These e-mails show that the people who who have been saying that man-made global warming is a fact and a scientific consensus exists don't believe that it is true. There are a couple facts:

1) Global warming has slowed or stopped at least temporarily

2) The Alarmists have over-hyped the scope and scale of the problem to manufacture a crisis in order to pass legislation

3) The current proposals move the world towards global government, taxes, and wealth redistribution.

Hopefully this hacker has emboldened the scientific community to stop allowing the alarmists to run rough-shot over honest science.

Let's see what I would believe more?

A few E-mails taking out of context or over 1000 peer reviewed articles published in respected journals?

Of course! The E-mails because a few of them support my sceptically view.

Did the hackers or insiders entitled, FOIA.zip, came at Jeff Ids blog;, http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/ #10, not only to release the ZIP but also to endorse the open letter to 18 leasing US scientific organizations with regard to their letter to the US Senate concerning climate change legislation; 21.Oct.2009:

>>Dear President or Executive Director,
How could it happen that more than a dozen of the most prestigious scientific associations signed and submitted this letter on ‘climate change’ without having ensured that the used terminology is sufficiently defined.  Good science can and is required to work with reasonable terms and explanations. The science about the behaviour of the atmosphere should be no exception. But WMO, IPCC and other institutions simply are using the layman’s term of weather and climate not even recognizing that this is very unscientifically. Actually nowadays climate is still defined as average weather, which may be fine for the general public, but nonsense as scientific term. This can be well demonstrated with the most relevant international legal instrument, namely the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 (FCCC)>>. More: http://www.whatisclimate.com/

FOIA stated:
___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.

Looks like the FRAUDULANT AGW Chickens.......have come home.......to ROOST!!!!

LOVE IT!

Here's hoping our tree hugging friends on here, and around the world are squirming beyond the realm of insanity.

Love and Kisses,

THE RADICAL AMERICAN!

I guess all I have to say about this is that there are good and bad people in the world. No doubt there are good and bad climate scientists. If this is the worst thing found out of all the emails hacked then I would agree, its definitely no smoking gun.

It does call into question a bit the integrity of the particular scientist in question and he should definitely be held accountable for that. There is enough manufactured scandal in this debate as it is. They should be smarter.

Gary if this is the worldwide conspiracy you were talking about you will have to do better then that :)

Oh yeah and I think they might be mistaked on the tree rings. I posted an article on the Greenland thread that was just released not too long ago. They seem to still be correlating tree rings with temperature.

Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth and others in the pro-AGW community are defending the CRU email exchanges as nothing more than typical banter among scientists.

Does this mean that THEY engage in these types of "harmless" exchanges? If so, let's see them. They and Hansen, et.al., should offer up their emails to the public to prove this (assuming they haven't deleted them all in the last 48 hours).

I think it's officially time to transfer the term "denial" from the skeptic's side to the pro-AGW side.

I can see why this would be a denier's dream. Individual emails between scientists lack context, and it allows deniers to print some of them and attach their own conspiratorial "interpretation". So as folks are gleefully delving into the private emails of scientists, they need to ask themselves:

1. Have you read the full emails in question, or just a snippet?

2. Do you understand the topic being discussed?

3. Do you understand the full context of the email, or are you being lead by others prefacing it with an "interpretation"?

If one cannot definitely answer all of these questions in the affirmative, then one cannot honestly make valid conclusions regarding them. This isn't stopping political folks from trying.

This is the "greatest hits" political hacks have assembled regarding this list of emails. If this is any indication, it shows how bankrupt of evidence the conspiracy theorists are. Surely there must be someone thanking Al Gore for the grant money...

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves-again/

Let's see what I would believe more?

A few E-mails taking out of context or over 1000 peer reviewed articles published in respected journals?

Of course! The E-mails because a few of them support my sceptically view.

REPLY: LOL!!! Now who's the DENIER????? Don't ya just love these people??? It's always "I mispoke" or "It was taken out of context" when they get their grubby little leftist hands caught in the mouse trap. What a CROCK!!!

Although I don't know much about programming, I think the code and underlying data may prove to be the ultimate smoking gun. Also, one gets the impression that there may be more data available waiting to be released by the hacker/whistleblower.

Some claim that the e-mails are being taken out of context.

If you really look at the details and context though, it makes the behavior look worse.

People are now beginning to look at the code and data released. What they are finding supports the "hide the decline" sort of mentality expressed in the e-mails.

The "hide the decline" e-mail was NOT about changing a peer reviewed paper. It was about changing the cover graphics of a World Meteorological Organization report to influence public opinion and to influence political leaders. In other words, they weren't really fudging the data, but merely what they told the rest of the world about the data.

A review of the code is showing that they were fudging what was being told to rest of the climatology professionals in peer-reviewed journals. The details get a bit complex, but it boils down to something very similar to the "hide the decline" e-mails.

They didn't like what the tree ring history said in recent years. If the recent tree ring history doesn't agree with the temperature record, then it raises doubts about the reliability of tree rings (aka "wooden thermometers") in declaring that the Medival Warm Period didn't happen.

The solution is simple. Replace recent tree ring data with data derived from thermometer readings, but DISGUISE AND HIDE THE REPLACEMENT.

Only by extensive data sleuthing and repeated FOI requests was Steve McIntyre able, in some cases, to put together indirect evidence that the data towards the end of the series (often after 1960 or 1961) was replace with other data, such as thermometer readings.

The recently released code has comments which confirm this, such as "Uses �corrected� MXD � but shouldn�t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures."

See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065

You might also do a search for MXD on WattsUpWithThat and climate audit, and then see how thing were spun over on RealClimate.Org.

Now that the code is available, we get to see what the real truth is.

More than likely hackers or leakers were not involved. A more likely explanation has been put forth by Anthony Watt on his blog.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters%C2%AE-an-alternate-explanation/#more-13003

Basically, a FOI file was put together and placed on an FTP server in anticipation that Steve McIntyre's FOIA request was granted. Unfortunately, it was probably a public server and was easily downloaded by someone who knew how to access the server.

The hacker (or whistleblower) posted the link to the file on the blog "The Air Vent", http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/

This is a rather technical blog that goes into gridded temperature reconstructions, has lots of R code, etc.

If you laugh when you read:

void function fubar(void);
{if dataset == hockeystick then plot(dataset); else fudge(dataset);
return; }

then the Air Vent is definitely the place for you.

Jeff Id, the author of the Air Vent did some awesome posts where he provided R code for doing the algorithm used by Mann and others for various paleoclimatoligy hockeysticks. He then showed how, using Mann's original dataset, that by changing the calibration function, that he could generate a hockeystick of any desired shape. Even a negative hockeystick. In layman's terms, what The Air Vent showed is that the hockeystick is a result of data processing, not the data itself.

It's just a guess, but my guess is that the whistleblower (or hacker) that published the CRU e-mails and code reviewed Jeff Id's work at the Air Vent, verified by looking at some internal CRU stuff that what he said as true, and then proceeded to release the code and e-mails because he was disturbed by what has been going on at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit.

LOL @ Gettingwarm

If you'd actually bothered to READ the emails you'd find that the "peer review" process has been entirely corrupted...at least with respect to climate 'science'. They openly talk about their little clique and how they discredit other scientists (not their work), sit on review panels to suppress dissenting views and manipulate the data.

Personally, I always say that conspiracies are almost never real and the few that are...are seldom anything but a pale shadow of their claimed grandeur. Unfortunately it does appear that many of the 'top' climate 'scientists' have indeed been conspiring to mislead and cover up. They also appear to be HORRIBLE SCIENTISTS in that they're stupid enough to actually believe their own nonsense. REAL scientists don't cover up things that disagree with their hypothesis...they embrace them and use them to figure out what's REALLY going on.

They don't do this sort of thing in their programs

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)"

It will take a few months before the real import of this unauthorized data release is really understood.

For example, one of the programs has the following snippet:

original code (\FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro) ; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,�Oooops!� ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

It is found in /documents/osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro (use wordpad or other text editor to open). The blockquote above is exactly as in the code. "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!", isn't my comment, but is what is in the code.

It appears to adjust the northern hemisphere MXD for 5 year periods since 1904. The array hardcoded in the program is a series of fudge factors for each 5 year period since 1904.

It will take a while before people figure out which peer-reviewed paper, if any, this data was used in.

In my opinion, time will show that it is this sort of bogus adjustment that was being hidden in the withheld data and code, and is why you see many references in the e-mails to ways to avoid responding to FOI requests.

Some of the released data appear to be the "censored" folders that were inadvertently released a few years ago, and which allowed Steve McIntyre to figure out what tricks had been played with data omissions and subtitutions for some of the Mann98 hockeystick.

=======================================

Meanwhile, we need to keep things in perspective. Even if data has been fudged and faked, this does NOT disprove AGW. This merely shows that some of the particular papers supporting AGW are false.

Ryan | November 23, 2009 10:36 AM

"all I have to say about this is that there are good and bad people in the world"

What is clearly demonstrated is that global climate research has been clearly biased by a small cadre "The Team". They have worked diligently to submerge any data that runs counter to their agenda. The real question is: Can we remove the bias from the previous data, in all areas?? How do we compensate for research that didn't receive funding or papers that didn't get published??

I don't particularly like this new defense by "The Team" of... boys will be boys. It only works for Bart Simpson in cartoonland. GK

Gee, I guarantee if anyone hacked my work email (or yours) you'd see a lot nastier cuss words than these scientists are using! People need to remember scientists are people too, and they get in fights, hold grudges, etc.

Science is not about who is most popular, it's about the truth. Peer reviewed journals are not the absolute word either. Debate is healthy, but focusing on trite little things like someone's personal email doesn't really prove anything.

Well here's a bit of sad coincidental irony. Shortly after a U.K. organization is hacked into and emails from climate scientists stolen and propagated, U.K. experiences record flooding. God is not happy with deniers I guess. Or perhaps a new conspiracy theory will be that those evil climate scientists geoengineered the rains to divert attention from their collusion with George Soros.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34058376/ns/weather/

Forecasters said the rainfall was unprecedented. Britain's Meteorological Office said a record 12.3 inches of rain fell in 24 hours in the area — the heaviest rainfall ever recorded in the U.K.

Local House of Commons lawmaker Tony Cunningham said the flood was "of biblical proportions," adding that "the scale and the force of the devastation in Cockermouth is huge."

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn told the BBC that flood defenses were meant to withstand a one-in-100-years flood — but could not cope with the volume of water.

"What we dealt with last night was probably more like one-in-a-1,000, so even the very best defenses, if you have such quantities of rain in such a short space of time, can be over-topped," Benn said.

Britain's Meteorological Office added that the amount of rain expected for all of November had fallen in one day.

GettingWarm:

Good conclusion since the Whole Peer Review process has been shown as a fraud as well.

And as for "Respected Journals", Not any more!
They were clearly complicit.

Never again will you guys be able use that tired old rant about peer review.

It all over but the law suits.

Smoking gun?
Perhaps not.

Smoking Cannon?

Absolutely.
It is now perfectly cleay to all but the Cult faithful (Religious Zealots never let go)
that AGW is a manufactured crisis entirely for Political gain.

We will not allow this to be ignored!

I have already contacted my Government and demanded an immediate halt to all idiocy about Carbon reduction.
I will continue to hammer on them until they wake up.

You should do the same.
We have been Conned!

Don't stand for it.

"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."

You gotta love how they claim this is a "random" selection of e-mails out of the entire set. The fact is, they carefully selected the e-mails that were the most out of context, or would be perceived to be most damaging. The problem is that, if these are the best e-mails they could find to support their case, then I'm even more encouraged by the scientists' efforts in engaging in healthy discussion. Deniers would have you believe there is some juicy, scandalous information in these e-mails, but after reading through them, they're actually quite boring.

Of course, the real issue here: right-wingers like to talk about their respect for "the rule of law" and private property and what-not, but, time and time again, they prove the only allegiance they have is to their extreme ideology.

The Guardian has an excellent comment on this...

Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/23/climate-sceptics-bob-ward-nigel-lawson

"If you look at the emails, there isn't any evidence that the data was falsified and there's no evidence that climate change is a hoax. It's a shame that some of the sceptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world's most respected scientists. The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be. It's no surprise, with the Copenhagen talks just days away, that this has happened now."

1. Collusion to prevent publication of papers not pro AGW
2. Collusion to destroy editors and publications that do publish skeptical papers
3. Collusion to thwart release of data per legitimate FOIA requests
4. Collusion with media sock puppets (e.g. NY Times) to advocate the AGW faith

Maybe I just fell off the pumpkin truck, but I certainly hope that such supression of alternative hypothethes and refusal to share raw data is not the culture in other scientific disciplines. Clearly, Climate 'Science' is a political organization.

Al Gore has been awfully quiet lately.
How come he is not out denouncing this nasty roadblock, er, shocker um, surprise?

Or do we beleive these scientists?

From the Alleged emails:

From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" , "Malcolm Hughes"

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother
with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=498&filename=.txt

PANIC?

Mark B.
"I can see why this would be a denier's dream."

I have read many of the threads of emails.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=498&filename=.txt

Let me be clear. I am not s scientist.(don't play one on TV either). I have noticed a theme, or attitude thoughout the many email threads that i have read. I don't understand many of the achronyms, scientific jargon, concepts etc., but many of them are witten in plain english and there seems to be a commom attitude through out. I can only sum up their attitude in the immortal words of AL Gore, " The science is settled". It would seem to me that I should be reading coorspondence between scientist that include hardy debate about the science. I have only reade threads that are protecionist of pro AGW data, vitriolic attacks of scientist who do not tow the AGW line, recomendations to delete data and avoid Brtains freedom of information act.

The database that I have linked to is searchable. If you plug in the quotes that you have read all over the weboshere you will see that they are taken completly in context if you read the entire emal threads.

Concerning you post about the rain in the UK.

Isn't that just weather?

This debate will persist because you have those who make a living searching and finding evidence to support their claims. And you have those that spite their efforts because they don't agree with their claims. But I think that a large percentage of people who are skeptical aren't denying warming (on whatever magnitude) for the future - nope - they're just not convinced of the 'danger' and 'catastrophe' associated with it. That alone negates the need to support its cause. Al Gore is shouting wolf and the world sees it only in movies! Most of us know that weather - not climate - is the greatest threat to living. And most of us do not concern ourselves with models that are not held accountable for 30-100 years in the future. Nor do we believe that emission mitigation via cap n trade will slow or eliminate any meaningful temperature rises.

The events is now about 4-5 days old, and still ''Not in the news'' . Maybe there's no news about it after all, beside a hacker releasing documents on the web.

Where's the smoke, the gun, the blood and the meat ?

About the Brit's rain.. Did'nt Lord Monckton predicted it ? oOPs, no i has not seen that one coming. Where was he not to prevent his followers from such a great upcoming disaster ?

Final note, first november month in 40 years that the local ski resorts cannot open - no snow, and too warm to do artificial snow.

But are'nt we in a cooling trend? Really ?

Jeff Schroeffel | November 23, 2009 9:33 AM --- This decade is the warmest on record. Greenland ice sheet continues to melt away. Spring comes earlier, on average, every year and autumn lasts longer. I could go on and on...

Its been significantly warming ever since the 1950s. We'll have to deal with it.

Neo said:

But I think that a large percentage of people who are skeptical aren't denying warming (on whatever magnitude) for the future - nope - they're just not convinced of the 'danger' and 'catastrophe' associated with it.

Right on the money. The issues at hand (as presented by Al Gore et al) would also be resolved if we solved our other, immediate, environmental concerns regarding--amongst others--desertification, chemical pollution, fresh-water contamination, acidification and deforestation. If we add starvation and/or disease as environmental concerns (as do Gore et al), well, then Global Warming seems like a world wide panic over a hickey. Somebody dies every second from hunger. No kidding, every second.

Repressing valid (as in being at once relevant and meaningful) environmental concerns under an umbrella of doomsday prophecies not only discredits actual climate science, it also misrepresents what can be done about it in a most egregious manner.

To me, the entire 'debate' reeks of propaganda and fear mongering. Somebody is trying to sell something. It does not seem like scientific conduct, at least not how I was taught science. This resonates strongly in the CRU emails I've read so far.

To me, the CRU emails are an appalling example of politics and ideology dominating a department rather than the rigours of the scientific process. More than anything they discredit the University of East Anglia in the strongest terms.

However, that said, if those code snippets turn out to have been actually used (which indeed would be the proverbial smoking gun) I believe the only correct action is the harshest punitive recourse available to an academic institution: removal of all involved parties' academic titles and immediate termination of their positions. That's straight up fraud and no serious academic institution worth a damn would stand for it.

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."

It is going to take some time and a lot more coverage on this issue for people to begin to understand that the so called environmental movement is nothing more than a front for the leftist, socialist agenda. This has never been about science. If it had, there would have been serious questions such as how so many of these global warmist were also the next ice age advocates of only a few decades ago. And of course the oncoming ice age was the product of man made pollution. The global climate warming (change) has always been about politics. It has always been about destroying Western economies all in the name of saving us from ourselves. It has always been about redistribution of wealth as Copenhagen so clearly demonstrates. And it has always been about asserting more govenmental controls over every part of our lives as people are now understanding in Europe and soon the US.

It will be a terrible awakening to discover that all of these punitative measures were being imposed on us by a fraudulent movement with the full cooperation of our elected hacks. Unfortunately we may ultimately end up punishing only those who got caught – the crimial participants of the global warming “science”. But we need to recognize that this fraud would not have proceeded if not for the willingness of the leftist in our government to fund these studies that allowed them to continually oppress their citizens not for the good of all but for the continuation of their power and control over the people. That is the lesson that we must learn from this. Our governments have turned against us. We must be willing (as the brave citizens of Eastern Europe and the old Soviet Union were willing to do) not only throw these political oppressors out but repeal all of the legislations and bureaucracies that they created to control our lives and suppress our liberties. We cannot expect someone to save us from this. We must be willing to fight our own fight to regain our liberty.

With the recent release of "correspondence, code and documents" from the Climatic Research Unit, the earlier admitted "loss" by CRU of key raw data begins to look deliberate.
As previously mentioned, Steven McIntyre had sought release of CRU's data under the UK Freedom of Information Act. At first, Jones simply refused this and several similar requests from other parties. Then on July 27, 2009, CRU erased three key files from its public database, as Mr. McIntyre can prove easily because he has before-and-after screenshots. CRU followed up, in short order, with what McIntyre and some of his readers called an "unpredecented" "purge" of its public data directory. McIntyre's screenshots tell a breathtaking story of wholesale removal of files previously made available to the public, including, at one point, the deletion of every single listing in Phil Jones' public directory. Anthony Watts summed up the situation in one word: "panic."

Read more here>http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d23-CRU-raw-data-loss-not-an-accident

Of course, the real issue here: right-wingers like to talk about their respect for "the rule of law" and private property and what-not, but, time and time again, they prove the only allegiance they have is to their extreme ideology.

REPLY: Hey Marky Baby! Repeat after me:
A...G...W....
MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM....
CLAP CLAP CLAP....
MMMMMMM......MMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMM.......
FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD.....
It's a Fraud Beyond Compare.....
Even Al Gore's Gett'n Scared.....
MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMM...MMMMMMMM.......
CLAP CLAP CLAP
Hackers just exposed the truth......
Tree Hug-gers now look like goofs....
MMMMMMMM......MMMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM......
CLAP CLAP CLAP.........
Cap and Trade is such a scam.....
IPCC now in a jam.....
MMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM......

ROFLMAO!!!! LOVE IT....

To the denier, skeptic and sane multitude....feel free to add on to this little jingle....Can't remember where I heard it before....(hee hee hee).....Poking fun at the Enviro-kook crowd just got a whole lot easier!!!!!.....

I'm very disappointed at the comments here. Where in these emails is a refutation of AWG? All that I've seen in the emails I've actually read (it sounds like most of you have read none of them), put into context, are about working out very minute details of large datasets, and dealing with the frustrations of deniers (not skeptics, because to be a skeptic, one must hold out that they could actually be wrong), and working to keep bad science from getting the credibility it doesn't deserve. All of you dancing with glee over this look like fools to me - as said by others - there is no smoking gun here. NOTHING. No letters to Al Gore telling him how to make his next million and advance a socialist agenda and life of slavery to poor downtrodden citizens. No messages denying AWG. No cover-ups - the claims that there are are simply paper tigers; snippets of phrases regarding anomalous, small pieces of data. Those of you jumping on this are making yourselves look very irrational. If this is the best these hackers could come up with (and at least one person whose name has come up in the emails has pointed out that what is said about him cannot be true http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/11/cru-hack.html) then it's really a sorry day for the denialist movement.

MarkB said:

Well here's a bit of sad coincidental irony. Shortly after a U.K. organization is hacked into and emails from climate scientists stolen and propagated, U.K. experiences record flooding. God is not happy with deniers I guess. Or perhaps a new conspiracy theory will be that those evil climate scientists geoengineered the rains to divert attention from their collusion with George Soros.

Maybe it was ExxonMobil. If you want to imply some kind of crackpot conspiracy theory, at least go for the big time.

Anyway, does this put you in the "weather=climate" camp?

alan k writes:

"I have noticed a theme, or attitude thoughout the many email threads that i have read."

Keep in mind the emails were copied selectively and represent a very small percentage of the exchanges among scientists. The person doing this likely wanted to establish such a "theme". What's revealing is how few of those selections can even ambiguously be thought of to be anything sinister.

"It would seem to me that I should be reading coorspondence between scientist that include hardy debate about the science."

Ironically, I've seen the same political crowd select certain emails as evidence that scientists are debating, and it proves "science is not settled" although keep in mind they interpret every debate and discussions in terms of AGW and anti-AGW. That's how they like to categorize everything. You might not be aware of this, but climate scientists generally don't think of themselves as studying AGW. They study climate. Greenhouse gases are a part of that. Certain types want to attack that part of it because of the political ramifications.

"Concerning you post about the rain in the UK.

Isn't that just weather?"

Yep. That's why I used the word "coincidental". Now if you easily misinterpreted my fairly simple comment, I'm not sure you can confidently say you understand the topics being discussed within informal email exchanges, or the full context of them. Although I'm confident I know more than the types gleefully perusing the emails in search of dirt and with certain pre-conceptions, I would be naive to say I'm ultimately qualified either, since I'm not involved in any of the exchanges and I'm not intimately familiar with every issue.

I've pointed to clear examples of the top emails certain folks find supporting their conspiracy theory aren't sinister like they claim. We even now have wanna-be code reviewers on this thread selecting some piece of code pretending they have a clue what it refers to and not bothering to ask anyone actually involved in the projects for any context - just making their own sinister interpretations or parroting someone else's.

As far as I can tell, the only "recommendation to delete data" was from one scientist and it referred to deleting certain emails (if you call that "data"). Note that this recommendation was apparently not followed through on. The emails are still there including the one "requesting" the deletion. Perhaps it wasn't a serious request and just a scientist expressing frustration at the constant flow of politically-motivated requests. While this is certainly not condoned, given how these private emails are being tremendously used and abused at the moment, it's more very understandable, wouldn't you say? Frankly, my worry is that such an episode will deter scientists from talking more candidly with each other, knowing that their emails could be stolen, propagated, and clearly misused at any time.

Lastly, I recommend Spencer Weart's (a science historian) take on the issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/11/perspective_on_a_climate_scien.html

Let's see what I would believe more?

A few E-mails taking out of context or over 1000 peer reviewed articles published in respected journals?

Of course! The E-mails because a few of them support my sceptically view.

We have discussed this before on this site but let us go over it again because it is important and the e-mails make a few things clear.

First, there is not a single piece of empirical evidence that CO2 drives temperature trends. The best that the warmers could do is imply that there is a correlation between the two. Their problem is the fact that correlation is not proof of causation and that the correlation is very weak over the decadal time scale. That means that the warmers have to scramble to explain why we had 30 years of cooling just after CO2 emissions exploded and why we have not seen general warming for more than a decade.

For may claim of the recent lack of warming I cite Kevin Trenberth, who states in one of the e-mails, "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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." Note the joke? It can't be the theory that is wrong; it must be the data because it does not fit the theory.

Second, the ice core data clearly shows that it is the change in temperature than has come first and that CO2 followed 800 to 1000 years later. That makes CO2 the effect, not the cause. While the warmers admit that is the way things work for the first 800 to 1000 years they claim that after it is CO2 that is the driver. Of course, they have no credible evidence for this claim and no rational person would accept it without such evidence.

Second, we already discussed the Wegman report and testimony in front of Congress. The committee found that the papers on which much of the AGW claims were based came from a small group of around 40 people that published them without independent review. Being a gentleman, Wegman did not accuse the reviewers of academic fraud so he simply concluded that they were not very competent and did not understand statistical techniques. Had they been competent, the reviewers would have made the statistical errors that McIntyre and McKitrick found.

Let me note that I do not buy into the Wegman explanation because it is clear from the e-mails that the author and reviewers knew that the method was flawed and that the paper's conclusions were created by tricks.

As my supporting evidence I include the e-mail from Dr. Phil Jones, the chief fraud who claims that he had to destroy the global temperature data set because he did not have sufficient filing cabinets. Jones writes, "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 from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." While Jones likes to pretend that his use of the word 'trick' was unfortunate and can't recall things exactly, the leaked code tells us what the trick is. The programmer writes:

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

What this means is what M&M identified early in the game; Mann, Bradley, and Hughes hid the denro divergence by splicing on the Jones 'adjusted' temperature, which is a reconstitution from raw data that has not been reviewed by anyone other than Jones and a handful of insiders.

The Wegman report went on and noted that, "In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface." This is important to those that claim that many peer reviewed studies show evidence of warming because Wegman goes on to point out that, "there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent."

The e-mails clearly support the Wegman conclusion because we read about selecting appropriate reviewers who know what to say without prompting, and about getting editors fired for allowing the publication of papers that the group did not like. (The e-mails mention trying to get von Storch and James Saiers fired.) The corruption of the journal review process is a serious issue for scientists, who expect everything to be above board and transparent.

Another issue is the use of positions to keep legitimate papers from being considered by the IPCC, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" That makes you claims very hollow. If you have a small group of well paid insiders keep writing papers that are reviewed by others in the group and if that group puts pressure on journals to stop papers from being accepted and keeps legitimate papers from being included in the IPCC assessment reports you would not expect many papers to get published or considered by the IPCC.

Of course, there are thousands of papers that actually falsify the AGW hypothesis, ranging from some that show that ice core data indicates that CO2 changes lag the change in temperature trends by around 800 to 1000 years to papers that show that there is a much better link over all time periods between solar activity and temperature than CO2 and temperature.

What is interesting to note is that after all of the billions spent the AGW community has yet to produce a single paper that indicates that temperature change is driven by changes in CO2 concentrations. This entire debate is only about correlations and computer models, neither of which can prove anything.

This debate will persist because you have those who make a living searching and finding evidence to support their claims. And you have those that spite their efforts because they don't agree with their claims. But I think that a large percentage of people who are skeptical aren't denying warming (on whatever magnitude) for the future - nope - they're just not convinced of the 'danger' and 'catastrophe' associated with it.

Most of the sceptics have no trouble with the claim that it is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age. Their argument is about the cause of the temperature change. They point out that the warming from the depth of the LIA to the time that human emissions became material was faster and greater than the subsequent warming and point to the fact that there is no raw data that shows that it is warmer today than it was in the 1930s. The US data shows the 1930s as the warmest decade in the twentieth century and there is no global data set to show anything different for the world in general.

Amazing how the same folks who enjoy cherry-picking temperature readings to support their belief system are bemoaning the cherry-picking of emails that suggest what many of us have known all along - that the global warming alarmists have been suppressing data that runs counter their agenda. This is what happens when scientists become agenda-driven and sacrifice scientific method in the name of some higher political goal. Alarming folks for the purpose of making a radical political agenda more palatable was used by the Bush Administration for years. The global warming alarmists learned that lesson well and they will reap the same end - ignominy.

Actually Mr. David B. Benson. You are wrong. There has never been any significant warming and the current trend since the year 2000 is downward.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

The Science is not merely just unsettled. It is completely manipulated to generate a predetermined conclusion.

Reply: From what I can see from the GISS maps the trend since 2000 is pretty level. If anything, just a tick more upward than downward.

@ Shirley
RE: Where's the refutation of AGW

Well that's kind of the problem...Where the heck is the evidence FOR significant AGW? We are currently about .4C above the temperatures of the 1940's. According to AGW theories we should have had about 40% of the impact for a doubling of CO2. There's no heat in the pipe...or else it would have been getting steadily warmer. There are no strong, powerful feedbacks or else they'd be kicking in already (after all...isn't all the ice supposedly melting at incredible rates?).

If you assume that 100% of the warming from 1940-present is from CO2 and OR that 100% of the warming from CO2 is felt...the TOTAL anomaly (including warming we've SUPPOSEDLY already had) will be about 1C-1.2C by 2100. Everything else is just baseless speculation...but these bozos have been "peer reviewing" each other's papers and using that to suggest warming rates that have not actually been seen in modern times.

None of this is new. If you write code you are often very bored. Jokes and misinformation can be incorporated into code WITHOUT affecting the calculations. Perhaps the 'code-writer' is just being nasty and sacrilegious in his boredom. Check out code from any major programming endeavor and there is always some sign of the 'persona' of the code-writer. If you have programmed computers you would realize the words mean nothing, the functions and calculations are everything.

To whom it may concern:

"hide the decline"
"; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL(sic) correction for decline!! "
"...Keith's to hide the decline."

I decline answers the charges..." I had nothing to do with it, it is just a coincidence that my name is being mentioned."

Anonymous- By the way- It is the 21st century now, not the 1930's. Do you really expect someone to believe your diatribes, when YOU have no evidence and blather away because YOU are not being directly affected by 'Global Warming' in your comfy home. Too bad for the unfortunate souls who must first bear the brunt of mans ignorance.

I'm still in hiding....idecline

These purported e-mail leaks are a blow to "global warming" believers. Yet, it isn't a victory for the skeptics. What if the skeptics are actually still wrong, and global warming is continuing, despite a couple relatively cool years in succession? Globally, we cannot afford to gamble on this issue and continue to deplete our natural resources and maintain our current levels of carbon emissions. EVEN IF "global warming" isn't occurring, certainly climate change is, and with increasingly disastrous consequences. Note that we now have an Arctic Ocean free of summer ice. Desertification continues on most (all?) continents.

Wake up, people! The world is unsustainable as we currently live. The point is not whether the atmosphere is "warming;" it is about whether we can maintain our civilization without burning out!

If these emails said they fudged the numbers to cover up warming to ... say for example, not scare the worlds population as much about how warm it had been; All the AGWers would be yelling about how its proof that AGW is so true, the science is now totally settled etc.

AGW is all about politics and control of society.

MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM....
CLAP CLAP CLAP....
It must be bad when it is warm and sunny,
I spout that so I can secure my grant money.
MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM....
CLAP CLAP CLAP....
Cap and tax will be the ultimate hosin'
AGW believers wish the world was frozen.

MarkB wrote:

"Keep in mind the emails were copied selectively and represent a very small percentage of the exchanges among scientists."

160 meg of data is about 85,000 pages of standard text. So the person who put the information out on the Russian server must have spent many man hours to sift through documents. Or it was dumped from a backup with the person knowing the context in advance. Most email servers are backed up at specific time intervals or incramnetally, so even though the end user thinks he's delted the text. It is still alive on a backup tape or disk array.

"You might not be aware of this, but climate scientists generally don't think of themselves as studying AGW. They study climate."

That may be entirely true, but the evidence on these emails shows that these scientist have an agenda. I is blatently obvious

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

Concerning the weather quip. I am just posing the same agrument that the wamers pose when someone say 'It's unseasonably cold outside'

One of our chief GW acolytes blogs, "Keep in mind the emails were copied selectively and represent a very small percentage of the exchanges among scientists." Imagine the 9-11 defendants claiming, "The utterances linking me to the WTC attacks is being presented selectively to the jury and represents a very small percentage of the utterances among suicide bom-bers." Are we supposed to say, "Right! Nevermind?"

Scientific Doomsday Mania
by
Amitakh Stanford
22nd November 2009

There is a doomsday message that is swiftly gaining global acceptance. The new wave is clothed in acceptable clichés and has won over the support of many of the respected scientific communities.

Unlike most other doomsday messages, this one is supposedly based upon scientific evidence. The scientific “doomsdayers” wear masks and pretend that they are predicting calamities based on hard evidence. This lulls the unsuspecting public into absolute belief and acceptance of the doomsdayers’ ravings.

If the same message were given in a spiritual setting, the adherents would probably be encouraged to turn to God in preparation for the final days. Generally, scientists have sneered at and mocked spiritual predictions regarding the end times, and the same scientists have convinced the general public to do likewise. Further, governments of the world use their police powers to suppress, restrict, or even eliminate these spiritual-based groups. Scientists have now one-upped the spiritual believers by supporting their dire predictions of calamity with supposed scientific evidence. Using their scientific clout, they have now convinced most of the world leaders to meet in Copenhagen. The stated agenda of the gathering is to halt global warming with a unified and urgent approach.

People may remember that there have been similar gatherings to solve the global economic crisis. In those meetings, every leader attending was told to boost their economies by stimulus spending. By and large, the world leaders have dutifully followed those dictates. One might ask: Is the global recession over due to this unified approach – or is it deepening? Many thinking economists have finally realized the latter to be the case.

[...]

Were the carbon traders truly concerned that global warming is a seriously urgent issue, they could perhaps justify following their untested carbon-trading notion. But if it were an urgent situation, why would they offer a solution that will take decades to take effect? If they have decades to work on the solution, by definition, it cannot be that urgent. And, if they have decades to implement their plan, could they not spend at least a few years or even a few months openly and transparently debating which course of action will save the planet from its imminent death?

To demonstrate the absurdity of the current “green” position, consider that they are proposing massive increases in nuclear power because it is supposed to be carbon friendly. The nuclear proponents do not seem to care about the disposal of nuclear waste from these sites. This means that they are presenting an extremely short-sighted solution, which is not really a solution at all. Besides, the proponents of expanding nuclear power want to tremendously restrict who can and who cannot use nuclear power. For instance, Iran and North Korea are presently being ostracized for, among other things, having nuclear-power programmes. This is a glaring instance where part of the real agenda of the ruling elite shows through; the nuclear proponents are not as concerned about global warming as they are with political dominance.

As indicated earlier, humans are only marginally responsible for global warming. The hotter sun is undeniable, and it is the main reason for global warming.

[...]

This would be all well and good if it could be believed that scientists are acting in the people’s best interests. But, since when have scientists been assumed to be altruistic? Why is it accepted that they will only act in the best interests of humans? And why should it be accepted that the scientists are correct about human causes of global warming?

[...]

The carbon-trading schemes, and other emissions-based solutions presented by the ruling elite’s scientific doomsdayers, will not solve global warming. But, if they get their way, they will change the lives of people for the worse.

OK,,,, even George Monbiot get it.

The UKs most Alarmist!

Excerpt: George Monbiot
"It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. "

give steve mcintyre the nobel prize and make al gore pay him the cash with interest and penalties now!!!!!

G Karst:

"What is clearly demonstrated is that global climate research has been clearly biased by a small cadre "The Team". They have worked diligently to submerge any data that runs counter to their agenda. The real question is: Can we remove the bias from the previous data, in all areas?? How do we compensate for research that didn't receive funding or papers that didn't get published??"

Oh I do agree with you this is pretty shamful. Any attempt to hide or manipulate data is unethical. Then they proceed with arguments like "thats just how scientists talk" (I am assuming this is what you are refering to). Thats a stupid argument at best. Who is anyone to determine how scientists "talk". Do they speak a different language? How does the word "trick" mean something different in "scientist" language? They can hem and haw all they want but he was caught with his pants down and thats just a fact.

As to the "smoking gun" statements. I hardly think this reflects on all AGW research worldwide. It is not evidence of a worldwide conspiracy. It is evidence of an idiot who should have just stuck to his data instead of trying to manipulate it. Does it reflect poorly on the field? Yes it does. Does it invalidate the hardwork of all AGW research at large? No it does not.

As for the colorful references to contrarian viewpoints, that is of course distasteful, but unimportant.

This climate-gate story is truly revealing of the nature of climate science. Personally, I have never accepted the Al Gore/IPCC view of climate change. Their over-simplistic view of of the earth's climate has always suggested to me to me that something is just not right. The alarmists co2-driven models disregards far too many variables including natural phenomenon, solar activity and the like. It is amusing to watch the alarmists suggest that man's impact on temperature change is 50% err..70% of the total effect. This is guesswork--nothing more. These are simply delusions of grandeur to try and quantify what is essentially un-quantifiable.
Further linear climate modeling techniques are severely flawed and can be just as easily "cooked" based on variable inputs. Just take a look at the GFS after 10 days and you want me to believe a model that attempts to predict temperature 10 years out..c'mon folks.
As we reach the end of 2009, only a few things are clear...we are clearly in a cooling cycle that probably will run another 15-20 years before reversing again, similar to the thirty year cooling that ended in the late 1970's. Second, the sun does play a substantial role--perhaps the greatest role in global temperature change and this is unaccounted for properly in the IPCC data. Lastly, and perhaps disheartedly, climate scientists who wish to assert that AGW is irrefutable apparently disregarded the scientific method years ago in favor of funding.

Ryan writes:

"How does the word "trick" mean something different in "scientist" language?"

Pretty common...

http://math.about.com/library/bldivide.htm

See the RC discussion for full context:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

alan k writes:

"So the person who put the information out on the Russian server must have spent many man hours to sift through documents"

That's kind of my point. If emails weren't posted selectively, you wouldn't get the same "theme" impression.

"That may be entirely true, but the evidence on these emails shows that these scientist have an agenda. I is blatently obvious"

It's only obvious to those who have their own agenda and see things with a conspiratorial eye. As it stands, the vast majority of the emails selected are innocuous.

For comparison, skeptics should insist that their leaders (McIntyre/Watts) reveal their personal emails from the last 10+ years. Are any of them naive enough to believe everything will look unambiguously innocent?

MarkB-

First of all, thanks for your response to my question in another thread about the temperature data (noting warmer than average results consistently over unpopulated areas). While the main point of this post will be to take issue with part of your response, I appreciated the effort it took to respond.

One of your suggestions in that response, which ties in very well to this story, was that I should ask the question of others "without the insinuation" that data was being manipulated. Sorry - after this story that suggestion is off the table. While AGW supporters consistently rail against and summarily discard "faulty" studies being supported by "big bad" corporate interests or "denier" scientifc foundations, they have turned a blind eye for far too long on the industry that AGW has become. I am every bit as skeptical of bias in studies from both sides, and I think in light of this information everyone else needs to be too.

Bottom line...while I may not be as well versed in the science as some (including yourself) I've seen enough to become convinced that any discussion of AGW has largely moved out of the realm of science and into the realm of politics & opinion. You can be as educated as you want to be on this subject and choose your side, then point to equally valid studies and data (or the lack of same) to prove your point. Until studies of climate change are moved into a totally open forum, with unbiased science from sources that openly reveal and discuss their raw (not processed or "corrected") data, I will be remaining solidly in the unconvinced, skeptic camp.

Science has a long history of various groups of competing scientists peeing on each others' shoes over egos and technicalities. It also has a long history of struggling to get valid ideas to the light of day due to fanaticism of groups opposed to their ideas. In addition, there is a long history of increasingly complex mathematical formulations to support theories until a new, simpler formulation is found - Copernican heliocentrism vs Ptolemaic earth-centric with its various equants and epicycles is a classic example.

Usually, scientific arguments can play themselves out through all of their elegance and ugliness over time without immediate consequences. Unfortunately, the AGW scientific debate is front and center in an issue that has massive internation geopolitical and economic consequences driven to no small measure by the scientists themselves. This is highly unusual and I can think of no parallel in history.

In my view, the stakes are so large that it should be considered unethical and immoral for scientists engaged in the discussion to refuse to share data and analyses. Deliberate actions to obfuscate or destroy data should be considered borderline criminal since they are funded by public dollars while they then demand that no other views can be tolerated and that the "world must act immediately" based on their opinion alone.

I think these e-mails are showing what many skeptics have believed for a while, namely that the data sets may not be robust enough to survive scrutiny regarding whether or not apocalyptic global warming is likely in the next century. This is different, by the way, from the argument as to whether or not AGW exists; instead, the drivers for international action that are being touted is the "fact" that it is entering an uncontrollable breakawy that will have disastrous consequences. Anything else means that it can be just a standard science project with research and data collection ongoing instead of a worldwide revolution in geopolitics and economies.

Deliberate manipulation of data in order to reinforce a point is something that is done in politics and religion. It has no place in science and would be in direct violation of its most basic precepts. Unfortunately, it appears that this line has likely been breached several times by "The Team".

I remember in the 70's all the so-called atmospheric scientist were crying we are decending into a new ice age of course Jimmy Carter was president. However when Reagan became president suddenly it awitched to "Global Warming." Hmm, seems a political agenda at work here. How about these clowns go back and look at "Insolation" and the effects on climate due to solar activity, I.E. high solar activity warming, low activity, cooling. It is in all their climatology text books and when I posed my professor at college (I am going under vocational rehab after 20 yrs driving long haul trucks)a question from out of the text book about the climatic cycles relating to insolation and highs and lows in solar activity. Example, the mini ice age in Europe due to the sun going minimun after a several hundred year warming cycle, he blew it off mumbling a weak response about that cyclical cooling and warming is unconfirmed science. After that he would not call on me for questions. In his Class it was Global Warming propaganda everyday. Foolish me, I thought if something is in a widely used University Textbook then it is supposedly peer reviewed science oh by the way the text book referred to "Global Warming" only in the terms of a natural cycle.

I guess the text book will be purged now by the Pod people (Invasion of the body snatchers for the youngsters out there) who can only point and scream it goes against their eco religion.

MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM....
CLAP CLAP CLAP....
We must control the world's consumption,
if we don't it will bring destruction.

MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM....
CLAP CLAP CLAP....
Global warming is the greatest threat,
a nuclear Iran is not a sweat.

MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM....
CLAP CLAP CLAP....
Cap and trade cannot be delayed,
now open up and drink the kool-aid.

MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM....
CLAP CLAP CLAP....

Jeff Schroeffel | November 23, 2009 11:09 PM --- Since the year 2000 CE is too short a time to establish a statistically significant trend. The fact remains that, using decadal averages, this decade is the warmest on record. This is true of the GISTEMP global temperature product but even of the more "conservative" HadCRUv3 global temperature product; here are the decadal averages from it:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/10yave.jpg

Well.....after ALL the Slander, Belittling, Condescension, Smugness, Disdain, etcetra, etcetra, etcetra.......

THE HYSTERIC'S EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!!

ABOUT TIME THEY NOTICED! :-)

Re: Danny

The Arctic Ocean is not "now ice free in summer." And what proof do you have that continents are (all?) being affected by desertification?

Is the objective, unbiased scientist concerned with a principaled search for the truth now dead?
In fact it appears there are more prostitutes at a climatology convention than in a whorehouse.The best research money (grants,honorariums,bribes) can buy is out there like snake oil and dear Uncle Sam, the purveyor of higher taxes and more regulation, has by far the most money.

Meteorologist Anderson is dead wrong. This is not a story about hackers;it is a story about an immense hoax and scandal by people you thought you could trust (think corrupt bankers, pedophile priests, drunk pilots). Disgusting.

Scientific Doomsday Mania-

"To demonstrate the absurdity of the current 'green' position, consider that they are proposing massive increases in nuclear power because it is supposed to be carbon friendly."

These so-called 'greens' are misinformed. I have been against nuclear power since 1977, when I first learned of its danger while studying Statistical Physics. Anyone truly concerned about the future knows that fission nor fusion will ever be the answer to our problems. The danger and waste products (radiation and neutrons) from either are much more dangerous than people realize. What you can't see can really hurt you. To assume that "green" orientated people agree with nuclear power on the whole is denying that the 1970s and 1980s happened.

I fear you are misinformed and furthering a damaging MYTH.

The more I study the emails the more disgusted I am.

I am amazed at the excuse-making going on by Alarmists on this site.

There is no way you can read the emails and believe that the scientists involved were seeking the truth. There is a constant stream of evidence that their aim was to hide the truth.

This is the brutal truth revealed. Excuse-making only seeks to change the subject, and to deflect attention away from this brutal truth.

True scientists do not deny the truth. They seek the truth. They have no need to falsify, fake, fudge, forge, and some other f-words I can think of.

Hmmmm... "The big story over the past few days continues to be the illegal hacking of email correspondence between climate scientists from the the U.S. and England (University of East Anglia). "????

I beg to differ; the big story is the 'delete button' has been in heavy use by Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, et al

Mark B writes:

It's only obvious to those who have their own agenda and see things with a conspiratorial eye. As it stands, the vast majority of the emails selected are innocuous

I'm not the only person who can see the obvious.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

From the article:

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... 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." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

Of course the NY Times would have a response to this (and Mr. Revkin), as they very liberal and believe solidly in the concept of wealth re-distribution. Tax us more and then send our money world-wide. I don't think so. We are getting fleeced by the left, the U.N., and Obama.

It is a conflict of interest for scientists to perform the statistical analysis on their own data. Bias, whether innocent or intentional, is the inevitable result. Some scientific disciplines recognize this and prohibit the practice. For example, the data collection and statistical analysis of a clinical trial in the pharmaceutical industry is strictly separated from the clinicians (and the business management) to avoid precisely the sort of problems that were exposed in these emails.

Best summary I've heard yet! I am still chuckling... GK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

The University of East Anglica has helpfully provided updated graphs that show both the original WMO 1999 report, and what the graph would look like if they hadn't spliced instrumental data onto the proxy data.

Look at the very bottom graph at http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate and compare it to the graph above, which is what appeared in 2000 in the WMO report on 1999.

Look at the divergence of the "temperature by proxy" record vs. the instrumental record. A reasonable question would be "Why should we trust the proxy temperature reconstructions back a 1000 or 2000 years ago when they are obviously not reliable during the entire period of overlap between proxies and thermometers".

THAT is the decline or divergence that Mann, Jones, and Briffa were hiding.

===============

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT ???

Because the low variability shown by the proxy record is what has been used to validate the models and to assure us that they are running correctly and their forecasts of climate are valid.

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: ... we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.

I want to salute the 1000's of scientists who have devoted their careers to studying one of the most important issues -- climate.

The anti-science deniers have no place in the 21st Century. No country can compete in the modern world without embracing science.

Caleb,

The rats are gnawing away at the threads of truth, while trying to repatch their once influential pied pipers.

Seems like a special edition of "Soap Opera News".

The source code for their software is definitely a smoking gun. I've written code like that myself, for a client who had incomplete data that didn't lead to an intended outcome.

This looks it was totally fudged. In fact it had to be to show *any* result because the underlying dataset was corrupt, incomplete and contained many miscellaneous duplications.

The programmer clearly knew the result that was required of the software and was easily able to lead it to that conclusion, making the entire codebase almost redundant.

When I first heard the term "denier" being used to label sceptics of man made global warming, the hair on my neck stood up. A tactic implimented by our communist foes of the later 20th century to deminish their enemies was being used today against citizens of the free world in an attempt to deminish them and to shut them up.
Man Made GW (now climate change) theology is now a religon and some scientists are using the data to affirm their faith, not to find the truth.
The Hadley Emails most likely were produced by a whistleblower,not a hacker, as they were, as reported, information and data sought by a FOI request. They are the "Pentagon Papers" of this generation.

With all the back and forth, let's not forget the basics... the science... if you will. The earth's weather follows trends, clearly visible for as long as records have been kept. The earth warms a while, then cools a while. It's been happening for as long as the world has existed. Man didn't start it, and we can't stop it. It is pure arrogance to think we can play a major role in climatic trends.

Be a good steward, then sit back and enjoy the up and down temperature changes. It's going to get a little colder before it begins to get warm again. Here in East Tennessee, we call it "seasons".

My concern: Comments about "Deleting Data" and "Hiding the Evidence".

Nothing to do with data analysis. All about "covering up their tracks".

Oh, yes, almost forgot: Abuse and Manipulation of the Peer Review and Journal Publishing systems.

Ben Stein might have to make a new documentary about Global Warming now. Do people who reject man-made global warming somehow get "black-balled" even if their research is legitimate?

Lloyd Burt @November 23, 2009 12:46 PM

...
REAL scientists don't cover up things that disagree with their hypothesis...they embrace them and use them to figure out what's REALLY going on.

They don't do this sort of thing in their programs

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,`Oooops!`
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)"

You should have shown a few more lines of code after that:

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
;
;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20
;
filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow

The code you point out doesn't get used - where it was is commented out (the leading semicolon)

WTH | November 26, 2009 12:48 PM

You are talking about the code execution (whether it runs or not). Most of us ARE interested in the message of the code. I could care less about the code mechanism beyond adjustments and corrections. Check the math but read the comments.GK

The Republicans are now pretty confident that cap-and-trade is dead. The hacking of the e-mails they figure has pretty much finished it off: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html

A basic rule in life: never put anything in a letter, e-mail, text message etc. that won't stand the light of day in the future. Think twice - write once.

This isn't a smoking gun. It's a mushroom cloud!

The Republicans are now pretty confident that cap-and-trade is dead. The hacking of the e-mails they figure has pretty much finished it off:

REPLY: I wouldn't be too sure of that. The weasel perpetrators of the FRAUD will go to any lengths, that's ANY LENGTHS to get their way. Even when the FRUAD has been proven. Even if those lengths are outside the boundries of the law, and the Constitution. That is why WE THE PEOPLE need to HAMMER them with e-mails and phone calls. CALL YOU STATE'S U.S. SENATORS, PEOPLE. AND DON'T LET UP. DON'T BE DISTRACTED BY THE HOLIDAYS, ETC. THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR THE SAKE OF THE REPUBLIC. HARRANGE THEM UNTIL THEY SAY NO TO THIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. You have to have the attitude that Cap and Trade is NOT DEAD, until it is OFFICIALLY DEAD. Don't get caught of guard, as these people are weasels. AGAIN, THE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLIC IS AT STAKE.

MMMMMMMM......MMMMMMMMMM.......MMMMMMMMMM.......