Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

University hit by new climate leak ahead of talks (U of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit)
Yahoo ^ | 11/22/11 | Raphael G. Satter - AP

Posted on 11/22/2011 12:55:58 PM PST by NormsRevenge

LONDON (AP) — The British university whose stolen emails caused a global climate science controversy in 2009 says those behind the breach have apparently released a second and potentially far larger batch of old messages.

University of East Anglia spokesman Simon Dunford said that while academics didn't have the chance yet to examine the roughly 5,000 emails apparently dumped into the public domain Tuesday, a small sample examined by the university "appears to be genuine."

The university said in a statement that the emails did not appear to be the result of a new breach. Instead, the statement said that the emails appeared to have been stolen two years ago and held back until now "to cause maximum disruption" to the imminent U.N. climate talks next week in Durban, South Africa.

If that is confirmed, the timing and nature of the leak would follow the pattern set by the so-called "Climategate" emails, which caught prominent scientists stonewalling critics and discussing ways to keep opponents' research out of peer-reviewed journals.

Those hostile to mainstream climate science claimed the exchanges proved that the threat of global warming was being hyped, and their publication helped destabilize the failed U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, which followed several weeks later.

Climategate also dealt a blow to the reputation of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which is one of the world's leading centers for the study of how world temperatures have varied over time.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: climategate; cru; eastanglia; globalscamming; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: gcraig

‘The source code in that east Anglican leak ‘

So, it was the Anglicans all along....


21 posted on 11/22/2011 1:34:09 PM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing
"You know who I think really did it? The Dominicans. Go pick on them."
22 posted on 11/22/2011 1:40:17 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

being terribly insignificant in the grand scheme to things

..

High 5, Bro!

cheese .. moose .. country here, Oh yeah.. and beer.. nectar of the gods.. ;-)


23 posted on 11/22/2011 1:47:13 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Obama: Epic Fail or Bust!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
From your link:

“But the fact remains that there is very strong evidence that most the indisputable warming of the Earth over the past half century is due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.”

The source of the latest leaked emails was unclear. The perpetrator of the original hack has yet to be unmasked, although British police have said their investigation is still active.

It could not be more clear to me. It was leaked by an insider not Russian hackers. There is NO evidence of manmade Global Warming, and NO WARMING for past 10 years. This LIE is about Commie world control.

24 posted on 11/22/2011 2:03:02 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

What do Michael Mann and Jerry Sandusky have in common? They are both low-life Penn State cover-up artists.


25 posted on 11/22/2011 2:06:13 PM PST by georgiarat (Obama, providing incompetence since Day One!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

Not the Russians, but a disillusioned “true believer” who discovered she was being duped.


26 posted on 11/22/2011 2:06:23 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

“Although a host of reviews have since vindicated the unit’s science”

Right! The same way that the atomic bomb “vindicated” Hiroshima. Climate “science” has never been in worse disrepute than it is now.

“their publication helped destabilize the failed U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, which followed several weeks later.”

What destabilized the Copenhagen summit on global warming was all the snow and ice on the streets and sidewalks. The globe was so warm that the hookers had to get to the delegate’s hotels rooms on cross country skis.


27 posted on 11/22/2011 2:10:03 PM PST by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

AGW ping?


28 posted on 11/23/2011 5:18:16 AM PST by Amagi (You can't discuss Camelot without mentioning Squire Ted & the Lady in the Lake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Amagi; rdl6989; bamahead; Nervous Tick; SteamShovel; Tunehead54; golux; tubebender; ...
 

For more selections, go to the original batch of selections posted here.  http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

The original files (173 MB) of all the e-mails released here: http://globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/FOIA2011.zip      


<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]  

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.  

<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]  

<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.  

<0170> Jones:
Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.  

<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.  

<1790> Lorenzoni:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and evolving phenomenon  

<3062> Jones:
We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.  

<1485> Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.  

<2428> Ashton/co2.org:
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible  

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media  

<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [medieval warm period] go away in Greenland.  

<1682> Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]  

<5315> Jenkins/MetO:
would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?  

<2292> Jones:
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.  

<4693> Crowley:
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships  

<2733> Crowley:
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.  

<0953> Jones:
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH [northern hemisphere] temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.  

<4944> Haimberger:
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.  

<4938> Jenkins/MetO:
By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI [urban heat island effect] has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.  

<4789> Wigley:
there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets – we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].
Jones: The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.  

<4165> Jones:
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.  

<3373> Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.  

<4758> Osborn:
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD [maximum latewood density] has a non temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!  

<4369> Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.  

<2132> Wigley:
I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse skeptics have extreme religious views.  

<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]: [...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We must pray that they pick up that message.  

<5131> Shukla/IGES:
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.  

<0850> Barnett:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved.  I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer  

<5066> Hegerl:
[IPCC AR5 models] So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.  

<4443> Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.  

<3594> Berger:
Phil, Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.  

<4184> Jones:
[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it’s been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!  

<2440> Jones:
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process  

<1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

 

Thanx for the ping Amagi!

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !
 
29 posted on 11/23/2011 5:38:47 AM PST by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson