Hacked Email of Britain's leading climate science research centre shows no proof of Climate Change

The following Article:

British climate expert 'cheered' by Aussie's death

COMPUTER hackers have broken into Britain's leading climate science research centre, making public thousands of private emails between top climate change scientists.

The messages – more than 2000 emails and 3000 documents – lay bare bitter disagreements about the cause of climate change.

In one email, the head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, says he is "cheered" by news of the sudden death of a prominent Australian climate sceptic, John L. Daly, who died of a heart attack at his Launceston home in 2004.

Others show scientists referring to sceptical colleagues as "prats", "charlatans" and "idiots".

The emails also acknowledge the frustration of trying to find evidence to "prove" man-made climate change.

In one email, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the US Centre for Atmospheric Research, who supports the theory of man-made climate change, says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."

Dr Trenberth says data published last August "shows there should be even more warming... the data are surely wrong".

I am absolutely disgusted from the above and I have lost complete faith in our scientists. They are supposed to have open mind and when you look at the level of bully on their own colleagues who does not agree with them is absolutely childish.

The level of disagreement highlighted in the above article shows clearly that they don't have a clue on what is causing Global warming.

Hey OP, another posted this yesterday. Very important information though, hopefully you get more than just me posting on this one.

The audacity of these mother-bleepers. We should get the zip file, I know a few that have it, and post all of the names of everyone of these corrupt mother-bleepers.

I am not sorry mods, I am righteously p. oed.

And so should we all be.

Thanks endisnighe, I did not know someone has already posted this. When I saw the article my blood started to boil and forgot to make a search before posting.

reply to post by rattan1


This is an interesting development, I wasn't expecting someone to actually hack and make public this kind of stuff. I have always believed Global Warming a myth having investigated and looked at the data myself. This is just the break we need to begin tearing it down. I say pass it along, show it to your friends, etc.
This is a tool or better yet a weapon for us to use in this war against tyranny in the form of taxation in carbon taxes.

reply to post by rattan1


Do not worry, we have to spread this.

On another site, we got over 180 posts in one day.

This is the beginning of their breakdown.

We need to spread this.

reply to post by rattan1


There is recent warming, and the deniers are pratts.

What a coincidence as soon as you those email were exposed you have another damning warning about global warming to pull the attention away:

Antarctic ice sheet losing mass

A new study has found the east Antarctic iceshelf, which sits behind Australia's Casey Station, has lost billions of tonnes of ice in the past three years.

Show me one email where they admitted to fixing the figures. I see nothing of the sort. I do see questions being asked but not exactly anything of those lines the op suggested.

If idiots wish to believe nothing is happening then I dont see why scientists should bother trying to warn people. TO all scientists i would say desist in your efforts to get man out of this mess. Man has made its bed let him lie in it for better or for worse. Coz frankly the more people get caught offguard by climate change the more people will die and i would say thats a good thing. Less morons in the world

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by rattan1

 

There is recent warming, and the deniers are pratts.

There is recent warming AND cooling. That's what happens. It's called weather, and the Earth has been doing it for a long time.

Can you find a single person who denies that this happens? If not, then who are you calling a denier?
I mean, if you're calling them pratts, who are they?

What you seem to be "denying" is that there is still well and truly debate on the influence of anthropogenic emmisions on climate. You certainly have your idealogies set since you've stated you're going to protest for climate controls (whether they work or not) in Dec, so I guess that explains why you're still clinging on to the hope that these scientists have our (their funding source, taxpayers) best interests at heart.

Also, since you skipped past my post on this thread. Im going to ask you here as well.

You said

Originally posted by john124
It's pretty obvious that a lot of comments have been added to the hacked emails. The hacker doesn't exactly have credibility or ethics, as to resort to hacking, so it seems obvious to me that sceptics are the one's with an agenda that ain't science.

So I ask you again. How is it obvious to you that the content of the emails have been "added to"?

Judging by what you've said, you must have asserted that the 'hacker' (leaker? whistleblower?) added comments with "an agenda that aint science", so you must think theres something encriminating or harmful in them? Well I don't think there is anything encriminating at this stage, but they certainly call on the motivations, methods and ethics of these (so called) scientists. And thats not even mentioning the apparant incompetencies in the way data was handled. (see here - HARRY_READ_ME.txt").
Or have a look at discusion on "Mikes nature trick" here

Some emails have been confirmed as genuine, yet none have been confirmed as altered. How is it obvious to you that they've been altered?



[edit on 23-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

People I urge you please VERY IMPORTANT listen to this interview bellow, its from a radio podcast in Sydney:

Is the Copenhagen treaty about creating a world government?


Now I am really

Originally posted by loner007
If idiots wish to believe nothing is happening then I dont see why scientists should bother trying to warn people. TO all scientists i would say desist in your efforts to get man out of this mess.

Who's saying nothing is happening? I haven't seen anyone claim that.
If this is the type of "efforts" of these scientists, I might agree that they should "desist".

From Phil Jones:

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

This is from Phil Jones, head of CRU. This is the guy leading our taxes effort to find out what's really happening to our climate. And he does not intend others outside his 'research unit' to see what they've been up to. Does he really care for our best interests?

Originally posted by loner007
If there is genuine concern for the environment, why does
Man has made its bed let him lie in it for better or for worse. Coz frankly the more people get caught offguard by climate change the more people will die and i would say thats a good thing. Less morons in the world

Wow. Are you serious?
That's a ah, strong opinion you've got there.
Are you one of those people who claim humanity should be "depopulated", to be able to survive climate change(catastrophe)?

Do you really think the Mann's and Gore's of this world have genuine "concern for the environment"? Why do you have to subscribe to AGW theories to be concened for our environment?

In fact, what do you think the current (what you might call) consensus is actually going to do to have any kind of impact on the climate?

What about all the other problems this world faces, that carbon trading will do ^%$# all to help?

I'd rather scientists share their data with others to confirm their studies, if they are claiming to be the voice of authority on the issue.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

It seems that the MGW is finally being exposed as a HOAX, and more people are starting to wake up to this. Have been following the many comments on news.com.au regarding the Copenhagen treaty and that article (this has been the most popular article here in Australia today), and it seems the vast majority of people are against the theory of man made global warming, certainly quite different to 6 months ago. I applaud this hackers efforts, as it seems to be quite a big story and has helped bring forward this important topic, particularly before copenhagen.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Hmmm I forgot to mention in my other posts that theres a well defined fact that mankind is changing the climate and it is undeniable and it comes to the fact of the 7 day week .

Rain takes it easy on weekends, when air is cleaner

The long term trend is that there is warming, this is indisputable (even though in the last 10 years temperatures have at least stopped increasing - that's not the same as saying that Earth is cooling!), what is disputed is the "A" in "AGW". This could as well turn out to be "NGW".

I think that we might be partially contributing to warming or not, but certainly not causing it.

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by rattan1

 

There is recent warming, and the deniers are pratts.

How very scientific! Burn the heretics, burn the heretics!

Seriously, this whole "denier" issue is getting a little tiresome and, as with another issue where the word "denier" is used, it is done so to deflect any debate on the issue and to alienate those who may question the propagandized orthodoxy.

Now, all sane people know the climate changes. The Earth, at an estimated 4.7 Billion years old has seen climatic changes, sometimes up, sometimes down, sometimes wet, sometimes dry, for much of it's history so that is not in question. What is in question is the cause, which today we are being told is wholly down to mankind. That is complete and utter bunk!

The deniers, as we are called, are painted by the pro-AGW crowd as being rapers of the planet and a danger to mankind, who must accept our earthly energy usage sins and repent, in what has become a kind of religion. But, like most religions, those who publically stand firmly in the pro camp, and indeed those who set up the proposed taxation, carbon credit and asscociated brokerages to make themselves even richer, do not play by the rules that they would set for the rest of us.
The likes of Saint Al of Gore live in mansions that use horrendous amounts of energy, fly to functions in private jets and use big gas guzzling limos to ferry them around. That is hardly earning them any "green" credentials and makes a mockery of their arguments for the rest of us to curb energy usage.

Every right minded person, including all of us "deniers", certainly support the push for less energy usage and green initiatives for clean energy and cutting pollution. However, the proposals being pushed by the likes of Al Gore, our own governments and banking / corporate interests, do little or nothing to address this. In fact, they are geared solely to extract more money from us and provide ridiculous wealth to those in power. If opposing that makes me a threat to mankind then I say to Al Gore and all the other frauds - bring it on! There's a rope and tree waiting.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Britguy]

reply to post by loner007

Yes, that article has shown a possible link to the way humans affect weather(not climate, as you put it), localised conditions due to local causes. It's not just airborne particulates that can have an effect on local weather, so can the 'urban heat island' effect. Also, other land use changes such as deforestation certainly affect precipitation levels, which is why Mt Kilimanjaro has been losing snow, because of less precipitation. But this isn't about local effects, it's about long term trends (climate) and how we are having an effect on them.

The truth is we affect our environment in many ways. But is the recent warming trend entirely due to anthropogenic emissions? A lot of respected scientists say, that while we can certainly affect localised weather, the climate operates in cycles which we may have very little effect on.

But the politicians and fear mongerer's don't say it like that. They try to say that there is 'consensus' and 'the science is settled' without ever having to give any real evidence.

And then the people we are relying on to find out what effects we are having on our planet, refuse to give their data and methods so others can replicate their work. They have manipulated or lost data which is vital to support their theory, but won't let anyone else look at it.

This is what Phil Jones, head of CRU said. "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."

Why should we just blindly follow (which is what many here do) what these guy's say, when others cant view their work and procedures? If they were so confident they had it right, there would be no hesitation to release their work. But these guy's are too worried that they might be proven wrong, so they deceive and scheme to try and stop that from happening.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

This is what Phil Jones, head of CRU said. "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."

If he said that he was probably referring to ways used to attack them using non-scientific methods, such as the deniers are currently doing using the emails. Deniers will use any method available to them to discredit climate scientists, when they don't have a scientific basis behind their claim.

I do think all data should be made public, but I also sympathise with these scientists for having to waste their precious time debunking nonsense by pseduo-scientists.

reply to post by john124

Agian you refuse to answer questions, John124. It's not that hard is it? This is getting tedious. Ill re-re post previous questions.

There is recent warming AND cooling. That's what happens. It's called weather, and the Earth has been doing it for a long time.

Can you find a single person who denies that this happens? If not, then who are you calling a denier?
I mean, if you're calling them pratts, who are they?

And

How is it obvious to you that the content of the emails have been "added to"?

Your'e unrelenting defense of these guys is baffling to me. Phil Jones has repeatedly avoided handing over information to a real statistician, to verify his claims (See here). And you're only defense is that they might use "non-scientific methods" to show that there might be something wrong with it. Is it "scientific" to withold information when you claim to be the authoritive figure on the issue?

And you continually refer to these deniers, John124. Who are they?


[edit on 23-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

Phil Jones doesn't need to hand over data to a random individual - statistician or not. He might hand it to a research colleague, but that depends on the nature of the data.

Some data isn't an individual's to give, they have received it from other sources. Therefore any requests need to go to the original source. Some of the data comes from people doing basic research on a new dataset, they hand it on with restrictions. They spent the time and effort collecting, they have primary ownership of, and publishing rights for research from, the data. Some data comes from sources who use the data for business reasons (e.g., Met office), and they will give the data for research with restrictions.

For example, McIntyre whined about the Yamal data for years. Yet Jones told McIntyre that the data was from a set of russian colleagues, and to see them for it. But McIntyre whined and crowed about Jones not giving him the Yamal data continually right up to a few months ago.

Yet he had already got the data from the Russian group a few years back, lol. McIntyre is a time-waster with little but nefarious purposes. He isn't interested in advancing knowledge, but in creating political FUD. He used the proper approach to get the information from Jones, but his FOIA request was refused. Probably for being a harrassing/vexatious request issue. He's free to appeal.

Of course, within limits, this sort of information should be in the public domain. It's easy enough to do so in the interwebz age. NASA-GISS are pretty good at getting their stuff up.

Good definition of denialism from the denialism blog:

Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Most arguing against AGW fit the bill in my experience.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]

I saw this on Drudge and it totally p***es me off! Just one more instance of "follow the dollar" or whatever currency is appropriate! Al Gore should be stripped naked along with everyone else who is blabbing about global warming and forced to parade down Main Street of every town in America confessing their lies and admitting to being money grubbing dumb***es! Aaaargh! I've REALLY had enough of politicians and our Controlled media!!!
There's two things seriously wrong in our WORLD right now- GREED?CORRUPTION, and TOTALL LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY for it!