Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails , page 27
Pages: <<  24    25    26    27  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 166 times


reply posted on 29-11-2009 @ 04:24 PM by jdub297
Originally posted by melatonin
What deletion practices?

You mean deleting private and confidential emails related to IPCC business? Nothing to defend, they can delete them. The FOI request was refused, it would never be allowed for such information.



SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

"Adjusted" ("reconstructed")?

No exemptions claimed. No limited disclosure with privileges claimed for that withheld? No substance to your posts.

"Alternative" or readily available sources?

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Ooops!

Your obfuscation is getting ridiculous. Anyone who's ever prepared an FOIA request or responded to one (I've done both) knows the procedure.

You do not legitimately "reject" a request. You respond with docs or you cite exemptions. The burden is initially on the responding party. It shifts after the response to the requesting party to show why the exemption claimed (if one is claimed) is not legitimate, is itself limited, or that the docs produced (if any) are not responsive to the request.

The agency in possession does not (legally or legitimately) "reject" anything.

Your non-responsive posts add nothing but misdirection and mis-characterizations. "Cutesy" responses serve only to further reveal your true nature.

Deny ignorance.

jw


reply posted on 29-11-2009 @ 09:00 PM by jdub297
Originally posted by melatonin

Unless you think my responding with the actual facts of FOI laws in the UK, in the face of your moustache curling and denigration of scientists and public workers in general, along with inane responses like...
I don't see an exemption there for fraud, deceit, fairy tales, and hiding under mum's skirt.

...is not addressing your ignorance of FOI in the UK.
j, your ignorance of how research funding works in academia is not evidence of Phil Jones making millions in personal wealth.

[Repeat the second quote of mine here] - acquire clue.


Rather than concede your misrepresentation of disclosure laws, you misdirect. Rather than face the fact that Million$$ have been funneled to Jones, you disparage. Who/what supports his tenure? Research grants. How does he supplement his base? Research grants and reports.

Funny how you feel that having a corporation fund some research center is "corrupting," but not when corporations, foundations (which are really corporations) and government agencies are paying the bills. Pure willful deliberate ignorance must be blissful for you.

You can claim some false separation between Jones and the MET, or their immunity to disclosure laws.

The Government itself says otherwise.

The UK’s National Weather Service. A Trading Fund within the Ministry of Defence, operating on a commercial basis under set targets.

Established 1854 as a small department within the Board of Trade as a service to mariners under Captain Robert FitzRoy. We later become part of the Ministry of Defence.

As civil servants Met Office staff adhere to the Civil Service code.

The Met Office Hadley Centre is the UK’s foremost climate change research centre. We produce world-class guidance on the science of climate change and provide a focus in the UK for the scientific issues associated with climate change.

Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia maintain the global climate record for the WMO.

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

They are merely arms of the same AGW octopus.

The press increasingly disagree with you and their diminishing numbers of supporters.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?
The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.

This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

www.telegraph.co.uk... l

Keep trying.

Deny ignorance.

jw


[edit on 29-11-2009 by jdub297]


reply posted on 30-11-2009 @ 12:20 AM by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Shirakawa


Good link, and great summary, although the extent of the corruption of these people cannot be explained in such a small summary.

You will continue to have the AGW die hard fans, and some who might probably be "sleeper cell types" from "Hoaxclimate" I mean "realclimate.org, who can't explain the NATURAL Climate Change hence they continue to use the same old tactics of claiming "all skeptics are paid kooks" etc since they have no way to defend their defund AGW religion.


reply posted on 1-12-2009 @ 03:41 AM by Shirakawa
This software developer explains the oddities in the CRU source code:

Update - Climategate - CRU Source Code Explained

I discuss the actual source code that was released in the recent hack of the CRU.

The source code confirms the manipulation of climate data by climate scientists.

Supporting documentation here: fascistsoup.com...


[edit on 2009-12-1 by Shirakawa]


reply posted on 1-12-2009 @ 07:16 PM by Shirakawa
Interview from Corbett Report with Christopher Monckton:

Climategate update: Report filed with UK Information Commissioner

Lord Monckton of Brenchley joins The Corbett Report once again to discuss the report that he has filed jointly with Professor Fred Singer against the scientists connected to the ongoing climategate scandal. We discuss the basis of the report, what is likely to happen from this point, a timeframe for the possible criminal investigation stemming from this report and how people can stay up to date with this issue.

For more information, please visit the homepage of Science and Public Policy at:

scienceandpublicpolicy.org...


EDIT: This one above isn't really a fresh video as it's from November 27, but it serves to introduce this 40 page pdf ClimateGate summary made by Monckton:

Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!


Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal

Download pdf here


Also, I don't have seen it posted here, but this seems relevant to me:

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down


(AP)

LONDON — Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.

The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.


Source

[edit on 2009-12-1 by Shirakawa]


reply posted on 2-12-2009 @ 07:19 AM by Shirakawa
From Russia Today:

Ice Break: Top scientist resigns over 'Climate Hoax' scandal

A scientist at the centre of a "Climategate" row has stepped down from his post as research director at the University of East Anglia in England. Professor Phil Jones is accused of manipulating data after his emails were hacked into and leaked on the internet. He says he will stand aside while an independent review is carried out.



reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 07:19 AM by detachedindividual
Originally posted by zeddissad
While I agree with most of yours views I don't understand why is this act irresponsible. For right decisions on such complex matters like climate and ecology are we need right data. This leakage may provide us with means to demand real data and oppose feed of junk science.

I don't think that many people are in "personal battle with science". Science is historically contingent and still evolving social construct. Geocentric system was scientific view for thousand years. Science isn't holly cow for me and I'm very critical to positivist notion of it. But I'm in no way in "battle" with it. Science is very powerful descriptive system but there are areas where purely scientific notion is not able to grasp reality adequately. Every GOOD scientist is aware of it.

regards
z.


It's irresponsible because it detracts from the core principle of combating climate change.

All this has done is discredit something that a vast majority of people do not understand already.

I completely agree that those in power shouldn't be having big meetings trying to build a profitable business out of this. I completely get that people need to know the truth.

But the major truth is this:
The Human Race is the most destructive, violent, polluting, poisoned, greedy, selfish species on this planet. The scientific argument has no place in this obviously clear principle.

It makes no difference what side of the fence one is on, no one can deny that we are this monster of a creature bent on destroying our planet and ourselves to make a quick $. The data has no place in that fact.

The only solution, whether anyone agrees or not, is to change the way we think about this planet and our impact upon the environment. Having a bunch of rebels stealing information in an effort to discredit and confuse the entire debate is not helping. That is my point.

This has done nothing but make the entire issue more clouded and confused. People are already baffled by most of it, they limit their input to recycling plastic bottles, and they think that this is enough.

What needs to be done is far more drastic.
We need millions of people marching in the streets. We need millions of people actively contacting their representatives and forcing them to either back responsible climate deals or get their ass out of office!
And that means you America. Where is your forward-thinking left-leaning president now huh? I'll tell you where, extending every plan Bush ever made by another four years, and conveniently ignoring every pledge he made during his run for office!

Leaking information like this has done nothing beneficial for either side. If anything, it has made millions of people extremely wary of trusting the FACT that we are a disgustingly arrogant and greedy species.

THAT is my argument.


reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 02:22 PM by plumranch
Markey: Climate-Gate Has Become 'Tree Ring Circus'

Obama goes to Copenhagen armed with an "endangerment finding" by the Environmental Protection Agency that warns of the negative impact of carbon dioxide. That finding gives Obama regulatory authority to put limits on U.S. output, a tool that he can promote at Copenhagen Inhofe, who appeared with Markey, called the EPA finding an effort to try to "intimidate Congress into passing" legislation that he says will send jobs oversees. He added that the Senate version of the Markey-Waxman bill is dead and the lack of legislation limits the president's ability to make pledges on behalf of the United States.


The initial reductions he's talking about are what you find in Markey's bill, and that isn't going to happen. And of course, that bill's dead. It will never even be brought up again. ... So it has to come down to what can the president do without legislation. And I think that is highly limited," Inhofe said.


Looks like all Obama can do over in Copenhagen is promote saving the rain forests and give away money to developing nations to improve emissions! He won't be able to make any sweeping promises on CO2 that will send more jobs oversees and Mexico.


reply posted on 15-12-2009 @ 05:05 PM by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by plumranch

Looks like all Obama can do over in Copenhagen is promote saving the rain forests and give away money to developing nations to improve emissions! He won't be able to make any sweeping promises on CO2 that will send more jobs oversees and Mexico.


Actually it is a lot worse than that. The U.S. government, as well as Universities are starting research on sequestration of atmospheric CO2.

I know because I got an invitation to be part of such research.

Most people have no idea what this will do to the world, and the environment, not to mention the lives of people and animals as well.

Instead of trying to sequester the gases that composes smog which are the real problem in the world, these environlunatics are going after a gas that is needed for the entire Earth green biomass almost as much as oxygen is needed.

Sequestration of atmospheric CO2 will starve plants, trees, and essentially ALL harvests around the world.

The regular people who jumped in blindly in the AGW bandwagon are too naive, too gullible, and sorry to say too stupid to realize that this sequestration of atmospheric CO2 will cause the worse environmental problem the world has ever known....

Forget about oil spills, and forget about every environmental problem caused by mankind, sequestering atmospheric CO2 will be the worse of all.

Even if you combine all oil pills, and every other environmental problem caused by mankind, they won't amount to ANYTHING compared to the disaster which will be caused by sequestering atmospheric CO2...

If such plans are implemented, which they seem to be since I have also talked to my senator and he says that's the next plan that the U.S. government has, we are going to need a lot more greenhouses to be able to feed at least some people, but starvation will be a mayor problem for all animals and humans.

With less atmospheric CO2 it will mean less productive harvests, which will mean more starvation, and more deaths around the world from starvation.

Obviously the AGW gang, at least the regular naive people, can't understand all the documents which have been released, and even the statements made by the powerful Liberal/Socialist elites who have stated they want "less people in the world" and have been making plans for depopulation control...

Perhaps this measure will rid the world of the naive, and stupid people around the world... Perhaps the Socialist/Liberal elites are right, and the "people that we don't want too many of" will be starved to death and we can have a better world with less people, but at least with a higher IQ.

If this is implemented I will only be sorry for the innocent children in the world, as well as the disaster this will cause to the flora, and fauna because of the idiocy of those who jumped in the AGW bandwagon, but for the most part the AGW gang deserve all they will get whenever such sequestration of atmospheric CO2 is implemented.

Anyone else who is not an AGW lunatic, I recommend to make plans to have your own greenhouse, so you can increase your harvests, by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels to at least 1,200 ppm - 1,500 ppm, so that your family and you included can have food...


[edited for errors, and to add comments]


[edit on 15-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]


reply posted on 1-3-2010 @ 12:58 PM by Silcone Synapse
Bit of an Updaterofessor Phil Jones was quizzed by UK MPs science comittee today:

The scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' row over global warming hid data 'because it was standard practice', it emerged today.
Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's prestigious climatic research unit, today admitted to MPs that the centre withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world.


www.dailymail.co.uk...


A lot of people have been sticking up for this guy,saying he did nothing wrong.
Well,today he admitted the CRU hid data as a matter of standard practice.
Theres open and honest...
He still says that he believes his data on global warming is accurate-although that must surely be taken with a pinch of salt,due to the fact that he bases his belief on data which no one else can now see,because it was hidden or destroyed.
Pages: <<  24    25    26    27  >>    ^^TOP^^