Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/23/2009 5:45:27 PM PST by dila813
Taken from a post: -------------------------------------------------- Before: http://enviroknow.com/2009/11/21/east-anglia-university-cru-climate-hacking/ Climatic Research Unit update
It is a matter of concern that data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites.
The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine. We took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation and have involved the police in what we consider to be a criminal investigation.
The material published relates to the work of our globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. CRU’s published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.
CRU is one of a number of independent centres working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are willing to have their research and theories subjected to scrutiny by the international scientific community. The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way.
Comment from Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit:
The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.
“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. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct +is 0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”
The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram – not a scientific paper – which was used in the World Meteorological Organisation’s statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 (WMO-no.913).
The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.
Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.
The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
-------------------------------------------------- After: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update
It is a matter of concern that data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites.
The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine. We took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation and have involved the police in what we consider to be a criminal investigation.
The material published relates to the work of our globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. CRU's published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.
CRU is one of a number of independent centres working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are willing to have their research and theories subjected to scrutiny by the international scientific community. The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way.
The raw climate data which has been requested belongs to meteorological services around the globe and restrictions are in place which means that we are not in a position to release them. We are asking each service for their consent for their data to be published in future.
In addition to supporting the police in their enquiries, we will ourselves be conducting a review, with external support, into the circumstances surrounding the theft and publication of this information and any issues emerging from it.
Dila -
I posted this on another thread and thought you’d be interested. Found this from another forum (read the last bit):
________________________________________________________
Consider the implications here:
“Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…
mike”
[link to www.eastangliaemails.com]
What struck me as an important question having read this is: who owns realclimate.org? Can it be relied on for any degree of objectivity? It is, after all, held up by the AGW supporting community as a bastion of solid, politics-free climate science. The results of a quick search staggered me, to say the least. A search on whois.net revealed realclimate.org is registered to ‘Environmental Media Services’. [link to www.whois.net]
Okay. So who’s company is Environmental Media Services? A simple Wiki search tells us:
“EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign”
Yes, this has been discussed, they own it collectively.
If you post a comment on there, Phil may be deleting the comment his self.
That is how it is.
It is well documented.
Interesting, what happened to Dr. Jones?
No need to be concerned about what happened to Dr. Jones. But, more appropriately is what happened to Anthropogenic Global Warming? LOL...
The video documentary below is the one that deals with this the best of anything out there...
It’s one thing to gripe and complain about these things and disagree with it, but it’s quite another to convince your friends and neighbors and relatives and coworkers...
THEREFORE..., it’s also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply one video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the one...
The following is an excellent video documentary on the so-called “Global Warming” I would recommend it to all FReepers. It’s a very well-made documentary.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle”
If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link. Information about BitTorrent protocol and BitTorrent clients and their comparison at these three links (in this sentence). Some additional BitTorrent information here and here.
Download it here...
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[This is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size. This link is the information about it, and you have to click the download link to get it on your BitTorrent client software. You'll also find users' comments here, too.]
It’s worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.
Also, see it online here...
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course..., and also, you can download flash video on a website either yourself or some software doing it.]
Buy it on DVD here...
[this would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...] At Amazon, it seems to be high-priced now and have only a few copies right now.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WLUXZE
At WAGtv (a UK shop), but don't know about shipping. The price is reasonable, though.
https://www.wagtv.com/product/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-322.html
[And..., some information from WAGtv about this item.]
Also, in split parts on YouTube...
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 1 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 2 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rGpDMN8lw
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 3 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFL6Ixe_bo
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 4 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 5 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzIMXGI6k8
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 6 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GjOgQN1Jco
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 7 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHI2GfbfrYw
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 8 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N9benJh3Lw
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Credits (Part 9 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_1ifP-ri58
I liked the comment at the web site, wondering why people have a problem with a model that says “don’t use data prior to 1960 or the model diverges.” If your climate model is worth a crap it would take any data from any time period and accurately forecast the future. Divergence of any kind based on starting period is a sign of VERY serious problems with the model...
hh
....love global warming...looking forward to having a banana grove in North Texas.
....love global warming...looking forward to having a banana grove in North Texas.
Of course we have "global warming" and "global cooling" -- it happens all the time and has happened all the time in the past (thousands of years...).
It's the Anthropogenic Global Warming that is a lie and is being used as a tool to gain control over people and countries. That's what we're not "buying"... :-)
And having said that, actually, to have "global warming" would be beneficial to our society as it would increase crop growth and yields. If we were to swing back to the global cooling side of things, we could be talking about a 20% reduction in crop output in the United States and the grow zones shifting further to the south, to the detriment of our existing crops.
So, we should be glad for the natural swing of "global warming" if that's what will be coming up in the future.
RC, realclimate.org, is run by Phil Jones BFF, Michael Mann of Penn State! Michael Mann is the fella CAUGHT cherry picking from available tree proxies to create hockey stick shaped millennial temperature charts. Part of the fraudster hockey team.
Here is what I think......
IPCC Hired a Public Relations Person to try to pull these guys butts out of the sling.
IPCC Public Relations person said, you dummy, the public doesn’t understand what you are saying and you are digging a deeper hole.
Heh. Damage control.
And from the data, we can see exactly how that peer review process became a Kangaroo Court for any that disagreed.
From a person who respects the Scientific Process that I learned in 7th grade, these people are despicable.
"Peer-reviewed" and "strong consensus"; the phrases that make their fraud even more disturbing. That these guys could suck in so many scientists and politicians shows how much people wanted to believe in this nonsense, sadly many still do believe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.