world.

None of this is ligat until it's reported on CNN

by **B. Max** » 11/ 21/ 09 12:04 am

styky wrote:
Mark Fournier wrote:I don't think there are even any guesses about who the hacker is and there is also a theory that it was a whistleblower. But you're right, if the hacker is Canadian he deserves the Order of Canada and the thanks of honourable people around the world.

None of this is ligat until it's reported on CNN

Roy Spencer says it looks real to him.

The recent hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system has led to the release of hundreds, if not thousands, of e-mails which — if real — reveal the tactics and motivations of some of the top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists. I hesitate to name names, but there are several websites now buzzing with all of the details and sample e-mails. The e-mails I have seen appear genuine, with obscure scientific details and language that would take considerable effort to create as part of a hoax. A few of the sites covering this unfolding story are:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/glo ... k-scandal/

by **backhoe** » 11/ 21/ 09 4:21 am

<div class="body"><div>STILL MORE ON “CLIMATEGATE,” FROM <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hacker-releases-data-implicating-cru-in-global-warming-fraud/">Charles Martin</a> and <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/20/the-cru-hack/">Richard Fernandez.</a></div>
<div></div>
<div>

Hacker Releases Data Implicating CRU in Global Warming Fraud (Updated)

BBC confirms that a hack did indeed occur. Is this smoking-gun evidence of global warming data being fabricated? (Also read Richard Fernandez: <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/20/the-cru-hack/">"The CRU Hack"</a>)</div>
<div>
UPDATE: <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/">Watts Up With That</a> explains the significance of the topic discussed in the “Mike’s Nature Trick” email.——————————–UPDATE: This is beginning to get some attention. <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/294961.php" id="pdvy" title="Ace">Ace</a> notices the same paragraph, and notes: “Keep in mind that when Jones wrote that in 1999 we hadn’t had a decade of global cooling yet. So perhaps he was obscuring a decline in the warming trend?”It’s been picked up by Rush Limbaugh via American Thinker, and I’m hearing rumors that CNBC may be next.——————————So, has much of the climate change debate of the last ten years been a purposeful fraud? If the files that became available in the last few hours prove to be legitimate, it would appear so.Here’s the story so far. At 9:57 p.m. on Thursday, November 19, comments were posted on <a href="http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917">The Air Vent</a> — a well-known climate skeptic site — that read:<blockquote>

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. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.This is a limited time offer, download now: <a href="http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip">http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip</a> [This URL no longer works -- see below.]</blockquote>
The comments included a listing of email subjects. Word of these files spread through the climate skeptic community, appearing in comments at Climate Audit, and in posts at <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/">Watts Up With That</a> and <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/">The Blackboard</a>. The files purport to have been extracted via a hack on the <a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/">Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU)</a>, a major organization involved in climate science in the United Kingdom.The files became unavailable at the URL sometime on the 19th, but by then the files had been spread widely; the files are now available at a number of sites.This morning, the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm">CRU confirmed to the BBC that they had indeed been hacked</a>:<blockquote>

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission. An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added. “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,” the spokesman stated.</blockquote>
<div class="paged-nav">
Page 1 of 2 <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hacker-releases-data-implicating-cru-in-global-warming-fraud/2/">Next -></a><div class="blog-title">
The CRU Hack
</div>
<div class="entry">
Related link at Pajamas Media: <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hacker-releases-data-implicating-cru-in-global-warming-fraud/" target="_blank">Hacker Releases Data Implicating CRU in Global Warming Fraud</a>The <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/">WSJ</a> reports that the “Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain was hacked yesterday, apparently by Russian black hats, and thousands of sensitive documents, including emails from climate scientists dating back a decade, were posted online.”<blockquote>

Some of the old emails from scientists made public apparently make references to things like “hid[ing] the decline,” referring to global temperature series and different ways to slice and dice climate data.In all, it seems there are more than 3,000 files in the hacked folders, which have been reposted in various places on the Internet.The big Copenhagen summit had lost a lot of its appeal in recent days, as world leaders kept dialing down expectations for the climate talks. Maybe this will spice things up.</blockquote>
<a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/" target="_blank">James Delingpole at the Telegraph</a> thinks it may be “the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’” but adds “there are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.” While the leaked documents and emails strongly suggest that Global Warmists have been taking the public for a ride, the news as likely to be welcomed as a belated discovery that Karl Marx was actually a stockbroker. It is likely to be denied and the critics who use the leaked documents will be mercilessly attacked. So Delingpole is probably right in believing that there’s too much riding on Global Warming for its political support to die quickly. For example, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6919380.ece" target="_blank">Herman Van Rompuy</a>, the new President of the European Union “talked of funding social welfare from new green taxes and went on to discuss ‘financing levies at European level’, which his spokesman said later was similar to Gordon Brown’s call for an international tax on financial transactions.” <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/11/2682619.htm" target="_blank">France</a> plans to levy $29 on every ton of carbon dioxide emissions.<blockquote>
“The gravest challenge that we face is climate change… Every one of our compatriots must feel concerned,” Mr Sarkozy said in a televised speech aimed at winning over a sceptical public. …Mr Sarkozy faces an uphill battle to convince voters to accept the plan. An opinion poll by Ifop for the magazine Paris Match, published this week, found that 65 per cent of people were hostile to the tax.“The aim of ecological fiscal policy is not to fill state coffers but to incite French people and companies to change their behaviour,” Mr Sarkozy said, adding that households that keep energy consumption low could end up better off financially.</blockquote>

These multibillion dollar funding schemes are unlikely to end simply because an inconvenient truth has been discovered. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/business/energy-environment/19CLEAN.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a> described the cast of characters waiting for endorsement at the forthcoming Copenhagen meeting on climate change. Jobs, careers, fame and fortune — parties and stretch limos, private jets and yachts — are all waiting on the speaking of a few words.<blockquote>
There are some new industries that do stand to gain more directly from Copenhagen, however. Carbon traders will also be at the meetings, and hungry for the expansion of their business. … “If you had to pick one industry that is most ‘leveraged’ to an agreement in Copenhagen, it would be this industry that develops, finances or buys credits from greenhouse gas reduction projects internationally, outside the U.S.” … “If there is an agreement in the near term with the U.S. as a partner, domestic projects and investments to reduce emissions could well be eligible for the international carbon market,” Mr. Rau said. “That would spawn a whole industry here.”</blockquote>
Even if the Global Warming industry were to die today, a lot of “Green” investment is already out there and unless the band keeps playing the music will stop. For that reason the bandmaster, however weary his arms will be prodded to keep waving the baton. He must protect the investment. “After 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, Mr. Rau said, the value of the investments in developing countries will be uncertain, and if the uncertainty is prolonged, it can hurt investment.” Keep playing, bandmaster.The <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm">BBC</a> says the police are now busy hunting down the CRU hackers. The Center itself gravely informed the public that it could not vouch for the veracity of the leaked material posted online. “”Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.” There were tantalizing hints that the leak was inside job. “We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry.”The <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails">Guardian</a> quotes Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics as saying “It does look incriminating on the surface but there are lots of single sentences that, taken out of context, can appear incriminating. You can’t tell what they are talking about. Scientists say ‘trick’ not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something – a short cut can be a trick.”<blockquote>

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”</blockquote>
Politics is in many ways the bloodless — and sometimes not so bloodless — equivalent of war. Clausewitz believed politics and war fed into each other. It was an ongoing process, not a single event. That meant that actors were free to act on the flow of conflict as it went along. The hacking incident at the CRU will not end the Global Warming War, but it was part of it. The drive to control and tax human behavior will probably continue unabated. But so will resistance to it.James Delingpole is probably also right in asserting that however dismissive the Global Warmists may publicly be of the CRU hack, the smoke of doubt has entered the temple. Even the European public is beginning to suspect that AGW really means “All Your Gold Belong to We”. The Telegraph’s Delingpole says, “if you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.” Well maybe not now, but you might want to start thinking about diversifying your Green portfolio. Nuclear power, anybody?<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/20/the-cru-hack/#comments">(87) Comments </a><a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/20/the-cru-hack/#comment-78">78.</a> buckets:

<a href="http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf</a>Interview with Phil Jones, seeming to confirm some of the most damning emails. “Hide the decline!”via Instapundit<a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/">“CLIMATEGATE?”</a> Well, stay tuned and we’ll see. It does look <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones/">bad,</a> though.And it’s made The New York Times: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp">Hacked E-Mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics.</a> “Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.”The Sound Of All Hell Breaking Loose, Pt. 3

Hide the decline!Mike's <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/#more-12962">"nature trick"</a><blockquote>
[T]he Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).<img src="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/mbh99smooth_no_inst.png?w=510&h=331" height="331" width="510"></blockquote>
But read the whole thing. <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails">Examiner.com</a><blockquote>
As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average subject/resident of the United Kingdom. The document suggests that it is a precis of a longer document housed at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
</blockquote>

<div class="posted">Posted by Kate at <a href="http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012690.html">12:05 AM</a>| <a href="http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012690.html#comments">Comments (24)</a></div>
<div class="posted">"We all thought that AGW was man made and now thanks to this leak we know which men made it."</div>
<div class="posted"></div>
<div class="posted">
<div class="post-17831 post hentry category-global-warming category-politics category-science" id="post-17831">
<a href="http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2009/11/20/climategate/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Climategate">Climategate</a>by m <a href="http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2009/11/20/climategate/#comments" title="Comment on Climategate">( 201 Comments › )</a> Filed under <a href="http://www.theblogmocracy.com/category/global-warming/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Global Warming">Global Warming</a>, <a href="http://www.theblogmocracy.com/category/politics/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.theblogmocracy.com/category/science/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Science">Science</a> at November 20th, 2009 - 2:00 pm <div class="entry">

Blogmocracy in Action! Guest post by: Snork

Yesterday, a story broke. I watched it happen in real time. At the website of Steve McIntyre (<a href="http://www.theblogmocracy.com/http://www.climateaudit.org">ClimateAudit.org</a>) on top of 100 comments on a different topic, CA regular Steve Mosher dropped this deuce: <blockquote>
Found this on the airVent. Posted on Lucia. This is huge. Lucia, Found this on JeffIds site. http://noconsensus.wordpress.c…..en-letter/ It contains over 1000 mails. IF TRUE … 1 mail from you and the correspondence that follows. And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain.. you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy. you get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect. I don’t know that its real.. But the CRU code looks real</blockquote>

Steve Mosher is one of the regulars at CA, and the other two sites mentioned (<a href="http://www.theblogmocracy.com/http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/">AirVent</a>, (aka Jeff Id) and <a href="http://www.theblogmocracy.com/http://rankexploits.com/musings/">The Blackboard</a>, aka Lucia’s). He’s an avionics engineer, and not prone to hype or drama. Coming from him, this was stunning.What appears to have happened is an anonymous leaker or hacker acquired over 60 mb of files (actually, the zip file was over 60, unzipped it was over 150 mb) from the server at the University of East Anglia’s CRU research center in the UK, one of the biggies in climatology. The data is being examined (that’s a whole story in itself), but many of the emails are incriminating, suggesting deliberate fudging of data, and engaging in political advocacy. Many of the incriminating emails involve Americans, including prominently the father of the “hockey stick”, Michael Mann.The anonymous leaker dropped the link in an inconspicuous comment at the AirVent, where Mosher discovered it, and went to CA and The Blackboard, pointing out the discovery. He was almost certainly not the leaker, as he lives in California. At first, I couldn’t find the link, but eventually someone posted it explicitly. It was an ftp server in Russia, which was very slow, and later in the day it disappeared. It didn’t matter. Many people had downloaded it at that point. It was out in the wilds of the internet.Could it be an elaborate hoax? That’s not impossible, but fabricating 150 MB of files, including over 1000 emails is an hellacious amount of work. Plus, some of the leaked emails were to McIntyre, and he verified that all of those were 100% accurate. And CRU immediately canceled all passwords. So there’s not much doubt that the bulk of the material was taken from the CRU server.Could little bits of it be faked? Possibly. It’s going to be up to them to object, and then furnish the real, innocuous version if true. This might not ever get sorted out without an official inquiry.The material is far too huge to start excerpting bits of it here, but many of the juicier emails are in the comments sections of the sites that I linked.So to summarize, what does this all mean?

1. Does this mean that there’s no global warming?
No.

2. Does this mean that many of the climate scientists making alarming predictions are politically motivated?

It strongly suggests that.

3. Does this give reasonable people a reason to doubt much of the so-called “consensus science”?
Yes.

4. Is this going to leave a mark?
Yes.

5. Does this undermine public confidence in science and scientists?

I’m afraid so.

6. Is this going to kill Cap-and-Trade?
Maybe.

7. Is this a plot by ExxonMobil?
Chucky, take a valium.

Addition by eaglesoarss:<blockquote>
In Sept 2009 National Review published an article on the CRU frauds. They ‘lost’ the data. These guys have been frauds forever.<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM">The Dog Ate Global Warming</a></blockquote>

</div>
<a href="http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2009/11/20/climategate/#comments" title="Comment on Climategate">201 Comments »</a>"Science should be one of the last bastions where political differences are left at the front door. But unfortunately, for the Left, everything is political. That’s why I hate the bastards so much."Hacked Emails Reveal: "Scientists" Faking Data to Establish Global Warming They Know Isn't There And Conspiring to Delete Emails They're Supposed to Retain for FOIA Purposes

—Ace



 [PA:I bumped this cuz its important and annoys the crap out of Charles Johnson] <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/">One of the biggest stories I've ever had the pleasure to link.</a><blockquote>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</blockquote>
Emphases added. Please read the whole thing. This seems Rosetta Stone-ish to me.On the level of human psychology, scientific arguments aren't really exciting. To scientists they are. To political hawks they are. (When such science is hyperpoliticized, as it is here.)But most people don't find this interesting. What they do find interesting -- and by "interesting" I mean provoking an elemental human emotional response -- is deception, conspiracy, arrogance, and other forms of bad human behavior.Which is why Michael Crichton didn't write a dry scientific book about the cult of global warming. He wrote a fictive thriller, filled with... deception, conspiracy, arrogance, and other forms of bad human behavior.This, I think, will have legs.Not a Repost... A reassertion.Damn. I'm just so used to being late I always assume the site is late, and I never consider the possibility that, say, Gabe already covered this.I'm not embarrassed about this one at all. Well... not that embarrassed. I'm glad Gabe got to it early. I don't care if this is the third post on this. This is frickin' huge, man.I want these emails, man. I need this file.More: andycanuck tells me to check <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/">Adnrew Bolt</a> and <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/hold_your_fire1/">Tim Blair.</a>I've been reading Going Rogue to review it but now I'm thinking I need to read emails. Nah, I'll get to Palin's book, too. But damn. This is awesome.From Blair:<blockquote>UPDATE VIII. The BBC reports on the scandal. It’s all about the hacking. Incidentally, the correct name of this place is “University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit” or “CRU”. Nothing to do with Hadley. (Via reader Thin & British) </blockquote>

As I have pointed out ad nauseam: When a leak hurts the right, the story is about the content of the leak.When a leak hurts the left, the content of the leak is ignored, and the story is about the nefarious and criminal evil-doing that produced the leak, and how awful that is, and oh, look, here's an important story about how tough large-breasted women have it when they attempt jogging or gymnastics. Let's talk about that.Not this time, boys. Not this time.
 The File: At <a href="http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T">MegaUpload,</a> thanks to Peaches.This is the most bonerific file I've ever downloaded from MegaUpload, and if you've used MegaUpload for purposes other than downloading hacked climate-warming fraud emails, you know that's saying something.Conspiracy: <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/">Scan down to Update 3 and further.</a>The problem isn't merely that they're manipulating data -- they also seem to be colluding and conspiring to destroy emails which would reveal this fact. And those emails are themselves discoverable through FOIA requests.Is this illegal? It would seem it has to be illegal -- or else FOIA has no purpose. Great Comment:<a href="http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=294971#c7309561">DaveS. recaps.</a> This is deadly stuff.


 
<div class="posted">Posted by Ace at <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/294971.php">02:00 AM</a> <a href="http://minx.cc?post=294971">New Comments Thingy</a></div>
<div class="posted"></div>
<div class="posted">
<div id="c7309398"><a href="http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=294971#c7309398">5</a>Has anybody tried Climate Audit recently?<a class="external" href="http://www.climateaudit.org/" rel="nofollow" title="Link will open in new window">http://www.climateaudit.org</a>Read through the comments. Readers are coming up with all sorts of incriminating emails about fixing "things" etc. It's well worth the time spent there.<a href="http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=294971#c7309413">15</a>And here are some more direct links to some of the HA summations.<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ygaybkh">There are interesting summations and links here at Aussie Andrew Bolt's MSM blog</a>.<a href="http://tinyurl.com/yj7zkrg">And at editor Tim Blair's MSM blog</a>."How can these people ever be taken seriously again? We have all long suspected that this kind of blatant dishonesty was ongoing--for the sake of grant money, for the sake of publication, for the sake of being one of the cool kids...and now here is the smoking gun."</div>

by **backhoe** » 11/ 21/ 09 5:11 am

<div>
<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391179/posts">The Day Global Warming Stood Still (But Warming Lies Didn't)</a>

<div><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails">leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists</a>: "Hundreds of emails between world's leading climate scientists leaked online... evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind." <a href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/">Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable</a>: "If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment."

by **backhoe** » 11/ 21/ 09 7:23 am

Gee Whiz! I wonder when The Pretender-in-Chief will wake up to this scam?
<div class="body"><div>American Power tracked-back with (a BIG roundup), <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-warming-hoax-breaks-wide-open-as.html" rel="nofollow">'Global Warming Hoax Breaks Wide Open as Hackers Target East Anglia Climate Research Unit!'</a>. </div>
<div></div>
<div>
<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-warming-hoax-breaks-wide-open-as.html">Global Warming Hoax Breaks Wide Open as Hackers Target East Anglia Climate Research Unit!</a>
<div class="post-header-line-1">

</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">It's explosive! 
 There's a big global warming scandal breaking out across the blogosphere. Earlier I saw Der Spiegel's, "<a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html" target="_blank">Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out</a>." 
 I actually didn't pay that much attention to it, since the left's global-warming-media-industrial-complex continues to peddle lies and environmental disinformation; and frankly, President Obama's visit to China <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29626.html" target="_blank">killed the prospects for the Copenhagen climate change accord</a> . 
 But the news this morning is absolutely devastating. It turns out that hackers have exposed a massive conspiracy seeking to hide the scientific consensus that global warming is bunk. See, "<a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/" target="_blank">Climategate: The Final Nail in the Coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'</a> ?" Read this whole entry, which posts the key e-mails.... just mind-boggling... plus, check out Hot Air as well, "<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/" target="_blank">Do Hacked E-Mails Show Global-Warming Fraud?</a>" And, Michelle Malkin's title nails it, "<a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-global-warming-scandal-of-the-century/" target="_blank">The Global Warming Scandal of the Century</a>." (And Michelle reminds us, "First things first: The alleged hackers need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.) 

 
</div>
Australia's Andrew Bolt suggests the scandal "<a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked" target="_blank">is one of the greatest in modern science</a>."<div class="post-body entry-content">More from the BBC, "<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm" target="_blank"> Hackers Target Leading Climate Research Unit</a>," and <a href="http://www.memeorandum.com/091120/p42#a091120p42" target="_blank">Memeorandum</a> .</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content"></div>

<div class="post-body entry-content">Read it all at the link, dammit! Plus:</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">Here are a "few" of the papers they managed to keep out, 
 <a href="http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html" rel="nofollow">450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming</a></div>
</div>
<div></div>
<div><a href="http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15536#comments">http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15536#comments</a></div>
<div></div>

<div>#7 Comment by <a href="http://www.miserabledonuts.blogspot.com" rel="external nofollow">LTC John</a> on 11/20 @ 10:30 am <a href="http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15536#comment-816559" title="">#</a>Somewheres Down Under, Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt are smiling.Me too (but up here in America as opposed to down in Oz).One reaction I hope to see is that of, in the words of happyfeet, the hoochie from the Weather Channel (Heidi Cullen) who wanted the AMS Seal of Approval removed from any TV weather person who dared deny AGW.Or David Roberts, last seen on “The Climate Code” demanding Nuremburg type trials for “Global Warming deniers”."Let me refresh your polemics with the reliable leftard starter kit: “Boooosh! Cheney! Halliburton! Limbaugh! Beck! Palin! Wingnuts! 230.000,000 million dead in Iraq! 9/11 was an inside job..."AGW Info Just Wants To Be Free

<div class="blogPost">
<div>
</div>See <a href="http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2009/11/agw-fraud.html">Shrinkwrapped</a>, <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/">Watts Up</a>, <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html">The Reference Frame</a>. ClimateAudit is unobtainable, but will have lots good. www.climateaudit.org.
 I'm still reading the healthcare bill, so I can't really read this massive group of files, but this is hawt: 
<blockquote>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”. </blockquote>The ah, implicit mind set is that they can do anything with the data they want - there is no respect for whatever the real measurements may be - but the result should be plausible. 

 In other words, there ain't no science in climate science. The reason for this attitude can be explained by the flood of grant money it produces. It is easy to believe anything when you get millions of dollars for believing it. 
 This is no surprise to anyone who has been watching the mutatis mutandis of official climate records over the last decade. It's merely very entertaining. 
 Also see <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/">James Delingpole</a> and <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked">Andrew Bolt</a> who both have a bunch of excerpts. 
 Langmuir's "Colluquium On Pathological Science" is <a href="http://www.cs.princeton.edu/%7Eken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm">online at this site</a>, and may be relevant. This talk was given in the 1950s. I had heard about it and read an excerpt but I had never encountered the whole lecture. I got the link from comments on <a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate.html">this Althouse post</a>. Symptoms of Pathological Science:<ol>

<li>The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. 
</li><li>The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results. 
</li><li>Claims of great accuracy. 
</li><li>Fantastic theories contrary to experience. 
</li><li>Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. 

</li><li>Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.</li></ol>
<div>
</div>
 
<div class="byline">// posted by MaxedOutMama@<a href="http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/2009/11/agw-info-just-wants-to-be-free.html" title="permanent link">11/20/2009 10:26:00 AM</a><a href="http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/2009/11/agw-info-just-wants-to-be-free.html"> 2 Use These Comments</a> <a class="comment-link" href="http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/2009/11/agw-info-just-wants-to-be-free.html#links">links to this post</a>

by **Angleland** » 11/ 21/ 09 1:52 pm

What does Mo Strong Sockpuppet David McGionty have to say now?

Better yet what brain farts does Master Mo have to issue forth out of his arse?

by **Mark Fournier** » 11/ 21/ 09 1:56 pm

I imagine Stephen Harper will soon be announcing that Canada will not be participating in the carbon credit racket after all and that he regrets almost grabbing billions of dollars from the taxpayers because he was duped by socialist scammers.

by **backhoe** » 11/ 21/ 09 2:51 pm

<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2391477/posts">Scientific Fraud Caused by Social Pressures</a>
<div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glMu6A3Uync&feature=related">Monckton destroys MGW in 8 minutes</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<div>
<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391604/posts">New Documentary Challenges Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' on Global Warming (Another nail in coffin)</a>
</div>
</div>
<div>Figures:</div>
<div><a href="http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=294971#c7313725">277</a> It doesn't matter.I showed this to my moonbat brother, he thought that it was "hilariously fake", I must be an idiot for being fooled by Newsmax and such, Gore is right and we are stupid.</div>

<div></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024993.php" name="024993">Global Warming Bombshell</a>
<div class="et">November 20, 2009 Posted by John at 11:17 PM</div>
The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded 62 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails">here</a>.Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.The emails I've reviewed so far do not suggest that these scientists are perpetrating a knowing and deliberate hoax. On the contrary, they are true believers. I don't doubt that they are sincerely convinced--in fact, fanatically so--that human activity is warming the earth. But the emails are disturbing nonetheless. What they reveal, more than anything, is a bunker mentality. These pro-global warming scientists see themselves as under siege, and they view AGW skeptics as bitter enemies. They are often mean-spirited; the web site <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/">American Thinker</a> is referred to as "American Stinker;" at one point an emailer exults in the death of a global warming skeptic; another one suggests that the Ph.D. of a prominent skeptic should be revoked because of an error he made decades ago in his dissertation; another says that he is tempted to "beat the crap out of" the same scientist. The emails show beyond any reasonable doubt that these individuals are engaged in politics, not science.They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:<blockquote>

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 the land 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".</blockquote>
This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the "science" up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.Left-wing politics is a common theme of the emails. Thus, Michael Mann, author of the notorious "hockey stick" hoax, attacked those who don't buy the AGW theory on September 30, 2009:<blockquote>
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama's health plan, we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed congress this summer. </blockquote>
This sort of paranoid thinking is odd, since the vast majority of the money in climate science is on the pro-global warming side. Among themselves, the pro-AGW scientists make no bones about their desire to get their hands on some of that cash. Thus, a British scientist wrote last month:<blockquote>

How should I respond to the below? [an article questioning AGW theory] (I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK - looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases--</blockquote>
No wonder pro-global warming scientists are dogmatically committed to their theory, no matter what the data say: their livelihoods, as well as their professional reputations, depend on it. As a result, they conduct themselves like a secret cabal. Outsiders--that is to say, independent thinkers--are viewed with suspicion. One of the most striking emails I've come across so far is from Michael Mann to Phil Jones. It replies to an email from Jones that was copied to another scientist named Andy, relating to a recent fiasco in which tree ring research that was a basis for the U.N.'s IPCC report on global warming proved to be inaccurate if not fraudulent. Mann included this postscript in his reply:<blockquote>
p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He's not as predictable as we'd like</blockquote>
A world in which those who are "not as predictable as we'd like" are viewed with suspicion is a world of politics, not science.Much more to come. In the morning, we'll see how liberal scientists circled the wagons to stave off criticism of inaccurate or fraudulent tree ring data.UPDATE: This is the email that has gotten the most attention so far:<a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/11/HidetheDecline12.php"><img alt="HidetheDecline12.jpg" class="mt-image-none" src="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/11/HidetheDecline12-thumb-410x368.jpg" height="368" width="410"></a>The language is certainly suggestive--using a "trick" to "hide the decline." This is one of many emails that suggest pro-global warming scientists manipulate data freely to achieve their desired political ends, but it's possible the words used could have a relatively benign explanation. The surrounding emails do not provide context that sheds any light on what those words mean.<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/20/the-cru-hack/#comment-86">86.</a> buddy larsen:

Article by <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?omc=1&sig=5B067E9344064B1CBE491314D52300AC&q=dr+tim+ball&FORM=Z9FD3" rel="nofollow">Dr. Tim Ball</a>:<a href="http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.anthropology.paleo/2008-05/msg00020.html" rel="nofollow">“The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change.</a> Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/20/the-cru-hack/#comment-90">90.</a> <a class="url" href="http://www,eternityroad.info" rel="external nofollow">Francis W. Porretto</a>:
I would suggest that among the most significant aspects of this matter is that <a href="http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/the_leak/" rel="nofollow">the leftists who hoped to ride AGW to total power over the world economy are too stunned to respond.</a><a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/20/the-cru-hack/#comment-96">96.</a> <a class="url" href="http://www.ioterran.com/?p=28336" rel="external nofollow">The worst emails from the Climategate dump, all in one place</a>:<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/20/the-cru-hack/#comment-98">98.</a> buddy larsen:

twoby/91; thanks for good article. That Judi McLeod is a bulldog on Canada’s expert UN-levering malefactors. <a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6485" rel="nofollow">Here’s another</a> –sure ’nuff, the Chicago Climate Exchange is far dirtier than anyone is likely to’ve realized. Obama is directly linked –as is Goldman Sachs, of course. Mercy –’intent to defraud’ is all over this whole scheme.<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391433/posts">Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science</a>
<div>
The 79 Billion Dollar Climate Scam
<a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/skeptics-handbook-ii-global-bullies-want-your-money/">From JoNova:</a><blockquote>It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big Oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with freedom-of-information requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008 and bankers get set to make billions.</blockquote>
<a href="http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf">The PDF</a><div class="posted">Posted by Cjunk at <a href="http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012692.html">12:30 PM</a>| <a href="http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012692.html#comments">Comments (5)</a></div>

<div class="posted"></div>
</div>
<div><a href="http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.com/index.php?topic=7492.0">Hadley CRU hack UPDATES</a></div>
<div></div>
<div>A SUMMARY OF THOSE <a href="http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html">LEAKED GLOBAL-WARMING DOCUMENTS.</a> (Via <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/11/21/nyt-on-hacked-climate-e-mails/">Volokh</a>).</div>

<div></div>
<div><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391469/posts">The Death Blow to Climate Science (Great read!)</a>

by **Catholic Canadian** » 11/ 21/ 09 2:51 pm

.....and DA Champion was never heard from again,,,,

The End.

by **Cod Father** » 11/ 21/ 09 3:00 pm

We can only pray that's what Harper will say Mark.

Meanwhile, Alberta continues to collect a dedicated green tax on the big carbon emmitters and plow that money into Carbon Capture and Sequestration.

by **backhoe** » 11/ 21/ 09 4:29 pm

Cod Father wrote:We can only pray that's what Harper will say Mark.

Meanwhile, Alberta continues to collect a dedicated green tax on the big carbon emmitters and plow that money into Carbon Capture and Sequestration.

The current iterations of "environmentalism" and "climate change," are nothing more than money and power transfer schemes.

Us hunters and fishers agreed decades ago to excise taxes, to support conservation, husbandry, and wildlife management- that, I agree to.

This new "stuff" is just a grab for money, and a way to dictate to unfavored groups while rewarding their acolytes.

It is disgusting.

by **B. Max** » 11/ 21/ 09 4:50 pm

The alarmists, profiteers, international Marxist's, shake down artist's, smear merchants, and all the enablers of the global warming / climate change scam might finally be right, the debate is over, time to lawyer up baby.

by **DA_Champion** » 11/ 21/ 09 5:37 pm

Catholic Canadian wrote:.....and DA Champion was never heard from again,,,,

The End.

Moron,

You may log on every 5 minutes, but a lot of us don't.

by **DA_Champion** » 11/ 21/ 09 5:40 pm

A few questions,

1) Does anyone have a link to an email where they talk about their meeting with George Soros, Maurice Strong and co?

2) Is there a full [email] thread anywhere where they have evidence of something damning, i.e. a person falsifying data. People are honest and blunt in emails, the fact hack bloggers went through thousands of messages and found messages written at best in ambiguous language tells you what you need to know.

by **DA_Champion** » 11/ 21/ 09 5:42 pm

Mark Fournier wrote:I don't mean to pick on you, DA_Champion, but you are pretty much FD's official global warming promoter. What do you have to say about this? Does it shake your faith at all or are you still a stalwart true believer?

Why did you not send me that message as a PM?

Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]

Who is online