"Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]"
Click the picture:
However, here are the two papers that,
in my opinion,
demolish AGW/Climate Change and place it in its rightful realm of -phlogiston "science"--
Posted on 11/28/2009 6:05:06 PM PST by azkathy
Breaking news last week featured in the Wall Street Journal and Fox News has featured the story and data released by an unknown hacker or whistleblower that appears to be obtained from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England.
There has been confirmation from Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist who is featured and attacked in the leaked information that seems to verify its authenticity. McIntyre was not one of the elite group from the CRU, but one of many scientists who has been seeking data and facts through a freedom of information request.
Requests for data to support the claims of the CRU scientists have come into question on prior occasions and many people have tried to obtain the information utilized by this group of scientists. The group is responsible for the now infamous “hockey stick graph” that supposedly illustrated increasing temperatures and, therefore, that man is causing global warming.
This is a very critical point to understand since “man-caused global warming” is the current subject of political debate and policy making around the world. The group of researchers at CRU is heavily involved in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has been considered the “authoritative source” for policies and procedures currently under development with the United Nations, Great Britain, the United States and other countries.
The information that is now widely available on the Internet calls into question the business and scientific practices of this influential group of people. There are years of e-mail correspondence between members of the group that illustrate their attempt to avoid freedom of information requests, tampering with the scientific data to meet their “warming agenda,” suppression of data that contradicted their theories, and manipulating the peer review process that helps to separate fact from theory and agendas.
The documents released make it clear that this particular situation involved a notable University of Arizona climate change scientist by the name of Jonathan Overpeck.
The university issued a press release regarding Jonathan Overpeck in 2007 that seems to confirm his involvement, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was one of the winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and a professor at The University of Arizona was one of only 33 lead authors on an IPCC assessment report released earlier this year.”
Overpeck, director of the University of Arizona’s Institute for the Study of Planet Earth and professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences, was a coordinating lead author of a chapter on Paleoclimate, for the IPCC’s fourth assessment report.
“This is pretty awesome,” Overpeck was quoted as saying in the news release. “So much work went into this on the part of so many scientists. The recognition is a reflection of the impact that climate science is having. It’s also a reflection that society is moving from questioning climate change to realizing that it’s happening and discuss what to do about it.”
The fourth assessment report, which focused on the science of climate change, presented expert consensus on greenhouse gas levels, global land and ocean temperatures, sea level rising, changes in sea ice and predictions of future change.
However, it now appears that Overpeck and others have manipulated the science and the consensus they claim to have. Perhaps congressional hearings will help to determine Overpeck’s role in this situation.
In addition to these problems, the attempts to brainwash the public are evident. CRU apparently utilized a public relations firm to communicate its climate change message. Most notable is the statement, “Changing attitudes toward climate change is not like selling a particular brand of soap, it’s like convincing someone to use soap in the first place.” Another one of the PR rules is, “Everyone must use a clear and consistent explanation of climate change.”
Before you take start purchasing carbon credits, I suggest you peruse the documents and e-mails that were leaked and are available in a searchable database at www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php.
You just gave me an excellent idea....I think the UofA might have a group of College Republicans that would like to run with this idea. I will be trying to get in touch with them on Monday. Thanks!
I wonder when people will see that photo on the front cover of the NY Times?
I read the comments and there was plenty of people that cannot believe the carbon tax and carbon police is a fake solution to a fake problem. The last comment actually put up information, so maybe that shut up the prove it is fraud croud. This is a copy of the last comment:
20yearstoolate wrote:
Here are just few links to check out “climategate”
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/global-warming-exposed-un-funded-fraud
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/an-accident/#more-40
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988
11/28/2009 7:40:28 PM
Recommended (7) Report Abuse
If this is not done then any discussion can (and will) be twisted into the verbal bigotry of "deniers," "warmers," etc. There is the question of global warming, which has occurred many times in the geologic past, along with the question of how much of it is happening now. And there is the entirely separate question of whether humanity's activities (AGW) have much or any bearing on long term climate change.
2) This latter question is now solely addressed through computer modeling. Since warming has occurred so many times in the past along with CO2 variations which have been much higher than present (before human activity), then to have any veracity at all the models must be able to repeat, from a set of initial conditions, all warming and CO2 fluctuations for, say, the last two hundred fifty million years. That is to say the models must be self sustaining through geological epochs of human and absence of human activity in order to prove all pathways are incorporated. Otherwise the models are just a bunch of variables and pathways (no matter how hard earned) manipulated to imitate recent jaundiced profiles.
This is a straightforward logical demand. And if the models are legitimate would be able to satisfy it.
3) There is also this nagging indication that CO2 increase has followed global temperature increase historically. If that is true, there are straightforward reasons for it; in particular once warming occurs, from any other external reason, both the decreasing solubility constant of the oceans and the Boltzman factor of heavier atmospheric gases (CO2) being gravitationally retained relative to the lighter ones (N2, O2), would increase the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
For us at the Suntrade Institute, who have been trained and practiced in science, it is truly disheartening to see the lack of scientific integrity which has pervaded the climate science cabal. It is not surprising of course for political maniacs, even to the level of UN and US presidents, but sad that trained academicians have to be shaken into objective rigor by outside technical minds.
Johnny Suntrade
The Suntrade Institute
My dad has been a “weather bug” for years. He is amazing in the way that he studies the weather and has accumulated vast knowledge over the years, just as a private citizen who is intrigued by weather, he is not a scientist. He had me a little worried recently when the “Global Warmers” started influencing his perception.
It is sad to see science manipulated in the way that these “researchers” have done. They have done great harm to the science community as a whole and I want to see this issue addressed.
Science is one thing and using science to further an agenda is a complete different ballgame.
Will the UofA investigate Jonathan Overpeck too?
He is listed on this link http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/
From the Grant awards page on Jonathan T. Overpeck
Grant Awards (not including NOAA 1991-99)
2006-2008 — NSF “Collaborative research: Extraction and production of knowledge through synthesis for managing biotic and abiotic resources in the Arctic – 3 years - $1.2M (Co-PI with 5 others), PENDING
2006-2008 — NSF “Paleoclimatic change, landscape evolution, and cultural transformations in far western Tibet, 2500 BP-present” – 3 years - $725,789 (Co-PI with 5 others), PENDING
2005-2009 — NSF “Collaborative research: A synthesis of the last 2000 years of climatic variability from Arctic lakes” – 4 years - $1.85M (Co-PI with 12 others)
Concerned citizens can contact the UofA here, http://www.arizona.edu/home/contact-us.php
This is just a few of the grants he received. More information is available through the links above.
The Nobel Committee seems to have a gift for conferring its award on frauds, doesn’t it ?
Yes, it seems that we can now call it the nobull prize along with GloBull warming.
Jonathan Overpeck was “coordinating lead author of a chapter on Paleoclimate” and I do believe this is the most troublesome chapter-with the fraud and scandal of CRU now exposed.
There is an email going around and there will be tens of thousands (HOPEFULLY) dumped on their office this Christmas season.
They WILL open them because a lot of their mail is donations.
Take up their time and give them a massive headache
I just printed off an 8x10 MERRY CHRISTMAS Celebrate the Birthday of Our LORD JESUS and put it into a standard #10 business envelope so it wouldn't look like a card. I also used a security envelope so they couldn't see through and know there wasn't a check.
I suggest passing this great idea to EVERYONE in your email friends list... make this a CHRISTMAS the ACLU will never forget!
Their Address
ACLU
125 BROAD STREET
18th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10004
Incpen wrote: Al Gore needs to do three things, in light of this revelation of fraud:
- He needs to give back his Oscar - He needs to give back his Nobel Prize - He needs to coooperate fully with the SEC when they investigate his scam investment.
Poster cbelt123 asks for 'scientific studies'?
That's the whole point: The emails prove that the Global Warmists prevented ANYONE from publishing papers which questioned their conclusions; they refused to release their data.
Think of this: anyone who prevented another from publishing career-dependent scholarly papers is guilty of a civil, if not a criminal offense. Further, if those preventing said publication themselves accepted federal money, they are guilty of a felony.
Bring it on.
---------------------
The implications of this cannot be ignored for shareholders. Don't the shareholders of GE and every other company that has changed its business model owe shareholders an explanation for what they based these decisions on?
Shouldn't Al Gore face scrutiny from the SEC for his illegal carbon-trading, from which he's profited handsomely?
I'm a shareholder and I don't believe in AGW-- why wasn't my interest protected?
You got a response from “Winston” alleging all our links were by companies owned by Rupert Murdoch. He owns the Guardian, the Telegraph, etc.? Who knew?
"Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]"
Click the picture:
However, here are the two papers that,
in my opinion,
demolish AGW/Climate Change and place it in its rightful realm of -phlogiston "science"--
Be sure to check out how the radical environmentalists are “grading” Obama versus Bush. It is enlightening to see how much damage he is doing to our country. The “Alarmists” love Obama
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/features/obamas-progress.html?qp_source=homepage
I would suggest editing out the glass greenhouse discussion since it has no bearing on the warming mechanisms of CO2 and water vapor as acknowledged by both sides. Those mechanisms are absorption and reradiation. Also clouds, evaporation and condensation have large roles in the energy balance, and those are all dictated by weather.
Winstonc did not check the links, I posted a couple of more.
You would think that Liberals would feel liberated knowing that GW was a hoax, liberated from a bound ideology. That’s probably why they go by the name Progressives now, because they really don’t give a damn about liberating anyone.
Excellent article. Thanks for writing it, and thanks for posting it on FreeRepublic.
You are welcome. Someone had to do it, the paid journalists are busy sticking their heads in the sand.
I wonder, would you want to pay good money to send your impressionable youth to the U of A so that they can be propagandized by the likes of Jonathan Overpeck? I certainly wouldn’t, but that is what is happening in schools across America.
If you check www.Dogpile.com you can search for The Rules of the Game Futerra and pull up some of the propaganda documents. I find the PR campaign for Global Warming enlightening. I just found a new document today, titled, “New Rules, New Game”.
Quoting from the document, “These short rules are communications techniques which pull together the most effective strategies for changing people’s behaviour. They are based on a huge body of international psychological, sociological and marketing studies, gathered and analyzed by Futerra.”
The document goes on to state, “The New Rules: New Game isn’t a simple, ‘one size fits all’ blueprint and some of the tips might even, at first sight, seem inconsistent. But taken together they provide a practical guide for action.”
Now, aren’t we glad the GLOBULL Warming Alarmists have been practicing their propaganda and mind control on We the People? sarcasm off
I think it is despicable and we better start screaming at some elected officials, school administrators and everyone else who is in a position of leadership. We cannot count on the “free press” to help with this because they are aiding and abetting the propagandists.
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.
