CLIMATEGATE — Revelations of Deceit, Fraud and Corruption in The Climate Alarmist Community
Nov21
Details have begun to emerge over the last 24-hours about an electronic break-in that took place in the secure files of Britain’s Climate Research Unit [CRU], University of East Anglia. The CRU has been leading the charge in the Climate Alarmist community in the push for validation of Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW], or global climate change caused by the activities of man.
The 61-mb files that include thousands of climate change documents and emails from leading AGW alarmists — respected scientists in the field of climate change — if real, paints a picture of deceit, fraud and corruption — in which scientists deliberately withhold scientific data that does not agree with their preconceived theory.
This electronic break-in threatens the very foundations of Anthropogenic Global Warming as a scientific theory.
Hundreds of emails have been made public from the hacked site. Although the validity of all of the emails have not, as of yet, been verified, a number of individuals associated with the CRU and the climate change alarmists have admitted the information being made available on the internet is real.
“The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.”
“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails,” said Jones.
“We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,” reports the BBC.
“Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine. It is really quite breathtaking,” admitted, Steve McIntyre, a climate heretic of the website Climate Audit.
For those who are willing to wade through the entire mass of information made available, it has been put into a searchable database here:
What these emails reveal is damning to the AGW proponents who have steadfastly made the claim that “the debate is over” when it comes to the issue of man-caused global climate change. Instead, the internal efforts of these scientists to stifle debate and bury evidence that contradicts their tenuous AGW position, demonstrates a wanton disregard for the truth.
The aforementioned Phil Jones seems particularly determined to withhold any scientific data that would not support their AGW point of view, and to prevent skeptics from receiving any information.
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
Jones is particularly concerned with McIntyre and the Climate Audit website:
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008
Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!
And, when pressured to provide data, he suggests ways to obfuscate and hide the data in ways guaranteed to make the opposition unable to use the information.
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
And, by his own admission Jones used his position to thwart FOIA requests from those who do not support the AGW position. In the following email he admits that he was able to get government officials to deny FOIA requests because the data might be used to refute his position.
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –
Michael Mann, of hockey Stick fame, weighs in on a method of “proving” a seeming contradiction in data sets, in a way that the AGW supporters can use to prove consensus does exist. His remarks would appear to be more “political” in nature than “scientific.”
From: “Michael E. Mann” To: Keith Briffa , “Folland, Chris” , ‘Phil Jones’ Subject: RE: IPCC revisions Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:35:24 -0400 Cc: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the plot, and can ask Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody liked my own color/plotting conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself). The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.
So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate (through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere patterns with Phil’s more extratropical series) that the major discrepancies between Phil’s and our series can be explained in terms of spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil’s series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.
So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!
Mann admits in that email that the ‘consensus” is more of a goal than a truth. The IPCC wants the illusion of a consensus, and through constant repetition of the lie, the AGW crew drives public opinion to believe it.
The fact that Mann admits that “something else” must be used as responsible for discrepancies in their consensus model puts a lie to the consensus model itself.
In another explanation of discrepancies in data from 1700 through 1820, Mann warns against allowing skeptics access to this “scientific” data. He refers to contradictory data as “dirty laundry” — indicating an admission that AGW acolytes understand the tenuous nature of the science behind their alarmism.
I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…
There are literally thousands of documents and emails to pour through, but it is fast becoming clear that CLIMATEGATE could easily become the political football that Watergate became for the Nixon Administration.
The deliberate suppression of data and opinion contrary to “scientific consensus” is every bit the scandal that brought down the imperial presidency.
A tremendous source of continually changing information on this breaking scandal can be accessed at Climate Depot.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b04553ba-3ee2-430f-bbde-1d952fcca4f7)
Author : David Hinz
Author's Website | Articles From This AuthorCo-founder of The Hinzsight Report, a Citizen Journalism website, and Editor-in-Chief of The Minority Report Network
Comments
David Hinz says:
November 22, 2009 at 12:18 pmIn explaining this Climategate information to a friend [who receives his worldview almost exclusively from NPR], and explaining that these emails suggest that the AGW folks have been lying to us for years by skewing their results and burying dissent, his response was, “Well, the pharmaceutical companies have been doing that kind of stuff for years.”
The total non sequitur in his thinking processes — the drug companies have been lying to us, so what if the AGW people lie — is so typical of the mindlessness of the liberal drones that I found myself speechless.
The lack of critical thinking will kill this country.
Climategate: Proving Adam Smith Right, Once Again - Business & Technology says:
November 23, 2009 at 11:00 am[...] A deliciously juicy scandal is breaking out in the cult-like world of the Climate Change movement. Email evidence is pointing to a coordinated evidence to suppress facts that the global warming crowd does not like. [...]
Major Climate Warrior Concedes in Light of Emails | 73 Wire says:
November 24, 2009 at 12:07 pm[...] in what has become a pseudo-religion of sorts — has admitted the damage done by recently released emails is extensive and the science should have been viewed more skeptically, at the time, and should now [...]
Cash For Climate Change Goes Missing | 73 Wire says:
November 24, 2009 at 8:32 pm[...] as the Climategate scandal threatens to unravel the cloak of respectability of Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] amid [...]
Five.. in Hinzsight.. « Michigan Taxes Too Much says:
December 1, 2009 at 8:12 am[...] Even as the Climategate scandal threatens to unravel the cloak of respectability of Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] amid [...]