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

[styky]

Climate Scientist Calls Hacked 'Climategate' Emails 'Truly Pathetic'
Climate scientist Michael Mann blasted the release of new leaked emails and documents taken from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit as "truly pathetic" and a "shameless effort to manufacture a false controversy" on Tuesday (Nov. 22).......http://www.livescience.com/17151-climat ... -mann.html

[nigelf]

Let's hope Louis Freeh's investigation of Penn State's Sandusky cover up also brings up the Mann whitewash to show how far they would go to hide things.

[styky]

Climategate 2.0: Systematic deletion of e-mails
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... #more-6218

Climategate 2.0: How Phil Jones misleads journalists
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... urnalists/

Climategate 2.0: Santer angry over not being able to silence skeptics
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... -skeptics/

Climategate 2.0: Mann says true temp anomaly not known well
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... nown-well/

[styky]

Climategate 2.0: Silence of the alarmists
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... alarmists/

Climategate 2.0: Wigley accuses ‘Mike’, other IPCC-ers of deception, dishonesty
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... ishonesty/

Climategate 2.0: Spun science isn’t going to end well
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... -end-well/

Climategate 2.0: Department of Energy involved in hiding temperature data?
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... ture-data/

Climategate 2.0: Jones advises e-mail deletion to avoid FOIA
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... void-foia/

Climategate 2.0: Mann says Curry not helping ‘the cause’
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... the-cause/

Climategate 2.0: ‘All models wrong’
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/clima ... els-wrong/

[free_life2]

Time for these cons who call themselves scientists to do some jail time for ripping us all off. Global warming now conveniently called climate change is a grand con game, nothing more, as real scientists repeatedly report.

As for pollution ...mr. leftie spin&deny can stop polluting our conservative forum with his leftist toxicity would be a positive move in the direction of good mental health.

[backhoe]

...As for pollution ...mr. leftie spin&deny can stop polluting our conservative forum with his leftist toxicity would be a positive move in the direction of good mental health.

I keep telling you he is nothing more than a classic disruptor.

Why this board tolerates his babble escapes me.

[backhoe]

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

“ALL OUR MODELS ARE WRONG:” ClimateGate 2.0: A Fresh Trove Of Embarrassing Emails. “There was always an element of tragedy in the first ‘Climategate’ emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed ‘Climategate 2.0′, is much larger than the first, and provides an abundance of context for those earlier changes. . . . To their credit, some of the climate scientists realised the dangers of the selective approach politicians demanded, which meant cherry-picking evidence to make it suitably dramatic, and quietly hiding caveats.” Others, however, not so much.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/23/climategate_2_first_look/

Plus this: “So the mewling infant that we call Climate Science – a 40-year-young offshoot of meteorology – has been thrust into a political role long before it’s capable of supporting the claims made on its behalf. From the archives we can see the scientists know that too, and we can read their own reluctance to make those claims, too. ‘What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?’ muses one scientist. ‘They’ll kill us probably.’”

[free_life2]

...As for pollution ...mr. leftie spin&deny can stop polluting our conservative forum with his leftist toxicity would be a positive move in the direction of good mental health.

I keep telling you he is nothing more than a classic disruptor.

Why this board tolerates his babble escapes me.

The cross we must bear for free speech...I guess.

[backhoe]

[url]http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/[/url

LES JONES: Climategate II – Longer, Harder, Uncut Emails. “I love it when highly-credentialed scientists use scare quotes. And triple question marks. The only thing separating these emails from notes passed in junior high is little hearts over the i’s and talking about how much they hate that new cheerleader who transferred in from Central.”http://www.lesjones.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-bigger-harder-uncut-emails/

Links at source-

http://www.lesjones.com/2011/11/22/clim ... ut-emails/

[backhoe]

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

CLIMATEGATE UPDATE: What was going on with the East Anglia coverup. “’We don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?’. That’s staggering, it’s gotta be in the running for some kind of truth in advertising award. Shame he wasn’t that honest with me. Instead, he worked hard to obscure that fact. . . . My conclusion after all this time is that Phil truly didn’t get it. He actually didn’t understand. He was not the owner of private data. He was the curator of public data. He didn’t understand that FOI requests are legal documents. Throughout the whole episode he treated them as some kind of optional request to grant or not as he saw fit. In this he was aided and abetted by David Palmer. . . . The saddest part is that the new revelations of the unthinking, off-hand venality of these main scientists of the AGW movement have lost their power to shock. That is a tragedy for climate science in particular and for science in general.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/23/mr-david-palmer-explains-the-problem/
Posted at 8:50 am by Glenn Reynolds

[backhoe]

http://minx.cc/?post=324088

More Leaked ClimateGate Emails Suggest Politics Reigned In "Science"

A few more of these. Some of these snippets are so blatant in showing bias I worry that they are, actually, taken out of context.

The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.
‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra [UK's Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs], writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.

'They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.

Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.

'I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.'

That's the one I worry about. It seems so blatant.

However, Jones has frequently before made "intellectual property" rights claims over the raw data, insistent that only he and his fellow cultists could examine the actual data. This could just be an advisory to always keep their Golden Goose hidden from outside observers.

Some scientists weren't completely comfortable with the deceptions:

One nervous scientist wrote: 'The figure you sent is very deceptive.'

'I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,' wrote another.

The lead author of one of the reports, Jonathan Overpeck, wrote, 'The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.'

"Science" is always about political messages, and tailoring releases to buttress those messages. Duh.

A global warming believer, Clive Cook, has reportedly said:

'The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me.

'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.'

Not so much to me anymore.

Thanks to Just the Tip.

Posted by: Ace at 04:54 PM

16 It makes you wonder what else the 'scientific community' has lied about over the last 40 years.

36 WattsUpWithThat has been having a ball with these new ClimateGate 2.0 emails. The scumbaggery revealed there is truly jaw dropping.http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Peter O'Donnell]

I've believed all along that the truth lies somewhere between the IPCC AGW lobby and the "ice age imminent" type of skeptic. The climate naturally warmed up a little between 1980 and 2000. It held about steady at a plateau (globally) to about early 2007 and since then it has been showing signs of cooling. Oceans hold and store heat longer than land surfaces so the changes are not always in phase. We are adding some greenhouse gases and more importantly we are adding a lot of soot (especially eastern Asia) which has its own effects on arctic ice independent of changes in temperature.

What many have come to see as fraud is probably more of a case of tunnel vision -- in an early phase, the AGW theory looked plausible and changes were fairly significant. In a mid-term phase opinion came to be divided on how much of the warming was natural and how much manmade. Now there's almost a reversal in some parts of the science to say all the changes were natural and now they aren't necessarily even warming type changes. And there's the renewed realization (rampant in the 1970s) that cold type climate change is a bigger problem, potentially, than the warming kind.

The one fact that needs to be kept in mind is that much of the debate is political and not scientific. A purely scientific debate on this question does take place, mostly well out of sight, and in that the consensus seems to be, business as usual, no big deal. Politicians have generally figured this out now and who knows, perhaps the media will be next, although they seem to be frozen in an alarmist posture that they adopted in the 1990s. Once you go down, sometimes it's hard to get back up.

[backhoe]

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

CLIMATEGATE UPDATE: Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn’t fit their apocalyptic global warming. “The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.”http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html

Posted at 10:42 am by Glenn Reynolds

[backhoe]

http://minx.cc/?post=324098

Climategate 2.0 is shaping up to be even more entertaining than the original. Watts Up With That? has a pretty good rundown. Also, some interesting thoughts on who might have leaked the emails appear here.

Additionally at WUWT, the emails are real, but the scary pictures are all faked:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/25/photoshopping-in-the-worseness/

[backhoe]

http://minx.cc/?post=324137

ClimateGate 2 Emails Show BBC Routinely Asking Global Warming Zealots To "Vet" Their Newscripts, Offer Advice on How To Better Evangelize for Global Warming

Truly awful bias.

The BBC, by the way, "rejects" the charge of impartiality, despite this welter of evidence, and despite their own official editorial statement that the issue is so one-sided that their reportage will be similarly one-sided.

And despite the fact that the University of East Anglia (where Phil Jones was head) and other environmental zealots specifically lobbied the BBC for just this result.

I

n 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

The document says the policy was decided after ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts’ – including those from UEA.

The ‘Climategate 2’ emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.

For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph – the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.

But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britain’s main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.

The whole article is loaded with new anecdotes about BBC hands "blocking" (in their own words) coverage of global warming sketpics -- and bragging about this to Phil Jones and his cronies, and begging Jones' forgiveness for the one or two skeptics they weren't able to block.

Worst of all, I think, are emails by one Professor Smith, a close friend of the BBC's "environmental analyst." Smith set up "seminars," funded by the World Wildlife Fund, to preach global warming to BBC reporters, writers, and producers, and lobbied for one-sided coverage (which, again, he got, and then some, to the point where Phil Jones had to basically tell them "you've shut the other side out extremely effectively, but shutting them out still further -- 100% -- might look biased.")

Smith lays out the next steps:

In July 2004, in an email to Prof Hulme that asked him to continue funding CMEP seminars, Prof Smith explained: ‘The only change I anticipate is that we won’t be asking WWF to support the seminars: Roger particularly feels the association could be compromising to the “neutral” reputation should anyone look at it closely.’

He needn't have worried -- who would look at it closely? Certainly not the supposed watchdogs of the media.

Prof Smith told Prof Hulme that the seminars’ purpose was to influence BBC output.

He spoke of finding ways of getting environmental issues into ‘mainstream’ stories ‘by stealth’, adding: ‘It’s very important in my view that research feeds directly back into decision-maker conversations (policy and above all media). I hope and think that the seminars have laid the ground for this within the BBC... There is senior BBC buy in-for the approach I want to pursue.’

He now claims that when he said "by stealth" he meant a series of completely unrelated words having nothing to do with stealth, and also nothing to do with clear expression of meaning:

Yesterday he said he had always ensured there was a range of views at the seminar, while by using the phrase ‘by stealth’ he simply meant that ‘sustainability stories are elements of mainstream stories, but the complexity and uncertainty inherent in them make them difficult to report in isolation’.

See, when I said I'd sneak into the warehouse "by stealth," I meant I'd sneak in "with the complexity and uncertainty inherent in sustainability stories that make them difficult to report in isolation."

Thanks to Arthur, who seriously sent this hours ago, before it was headlined at Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 04:06 PM

11 ...and yet, despite this (and other, earlier confirmations of outright fraud regarding the "science" surrounding AGW), my Board of Directors (public utility, southern CA...I know, I know) still subscribe totally and absolutely to the cult of AGW...it is just INARGUABLE...it is SETTLED SCIENCE, and if you don't believe, you're at best a DENIER and at worst, a Republican.

Trying to engage in any dialog with them is futile (and dangerous, from a job standpoint)...

It is to weep....but in a sustainable manner of course.

72 64 Certainly a whore is more honest and decent that a politician.

At least when a whore screws you, you get something for your money.