Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

Here is a clean and easy way to read the emails:
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable
anelegantchaos.org...



[edit on 21-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by kapodistrias

Mann said that dataset at his FTP
site to which we had been referred was an incorrect version of the data and that this
version had been prepared especially for me; through a blog, he provided a new URL which
he now claimed to contain the correct data set. The file creation date of the incorrect
version was in 2002, long prior to my first request for data, clearly disproving his
assertion that it was prepared in response to my request. Mann and/or Rutherford then
deleted this incorrect version with its date evidence from his FTP site.

To date,
no source code or other evidence has been provided to fully demonstrate that the
incorrect version (now deleted) did not infect some of Manns and Rutherfords other work.

Well the above parts are the important parts I feel - now this data set was called into question for whatever reason... Presumably it's archived data that is available for the various scientists to enter into their computer models... Or maybe simply to draw from... Either was when this Michael Mann seems evasive and then deceptive (claiming that the dataset was tailored somehow to meet the person requesting it's needs - which he was caught out because the date on the file upload was before the original request!)

And then the file is deleted from the FTP server so that evidence of an embarrassing event is mostly gone (because all we have here is basically word or mouth... So now these 2 scientist guys in this email convo are left wondering why he would be deceptive and who eles's work would of had tainted results from using this data set - including Michael Mann him self (who does not seem like the kinda guy to hold his hands up and say 'hey I made a mistake!' that's my take on it any ways...

More from:

Boston Herald

E-mail leak turns up heat on global warming advocates

By Herald staff
Saturday, November 21, 2009 - Updated 4m ago

In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics.

University of East Anglia officials confirmed the Climate Research Unit’s e-mails were hacked, but were unable to confirm the veracity of posted content, according to British and American news reports. Skeptics of human-caused warming, who note temperatures appear to have stopped climbing, called the news explosive.

“This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” climatologist Patrick J. Michaels told the New York Times [NYT]

The Times contacted researchers who confirmed they had sent or received some of the most damning e-mails, including a discussion of how to use a “trick” to configure scientific data to “hide the decline.”

“It does look incriminating on the surface,” Bob Ward, a climate change expert at the London School of Economics, told Britain’s Guardian newspaper, though he said it may not be so sinister. “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.”

The e-mail authors also refer to skeptics as “idiots,” fantasize in one case about beating up a skeptic, and discuss ways to prevent skeptics’ papers from being published, London’s Daily Telegraph reported

And Canada Free Press

Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud

The Death Blow to Climate Science

By Dr. Tim Ball Saturday, November 21, 2009


Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.

Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”

Originally posted by jdub297
Of course, instead of a substantive response, you resort to the usual personal attacks. You're so cute when you do that.

"Paleo" reconstruction is not the only data creation AGW advocates resort to, to make their data "fit" the models and pre-determined conclusions/"trends."

It is applied to supply missing, or replace "outlier," measurements as well.
Assuming you are correct in limiting the term to paleo proxies, then there is no justification for "reconstruction" of modern data, is there?

One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.

www.realclimate.org...

Even the subject of Jones discussion, Mann, employed "reconstructed" data to massage his results to meet his expectations:

Again, what are you on about? This is the problem with giving a bunch of naifs and deniers information with no context and/or understanding of the information.

The MBH paper is historical proxy data - they are called 'reconstructions' and use dendro data - even in the IPCC figure earlier they are called reconstructions, and they are used to reconstruct historical temperatures - the data is not created out of thin-air, it is measured. It is normal procedure to present the historical proxy data with the modern observational data. It gives context.

The reconstruction is the hockey stick data. Given the perseveration on that data in denier circles I would have thought you people would know that.

And then you want to take a normal acceptable term in paleodata and with a tin-foil hat extend it into all their work, lol.

So after after many hours of the private and personal thoughts in thousands of emails over a decade of top figures in climate science, this is still all you have?

Hmmm...

Smear, smear, spread doubt and fear.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by melatonin]

1) the emails show no evidence whatsoever of data manipulation in order to show the word is warming when in fact it isn't.

2) the emails (and other files) do show that certain 'deniers' have been rather disingenuous with some of their claims in the past - to the extent that tyheir reputations may never be the same again.


Rather a big own goal by the deniers Indeed, it may finally destroy the whole anti-science movement.


And since, unlike some, I prefer not to publish other peoples private emails, that's all I'll say on the matter.

Originally posted by Essan
Rather a big own goal by the deniers

Indeed, it may finally destroy the whole anti-science movement.

Ssssshhhh!

lol

All those emails, personal, private and totally in confidence and the best so far is quote-mines and misrepresentation. Sort of telling. Many I've seen are actually very funny (yeah, Lindzen's paper was crap, lol), others totally banal. I expect the noise to continue on for a while, and quote-mines to be circulated forever - comparable to anti-science creationists. But the science and the real-world observations remain.

Still waiting for the Swiss bank account.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by melatonin]

Blogger and financial columnist Jay Hancock's opinion from The Baltimore Sun:

weblogs.baltimoresun.com...

Shocker: Climate scientists are petty, vindictive

November 21, 2009

Climate-change deniers will make much of the hacked emails at the University of Anglia showing global-warming researchers deprecating their opponents and expressing frustration that data show planetary temperatures temporarily declining. Anybody with a cause naturally wants to press his/her view as aggressively and persuasively as possible. Can't wait to see the image of (presumably) Pat Michaels and other skeptics stranded on an iceberg after the polar caps have melted. Couldn't find it on the Web so far.

For example, in one of the emails, not cited by the Times, Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now at Penn State, says "we need to cover our behinds on what was done here, lest we be vulnerable to the snipings of the Idsos and co (i.e., that non-climatic influences on recent growth were nominally dealt w/, as in MBH99)."

To put this in a fair light, we should have somebody hack the deniers' emails. Of course their correspondence would show only honest and faithful guidance by the data, wherever it might lead, and dignified respect for their opponents!

Climate change is not a continuous upward curve. If temperatures showed a long, unbroken upward slope, that really would be proof of a conspiracy. There are fluctuations. Sometimes temperatures go down for a year or few, which gives fodder to the talk radio blabbers. As a climate scientist, to be frustrated that this hurts the case for political action against climate change is natural.

The Times piece gives Michaels a $10 quote up high in the story. "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud," he tells Andrew Revkin. But what he seems to be saying, as becomes apparent lower down, is not that it's a mushroom cloud indicating climate change is a hoax. It's an alleged mushroom cloud about academic protocols, an "effort to block the release of data for independent review." At first, Michaels thought, the emails just showed "this is the way scientists talk."

Trying to draw any conclusion from imperfect data often produces a sales job from those pushing one course of action or another. But that doesn't change reality. There is a scientific consensus that humans are changing the planet's climate. The emails' disclosure does nothing to change that. The effects of global warming are uncertain, but they represent a huge risk to future generations. To ignore that risk, to do nothing, would be the real outrage.

Original article

reply to post by Now_Then


Hmmm, the quote from this email, along with the other pretty dire one's they haven't already explained (but they have said some are likely to have been changed by the hackers):

Steel yourself for the new reality,
>because the data needed to verify the
>gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
>
> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were
>either lost or purged from some discarded
>computer. Only a very few people know what really
>happened, and they aren't talking much. And what
>little they are saying makes no sense.

Can these be attributed to doctoring of the emails, and/or hoaxed emails added to the lot the hackers downloaded?

I'm sure that's how they'll explain these several crazy emails, and you know what??! Nobody will be able to prove them wrong, and many will accept their word on the issue.

If they are manipulating/deleting data, then they may be able to keep it covered up, at least for now.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by john124]

From Sydney Morning Herald, sourced by AP Digital:

news.smh.com.au...

Hackers use UK school's e-mails in climate debate

November 22, 2009 - 3:20AM

A British university says computer hackers have broken into its world-renowned climate change research department and posted the contents of e-mails and research on the Internet.

The University of East Anglia said in a statement Saturday that it has asked police to investigate the theft of information related to its Climatic Research Unit. It says it cannot confirm that all the information posted online is genuine.

Some bloggers have said the information shows that climate change scientists are overstating the case for global warming.

The unit's director, Phil Jones, has confirmed the authenticity of one of his e-mails being cited by bloggers. But he denies that his use of the word "trick" shows that he had manipulated statistics to prove climate change.

The original article

Interesting headline and recap from The Examiner:

www.examiner.com...

Who leaked the Hadley CRU files and why

The anonymous tipster, whom many people initially assumed had "hacked" into the computers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (repeatedly called the "Hadley CRU," by mistake), might in fact be a CRU insider who released the files for his own reasons.

The user, known only as "FOIA" (which now appears to be a reference to the British equivalent of the US Freedom of Information Act), left only one comment on The Air Vent to announce his release of his 61-MB ZIP archive. He has never been heard from since, nor has anyone stepped forward claiming to be that person since the story became widely known.

Persons knowledgeable in information security hold that this is not the behavior of a hacker. A hacker normally boasts of his act, even if he were hired or otherwise suborned to commit his act by someone else. These two reports provide illustrations of such behavior.

Other commenters have observed that the very form and organization of the archive, which expands to 168 MB of text files, word-processing documents, PDF files, raw data, and even program code, indicate that someone already having access to the system logged in through his usual channels, made the archive, and then logged out. The user's choice of words indicate someone having a motive to disclose to the world certain activities and mindsets that the user found distasteful, at least.

This Examiner has been able to reconstruct a timeline of the story, from the initial attempt by the user to publish his material to another site, to the events of yesterday morning. However, before presenting this timeline, this Examiner is obliged to issue a correction: the phrase "Hadley CRU" is not the true name of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The first person to use that phrase was Anthony Watts, of Watts Up With That. As RealClimate.org and others have noted, Watts is the first person to use the phrase "Hadley Centre" to describe the CRU. This is incorrect; the CRU does not use the word "Hadley" in its name, and the "Hadley Centre" is an entirely separate institution, having no connection with Phil Jones or his team beyond, perhaps, being in sympathy with Jones' stated theories and goals. That Watts was initially confused becomes evident when the photograph of the Hadley Centre headquarters, published on the Centre's own web site, is compared with the photograph that Watts initially ran with his own comment. Watts has since replaced that photograph with one of the actual CRU building.

The timeline begins on November 17, when the user named "FOIA" left this comment at The Air Vent site:

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:

He then continued with a link to a Russian anonymous FTP account. (That account no longer works, but this Examiner was able to obtain the archive from it when a correspondent alerted him to it.)

This is consistent with Phil Jones' statement to Ian Wishart of Investigate magazine, dated November 20. Jones said that he had known about a security breach of his organizations computers "three or four days ago," having heard about the matter first from the administrators of RealClimate.org. Concerning RealClimate's immediate reaction, Jones said:

Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.

RealClimate's own statement says this:

We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

This indicates that the tipster first tried to submit his material to RealClimate.org, and when the administrators refused to accept it, he then established his Russian anonymous FTP account and submitted the link in his comment to The Air Vent.

The Air Vent's administrator, Jeff Id, was out-of-contact when the comment was posted. No one said another word about it until, two days later, the user named Steven Mosher alerted The Blackboard. Initially he left only a link to the original post, not a specific comment link. But apparently Lucia, the Blackboard administrator, followed the link and examined the files for herself. She was, however, reluctant to publish the link, but another user, Jean S, published it for her. In the process, she said this:

Seems to me that someone has hacked UAH computers. All e-mails seem to contain at least an addrees ending uea.ac.uk. Also all the files seem to be UAH-related. At least some of the material has to be real, there are just so many small details that were just impossible to fake (for instance under briffa-treering-external/timonen there are some file names only a Finn would use).

She might be referring to file names like "kilpisj" and "hossapal", and extensions like "tuc". The file names fail to translate when subjected to Google's Translate routines.

At the same time, Steven Mosher published an alert to Climate Audit. Then within hours, Anthony Watts at Watts Up With That published his own brief commentary. Shortly after that, this Examiner made his initial report, which is, as far as this Examiner has been able to determine, the first report by a professional or semi-professional journalist of this whole affair. Ian Wishart, editor and publisher of Investigate, also took note of the story at the same time and published his own initial blog entry, in which he announced that he had sent an e-mail to Phil Jones requesting an interview.

In all that time, the original poster of the Russian FTP link never made another comment in any forum. As discussed above, this is not typical of a hacker. A hacker would be boasting about his act, and loudly. Instead, his file sat in that anonymous FTP account for more than forty-eight hours, and the poster never made any further attempt to publicize his find. Hence the conclusion, by this Examiner and a host of other commenters, including IP security professionals, that this unknown user was one who had had access to CRU computers, in accordance with his duties at the CRU.

Mr. Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit has made no secret of his repeated attempts to demand, under Britain's Freedom of Information Act, that Phil Jones and his team yield up the data that are the basis of their claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its effects. Preliminary analysis of the archived e-mails also indicates that Jones knew of McIntyre's efforts and was taking steps to stall and thwart them, in violation of the law. Perhaps, then, someone at CRU decided to take the law into his own hands.

A request-for-comment to Mr. McIntyre from this Examiner is now pending. Climate Audit is back on-line, though it appears to be slow to load.

The original article with working hyperlinks

Originally posted by john124
Can these be attributed to doctoring of the emails, and/or hoaxed emails added to the lot the hackers downloaded?

Yep that's right - although I think that most of that download is genuine (because that is a massive amount of documents to fake) there would be no definite way of saying for sure that individual files were not tampered with a bit... you can't tell much from the dates on the files pretty much every file was modified on the 01/01/2009 00:00...

I suppose we could just wait and see what is said / not said in defence and what people can make of any new leads that can be found...

Check out this gravy train. (apologies if already posted)

spreadsheets.google.com...

Follow the money and ye shall find the truth.

While the emails I have read haven't pointed to a smoking gun they do point to a concerted effort to hide information, cook some books in an attempt to acquire more funds from NOAA, and expose some of the general sneakiness that is usually associated with the politics of DC.

I thought the goal was the truth, but from reading some of these released emails, it looks more like an agenda motivated movement, be it the proponents or opponents of this whole debate..

How can you have an honest debate in science when you HIDE the way you have come to your conclusions? I would think that as member's of the scientific community you would want to have your research and methods, scrutinized by all involved and not just "yes men".

I was also amused to see Mann's rantings, accusations, and some mention of pressure from on high (could that be the gov?)

Another highlight for me entertainmentwise was someone at Livermore Labs expressing a desire to physically confront a colleague who is on the other side..

This same person is doing their darndest to avoid FOIA requests for his work and hints that if Livermore Labs doesn't back him up he will seek employment elsewhere..

Why? He doesn't want to give up his stuff to those who oppose his work and doesn't want to spend the time to deal with the requests.

I haven't seen any of the other documents that were supposed to be associated with this leak, (I believe it was an inside job), hopefully some of those will finally clear the fog of the debate and the scientific community can move forward in a more transparent fashion, though from reading the emails, I doubt it very seriously.

Being a layman to the terms, models etc in this debate, the only analogy I can come up with to compare is the Black Sox scandal from baseball.. No winners


I foresee a more intense battle of words, accusations and denials, all leading up to the big show in Copenhagen, and here in the US the Senate taking up the Cap & Trade issue... Huge Monetary Implications based on what? Agenda driven science?

The world deserves better than this.

reply to post by leo123


in total since 1991, 13,718,547 pounds have been funded, it seems.
= 15.22 million Euros
= 22.61 million U.S. dollars
(as of today)

[edit on 2009-11-21 by Shirakawa]

If the science held up to scrutiny, there would be no need to keep any of it a secret, especially considering the results these idiots manufacture could potentially effect every man woman and child on the face of the planet.

IMO, every single one of these contributing organizations should have a read only public access directory of every single shred of data they produce. If the science is sound, this sort of scrutiny would make absolutely no difference to the science.

Savethedrama

globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...

"Carl Denninger was also commenting on the scam on Friday in "Global Warming" SCAM - Hack/Leak FLASH.

.....
Yes, I have the file. So do a few million other people.

There's enough evidence in there, in my opinion, of outrageously fraudulent conduct to make this the scandal of the 20th and 21st century.

Sorry folks, there's no science here - this is, from what I see, a massive and outrageous fraud, and now that the documents have been confirmed as authentic, it is time to pull the curtain down on this crap and start locking up all of the proponents - starting with AL GORE.

Here are some interesting "meta statistics" on the documents, and the number of times the words referenced appear:

*
Fraud: 79
*
Falsify: 6
*
Inflate: 14
*
Conceal: 5
*
Hide: 19

Just for starters.

If you think that's bad, you might like this - from the file "ipcc-tar-master.rtf":

47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?

And then there's this...

From: Phil Jones [email protected]
To: "Michael E. Mann" [email protected]
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil"

reply to post by quackers


Just to remind you all terrible climate change proponents THE GUARDIAN have been running a campaign in their oh so liberal pages called 'FREE OUR DATA' they argue that many datasets used in policy decisions, citizen choices, etc are kept closed because they were made using copyright data - an example of this is ordnance survey data, if you make a dataset that relies on data from the OS then you can't publish that dataset due to OS copyright restrictions...

The MET office is also another example of these things, unlike you guys in america we the people don't automatically own everything our tax money goes to make...

Cut a long story short THIS is the reason that most British science organizations have big problems releasing datasets and the like.

They aren't hiding them they're just unable to legally release them.

Garbage In, Garbage Out (abbreviated to GIGO, coined as a pun on First-In, First-Out) is a phrase in the field of computer science or Information Communication technology. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data and produce nonsensical output. It was most popular in the early days of computing, but applies even more today, when powerful computers can spew out mountains of erroneous information in a short time.

wiki

I think that about sums it up.

The only real response outta Climate Audit so far:
www.climateaudit.org...

Mike’s Nature trick

by Jean S on November 20th, 2009
So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors - Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.

The e-mail is about WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 -report, or more specifically, about its cover image.


Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about "the divergence" in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick" -thread of RealClimate.org:
Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.

Mike's response speaks for itself:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original "Mike's Nature trick"! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here.

Continue reading for the rest of the analysis and embedded links!
www.climateaudit.org...

[edit on 21-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by Essan
1) the emails show no evidence whatsoever of data manipulation in order to show the word is warming when in fact it isn't.

2) the emails (and other files) do show that certain 'deniers' have been rather disingenuous with some of their claims in the past - to the extent that tyheir reputations may never be the same again.


Rather a big own goal by the deniers

Indeed, it may finally destroy the whole anti-science movement.


And since, unlike some, I prefer not to publish other peoples private emails, that's all I'll say on the matter.

What haughty, arrogant nonsense you speak. As if you would keep quiet about knowledge of a crime - that would make YOU an accomplice pal.

I am British. MY TAXES were used to pay these goons to do their job HONESTLY.

They have been proven to have colluded in secret to manipulate data with the clear intent to deceive. This isn't a case of mere 'spin' it is out-and-out DECEPTION.

Given British taxes funded this lies, it amounts to a criminal conspiracy.

I hate pollution, I hate traffic fumes, I hate poisons being pumped into waters... but tackling these problems is another issue and should not try to be solved by 'clever academics' lying to the 'stupid' masses. You are BLIND if you cannot see, that these admitted GLOBALIST 'academics' were trying to help facilitate the income and control structure for one-world governance.

What it meant for all of us if they got away with this scam, was crippling individual taxation and a massive reduction in living standards, but NOT to help the planet, but to give the elites of this planet more wealth and power to control the ordinary man at the micro-level.

Truly, Al Gore was pissing down our backs and telling us it was raining.

They have been busted, this week will long be remembered.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by songthrush]