CRU E-mails and data

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

The Taxpayer's Alliance are reporting Prof. Phil Jones at CRU to the Information Commissioner for deleting FOI data (something admitted to in various emails) - deleting FOI data carries with it a criminal conviction and fine of up to £5,000.

[PersianPaladin]

Thanks for that laserguy, I looked on google as well and found lots and lots of stuff about this, and a lot of angry people too.

I'm not a paranoid person, but with all the lies we are told I sometimes worry about my own sanity. Seems us plebs have been very well conditioned, but it takes a bit humility for a confirmed suporter such as myself of man made AGW up to recently to admit he's been hoodwinked!

Hoodwinked? How do you know? Are there any whistleblowers regarding these emails? Any real confirmed unjustified cover-ups, lies, distortions, malevolent motives, etc? I don't think there are.

What do you know about lies? How active are you really about the corporate and government mendaciousness in the world? Do you understand the scale of the financial cover-up conducted by Henry Paulson, Tim Geitner and other members of the Obama administration? The Downing Street Memo? Do you understand the issues surrounding 9/11? Corporate-welfare and lobbying of governments? Vaccine science and its history? The legality of wars?

Are you aware that some conspiracy theories have low credibility? Right-wing global warming conspiracies, "chemtrails", HAARP, fake moon-landings, no-planes hitting the Pentagon on 9/11, tin-foil hats, etc.

We need to look at each case on its own merit.

Edited November 23, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Slinky]

Not sure if this has been posted, if so apologies..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml

[shoreham]

Back to the real world: -

http://rawstory.com/...oto-scientists/

A society based on waste, greed and consumption - deserves a demise.

All very Old Testament but the harsh truth is that the Universe does not care whether we are virtuous or not.

It is true that Anthropogenic Global Warming due to mans plundering of global resources and reckless consumption of fossil fuels could raise sea levels, cause catastrophic, droughts, floods etc which wipes out our civilisation. It is equally true that Global Warming due to non man made factors would do the job just as well. The history of this planet is littered with extinct species killed off by environmental changes over which they had no control and which they played no part in creating. The human race could be doomed no matter what it does.

[snowray]

Hoodwinked? How do you know? Are there any whistleblowers regarding these emails? Any real confirmed unjustified cover-ups, lies, distortions, malevolent motives, etc? I don't think there are.

What do you know about lies? How active are you really about the corporate and government mendaciousness in the world? Do you understand the scale of the financial cover-up conducted by Henry Paulson, Tim Geitner and other members of the Obama administration? The Downing Street Memo? Do you understand the issues surrounding 9/11? Corporate-welfare and lobbying of governments? Vaccine science and its history? The legality of wars?

Are you aware that some conspiracy theories have low credibility? Right-wing global warming conspiracies such as "chemtrails", HAARP, fake moon-landings, tin-foil hats, etc.

We need to look at each case on its own merit.

Indeed PP the conspiracies are never ending, but I'm certainly not one to believe everything I read, like David Icke and his illuminati Aliens running the world, but hey, who knows who's realy running the world? Bildenburg, Club of Rome? Why knows?

What I do know is that the people who run the world are completely heartless and have nothing but contempt for the rest of humanity, this is blatantly obvious if one has their eyes just slightly open.

Interestingly you mention Chemtrails, do you know anything about the epidemic, another new virus I think, in Ucraine? Seems to turn peoples lungs to mush, very nasty. Many residents of Ukrainian cities say that they saw low flying planes spraying something just before it all started, interesting one that.

My main concern with the man made climate change theories, and I always stress the "man made" bit because I totally agree that climate change is going on to a certain degree, is that 90% of the focus seems to be on CO2 emissions and total disregard of higher radiation levels from space and the influence of our sun.

I'm not a scientist but my understanding is that the Heleospace of our Solar System in recent years has been disrupted and there are far more cosmic dust clouds that have got inside of this protecive layer. NASA have in fact verified this and Astronomers have known about intense bursts of radiation from outer space for some time, particularly Gamma rays, and it is this more recent increase in radiation which seems to have caused this cosmic dust to enter into our solar system. A scientist by the name of La Violette has done a lot of research on this, his superwave theory talks about cyclical explosions of radiation from the our galaxie's core.

The point is that if this radiation is increasing, the effect will be of a warmer climate. The worry though is that this might well continue for some time to come and he believes that the effect on the sun will also become aparent in the next 3 or 4 years with extreme solar activity at the peak in cycle 24 after a long period of quiet solar activity.

La Violette's theory points out that there was another surge of this radiation about 14000 years ago, around the time that the last Ice age came to an end.

So if all this is known by NASA and the Scientific comunity, why dont any of the climate change scientists mention it ever?

Its always the same tune being played, co2 co2 co2.

Kind regards

Snowray

Edited November 23, 2009 by snowray

[Devonian]

The Taxpayer's Alliance are reporting Prof. Phil Jones at CRU to the Information Commissioner for deleting FOI data (something admitted to in various emails) - deleting FOI data carries with it a criminal conviction and fine of up to £5,000.

The Taxpayers Alliance? Well known climate scientists are they?

They should stick to whinging on about tax rather than make such fools of themselves.

[VillagePlank]

On the face of it, a fair hearing on Newsnight, tonight. Indeed, Fred Singer, didn't do himself any favours, and Tom Watson shone.

[Mr Maunder]

The Taxpayers Alliance? Well known climate scientists are they?

They should stick to whinging on about tax rather than make such fools of themselves.

The tone of the relevant e/mails seem to indicate that Prof Jones thinks he has the Information Commissioner's office "covered" and can safely ignore FOI requests. For that reason alone (apart from being daft enough to suggest this to others) I doubt that the Information Commission is now sitting around waiting for the Taxpayers Alliance to contact them!

Not intentionally, of course, but Prof Jones has made them look rather a tame/lame regulator - so he should expect a visit soon............

MM

[Typhoon John]

As with all these things the answer is probably somewhere in the middle ground, but I would say that middle ground is more towards the sceptics.

I'm a sceptic in so far as while I believe global warming is real I think far too much of what could be causing it and what could reverse it is overlooked. And I do believe some scientists have an interest in exaggerating their claims of global warming. But that is to be expected as they have invested their time, they believe in what their research has told them in the past and they look for new ways to prove it.

What frustrates me about the CRU situation is their ultra defensive stance which inevitably raises suspicion. IMO they should just fulfil the FOI requests because I can't see what they gain from hiding (and that is what it looks like). And due to the current climate (no pun intended) I don't think the peer review process will please anyone either. They should release the raw data and methodology and allow anyone to challenge. If they've presented a valid case then they have nothing to fear from being open and transparent.

The problem with the global warming movement is the stories of the ice caps melting, catastrophic sea level rise, polar bears drowning, more frequent and violent storms, more hurricanes, greater flooding, climate refugees, famine and computer models telling me we'll warm 6C in the next 100 years. Those are the problems facing the Global Warming crowd, not some loud voices from some sceptics.

[VillagePlank]

Not intentionally, of course, but Prof Jones has made them look rather a tame/lame regulator

They are a tame regulator, and if I worked for a public body I'd be scared, too. This governments handling of any sort of data is an absolute scandal. Anyone with a brain, wouldn't let any government regulator within a mile of any important data. You can tell the idiots - those are the ones that comply.

However, it needs to be demonstrated that the sharing of data and methods to journals, colleagues, without prejudice, is actually happening - particularly without commercial concern. We don't know that that doesn't happen, so we can't draw conclusions.

I still find it annoying that I can't get my grubby hands on it, though!

Edited November 23, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Mr Maunder]

On the face of it, a fair hearing on Newsnight, tonight. Indeed, Fred Singer, didn't do himself any favours, and Tom Watson shone.

I thought they were both pretty mediocre.

BBC style report first (referring to "hacking").

Followed by Paxman chaired debate with Singer saying "There could have been data manipulation, and we need an independent investigation" (Is he the best they can find?).

Then Watson (who, to me, came across as the sacrificial reasonable apologist sent by UEA) saying (and I paraphrase) "Sorry about some of the words used but don't worry all the data is ok - we're all honest blokes, guv".

No light was really shed on anything.

To be fair to both of them, you cannot really do these things properly in four minutes with the Paxman ego to contend with as well.

MM

[The PIT]

Doh computer crashed when copying the files across so didn't have time to copy across this morning before work. I'll look tomorrow.

[stewfox]

The problem with the global warming movement is the stories of the ice caps melting, catastrophic sea level rise, polar bears drowning, more frequent and violent storms, more hurricanes, greater flooding, climate refugees, famine and computer models telling me we'll warm 6C in the next 100 years. Those are the problems facing the Global Warming crowd, not some loud voices from some sceptics.

This is the problem and you see it again and again, pure alarmist tosh and its not just the Daily Mail and BBC but what I would regard as middle of the road scientific journals that still publish tosh.

e.g. This is how the world would look if Greenland lots its entire ice sheet etc !

People will switch off not just to global warming but the environment per say.

Put 5p on a plastic bag and save a billion being produce every year would be my type of approach.

If there is 1% truth re these e-mails then for Joe public that's as good as 100%

[laserguy]

If there is 1% truth re these e-mails then for Joe public that's as good as 100%

The bulk of Joe Public won't even be aware of them. So far,it's hardly been broadcast from the rooftops unlike anything 'pro' AGW. Now why would that be,I don't wonder?

[laserguy]

Those who are completely and seamlessly convinced to your side will find it interesting. Those who have similar feelings on the other side will find it infuriating. Those who have open-ish minds will wonder why we have to read another political rant. What is achieved? I've never understood this curious habit of linking to vehement and entrenched opinion pieces, rather than to scientific papers or data. All you are basically saying is, "I agree with this person, and since he's been published (and uses more words and sentences than me), he must have done deep & meaningful research, and must be right."

We know your opinion, guys, there really is little point in just waving someone at us who says the same thing as you, but longer.

Ossie,your prodigious talents as a wordsmith are well-noted,certainly by myself,and I freely admit to being a little envious at your seemingly effortless flow. I guess the reason many of us (though I note you generally single out the sceptics/deniers) link to commentary by others who have achieved the position they are in,is because most of us lack the word-skills they have,though they encapsulate neatly what we could never articulate. I see nothing wrong with it,it is afterall no more than introducing others to articles/commentaries and opinion that may otherwise have gone overlooked. Perhaps you are concerned that readers might be 'turned'? I don't object to how much pro-AGW stuff is linked to - it's up to me what I make of it. I appreciate those who wish to study purely the science aspect,but it can't be escaped that AGW/politics are so closely entwined as to be inseparable wrt 'what has to be done'. Hence,all the political content.

[Solar Cycles]

The bulk of Joe Public won't even be aware of them. So far,it's hardly been broadcast from the rooftops unlike anything 'pro' AGW. Now why would that be,I don't wonder?

Haven't got time to read through all the posts regarding this at the moment, but from the bits I have read, I have to say I'm not at all suprised. Another major setback for climate science it would appear!

[Methuselah]

If there is 1% truth re these e-mails then for Joe public that's as good as 100%

Plenty of leeway for Delboy Denier, Willie Warmer and the Daily Rail to make-up the other 99% :unsure:

[stewfox]

The bulk of Joe Public won't even be aware of them. So far,it's hardly been broadcast from the rooftops unlike anything 'pro' AGW. Now why would that be,I don't wonder?

It's in all the papers and on Tele most will have heard about it.

I agree not everyone unlike on here will have read the 2000 e-mail to make a informed opinion.

The danger is people (Tax payer/voters) will now dismiss global warming at their peril.

I'll miss this type of thing

http://www.dailymail...elting-ice.html

[laserguy]

It's in all the papers and on Tele most will have heard about it.

Really? I'm surprised at that. Mind you,haven't seen the news on teevee for ages. I just have a daily scan of teletext on both channels - seen no mention at all on those since it broke. Don't read newspapers,except for the Sun which was loitering in the dentist's waiting room this morning. Incredibly(!) there was no mention in that either. Page 3 was alright tho' .

[VillagePlank]

Here's a turn up for the books. Monbiot comments on leaked emails.

[Methuselah]

A good read, VP...that 'email' actually sounds like one of those denialist (not sceptical) rants one hears from time-to-time...

[Thundery wintry showers]

Reading the article closely it looks like the "email" might be a satirical swipe at "denialists" rather than something genuine- essentially presented as an example of what sort of conspiracy/cover-up would be required to undermine the case for AGW altogether.

[Methuselah]

Reading the article closely it looks like the "email" might be a satirical swipe at "denialists" rather than something genuine- essentially presented as an example of what sort of conspiracy/cover-up would be required to undermine the case for AGW altogether.

I think so...It's just that some of the 'content' appears oddly familiar?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm not entirely sure what to make of Monbiot's Guardian column. The "e-mail" he presents is quite clearly a bit of entertaining sarcasm and not a real one at all. But are his comments up to the end of paragraph 3 similarly sarcastic?

When I first read it I thought it all sounded kosher up until the line "But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory?"

But re-reading it I wonder whether the entire article is intended sarcastically. I just don't know any more!

CB

[VillagePlank]

I'm not entirely sure what to make of Monbiot's Guardian column. The "e-mail" he presents is quite clearly a bit of entertaining sarcasm and not a real one at all. But are his comments up to the end of paragraph 3 similarly sarcastic?

When I first read it I thought it all sounded kosher up until the line "But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory?"

But re-reading it I wonder whether the entire article is intended sarcastically. I just don't know any more!

CB

As far as I can tell from reading his column (and mainly disagreeing with it) for many years is that the guy seems to be humourless; at least in his journalistic tendencies. Too many homeopathic remedies as a boy methinks Sodding around, aside, yes, clearly the 'email' is meant to convey to what extent it will take him to rethink his stance on man-made global warming.

I think that his post is ill-founded, to be honest. He starts off by describing the hack as a 'serious blow'. A what? In my view this is a tacit admission that he is, effectively, at 'war', or, at least in 'battle' with all those evil miscreants who dare to either question what he says, or, the worst thing of all: disagree with his views.

That doesn't strike me as someone searching for the truth - that strikes me (sorry - keeping with the 'blow' metaphor, here) as someone disseminating propaganda on the basis of an immutable dogma.

In my view, his writings court no favour for those who genuinely have concluded that CO₂ is dangerously high. And whatever anyone wants to say - it is a falsifiable hypothesis given that it is based on empirical and experimental findings (Arrhenius, 1896 & Langley, 1884) so such a conclusion deserves respect even though I think that the extent of the relationship to be an order of magnitude of overstatement.