Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable ( Global Warming Hoax exposed....)

anelegantchaos.org ^ | 20 November 2009 | anelegantchaos.org

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.

As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. It is here just as a curiosity!

You can either search using the keyword search box above, or use the links below to browse them 25 emails at a time.

[grey_whiskers]

From the website:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1037
Two words. Holy sh!t. Especially note the last sentences :-)

Information from the site starts NOW.
***********************************************
CCNet 153/2009 - 2 October 2009 — Audiatur et altera pars

CRU’S HIDDEN DATA AND THE IPCC: A SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL UNFOLDS

---

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent

peer-reviewed climate papers. The scandal has serious

implications for

public trust in science. The IPCC’s mission is to reflect the

science,

not create it. As the IPCC states, its duty is “assessing the

scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the

understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It

does not

carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related

data.” But as

IPCC lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping the

assessment. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that

refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more

general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review

fails -

as it did here?

—Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009

Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in

prominent journals using Briffa’s Yamal composite to support a

hockey

stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend

the Hockey

Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC

Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would

question the

Yamal data. Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top

journals

like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or

editors ever

required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated

requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were

ignored.

—Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009

The official United Nation’s global warming agency, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged

stool that

is fast losing its legs. To carry the message of man-made global

warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer

models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature

forecasting and 4)

communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.

—Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009

Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so

far. I’m

not sure whether this is because people are trying to digest what it

means or whether it’s “too hot to handle”. None of the global

warming

supporters in the mainstream media have gone near it. The

reaction of

the Guardian - to delete any mention of the affair from their

comment

threads - has been extraordinary.

—Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009

Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric

cars and

shut down coal-fired power stations as part of a ‘planned

recession’ to

avoid dangerous climate change. A new report from the Tyndall

Centre for

Climate Change Research says the only way to avoid going beyond the

dangerous tipping point is to double the target to 70 per cent

by 2020.

This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a “planned

recession”.

—Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009

[Windflier]

"I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you've done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior!"

Mike Mann -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology

Methinks the professor doth protest too much. You think?

[Marie]

Here’s a good one...

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=2391082%2C56

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use

this to our advantage to get the series updated !

Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere

rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the

Jones and Moberg updated series !

Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed

that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother

with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar

to MBH.

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

Cheers

Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.

Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

[winoneforthegipper]

lol....great minds and same finds....lol

my post from earlier...lol

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Good stuff....!
Interesting here is this exchange. I would read the entire string of correspondence but this brief excerpt made me double take!

“”””””I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my

grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children

will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and

carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly

in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE

WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!

-gene””””””

Here is a scientist completely calling out carbon credits as merely a game!!!!!!

The entire string though is truly fascinating! http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1037

[Windflier]

If it's fake someone went to extraordinary lengths to fabricate it. Nobel or Pulitzer Prize material ...

"Extraordinary" is far too weak a superlative to describe the sort of effort involved with faking something of this magnitude.

This is real. No question about it. It's also the death knell of the AWG movement. It's dead, Jim.

[Repeat Offender]

I thought everyone would enjoy that. I love how the author of the email was the one to put 'inventing' in quotes.

You know, reading through some of those emails, it appears the Russians put up some grant money to fund their research. Rumor has it the Ruskies don't like it when they're conned and they seem to act a with more malice than the US. I wonder how long it will take for someone to come upon "unfortunate circumstances" and have an "accident."

[Pan_Yan]

I've been cruising search engines and it doesn't look like these emails are the smoking gun the first flush made them appear to be. The two men emailing here are consistent in saying that cap n trade are not a solution. They have criticized the carbon scam publically here.

[Marie]

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=490

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 !

---

Thanks Phil,

Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP. We’re going to be very careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory so that Tim could access the data.

Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights issues, so it isn’t clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.

I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor comments). It looks very good at present—will be interesting to see how they deal w/ the contrarian criticisms—there will be many. I’m hoping they’ll stand firm (I believe they will—I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...

Will keep you updated on stuff...

talk to you later,

mike

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Another website....AirVent:

Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold

Posted by Jeff Id on November 19, 2009

This is the biggest news ever broken here. The first thing I have to say is that I have no connection to the source of these files. It was left as a link on my blog while I was hunting for cloaked deers (fruitlessly) in the Upper Penninsula. These files are real IMO but they cannot be one hundred percent verified as such. How can we be certain but IMO, real. They were potentially scraped from multiple computers in my opinion by a hacker or an insider involved in some of the endless FOIA requests.

I’ll say this delicately – this person risked one f..k of a lot to show us this data.

[Marie]

You have to realize what we’re looking at here.

Imagine that three people are involved in a conspiracy. You are reading everything in their “sent” email boxes. You’re going to find correspondence between the three discussing the plot, but you’re also going to find their emails to people who are unaware of the plot. Emails *from* people asking them for information on the subject, people who have no idea that it’s a con. Emails to people, innocently protesting, “What plot??”

That’s why it’s taking so much time to figure it all out. It’s a mess. I find emails to and from “Mike” have been the most helpful, but many emails concerning “Mike” are not revealing.

It’s a sorting process and I hope the FBI is crawling all over this tonight.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks ApplegateRanch, neverdem, grey_whiskers, and (for most of these) Ernest_at_the_Beach.

• Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
• Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked - hundreds of files released (MUST READ!!)
• Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked - hundreds of files released [epic scientific fraud?]
• Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked - hundreds of files released
• The CRU hack ("climatologists" respond)
• World's climate could cool first, warm later
• Copenhagen - how the Danes will salvage a deal ( more on the Global Warming Hoax )
• MAN-BEAR-PIG Is Dead!... Emails Prove Global Warming Junk Science Conspiracy (Updated)
• Skeptics Handbook II! Global Bullies Want Your Money
• Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress ( Cap & Tax)
• The Day Global Warming Stood Still (But Warming Lies Didn't)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Hiding data from other skeptical researchers....that might threaten the Funding.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

We have a mighty army working on this stuff!....

LOL!

[Marine_Uncle]

Welcome aboard.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I am wearing out...but been looking thru the keyword lists....from globalwarminghoax...website is www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk

:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

****************************************************

Temperature Record

One central problem for those who promote the idea of man made global warming is the earth’s temperature record – on almost all time scales.

In the last decade, there has been no clear warming trend (as the UK Met Office and IPCC’s own figures demonstrate). In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC).

But it’s important to look back further in time 1,000 years. The climate record which used to be accepted as the standard account of this period was published in the first IPCC report. But this account posed a problem. A thousand years ago there was time a warm period – apparently warmer than today (known to climatologists as the Medieval Warm Period). This was followed by a relatively cold period (known as the Little Ice Age), from which, over the past two to three hundred years, seem to have made a slow, welcome recovery.

This was all rather undermined the idea that current temperatures were either unusual or alarming.

In subsequent IPCC reports the original graph was replaced by another – the famous ‘Hockey Stick’ (so-called because it looks like one). The Hockey Stick was a lot more dramatic, and was featured proudly on the top of the front page of the new IPCC reports. But was it true? The Hockey Stick debate is very telling, and we urge readers to review the links below.

Further back in time, still within our current ‘interglacial period, we find more warm spells – notably what geologists call the ‘Holocene Maximum’ when, for a few thousand years, the earth was significantly warmer than we find it today.

Over longer time periods of course, the earth has been far, far hotter than it is today (with tropical forests covering much of the earth) and also far, far colder, with much of the earth buried under miles of ice. The Earth’s climate has always changed, and changed without any help from us.

But there is another problem, a very major problem, for those who promote the idea of CO2-led global warming. According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007).

[Pan_Yan]

Thank you for your response. I was referring specifically to the two people in that specific email. There are plenty of other emails with lots of smoke. The Mike you are seeing might be Michael Mann, who if you look has been forced to retract some of his research and tried very hard not to release his data.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the website I mentioned at post #115:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

**************************EXCERPT*************************

A DVD of the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, will be available from mid July (despite the strenuous efforts of those who support the theory of global warming to prevent its release). The DVD is an expanded and improved version of the film broadcast in the UK on Channel Four. More interview material has been added, covering a broader range of subjects than was possible in the broadcast film.

However, we urge those interested in hearing the case against the theory of man made global warming to dig deeper. The main purpose of this site is to point people towards key scientific papers, books and other relevant material.

We have received literally thousands of emails from scientists and others expressing their support and encouragement. These emails are also often very useful, steering us towards new studies in different areas. Please keep sending them.

The email address is: gw@wagtv.com

The general reaction to the film has been overwhelming and enormously encouraging. As Channel Four reported in Broadcast magazine, they received a record number of phone calls following the first transmission. They calculated that the calls were 6 to 1 in support of the film.

It would be nice to claim that the explosion of interest was due to the film itself, but the fuss started even before the film was broadcast. The reason, we suspect, is that the coverage of ‘global warming’, on TV, radio and in the press, has been so one-sided and uncritical. In Britain, hours and hours of programmes have been broadcast by the BBC on the subject, much of it scientifically absurd. The very fact that a science documentary dared to challenge the orthodoxy was itself news.

Why? Why have journalists been so craven or biased? How has a theory which demonstrably lacks really solid supporting evidence become an indisputable fact? What of the impressive, much talked about scientific ‘consensus’ which is used to forestall any awkward questions about the evidence?

The film made a humble stab at suggesting some possible answers, but there was limited space for these bigger questions. The whole global warming alarm, we believe, raises serious issues about the way science functions in the real world, about the political bias of scientists, about censorship within the scientific community itself, about the routine practice of scientists drawing false or inflated conclusions from ambiguous or uncertain data, about the manifest failure of the peer review process, about the extraordinary unwillingness of scientists who have invested time and reputation in a particular theory to consider evidence which directly contradicts it, about the elevation of speculation (models) to the level of solid data, and much else besides.

Science and scientists cannot always rise above the prejudices of their class and of their age. The selection and handling of evidence often reflects these prejudices. The most highly qualified and respected scientists can be blind to obvious deficiencies in a theory, and will be dismissive of evidence when it undermines what they want to believe.

But the scare over man made global warming may prove to be the first great example in the modern Western world, when science was betrayed by scientists themselves

This web-site is still young, and the people running it are doing so in their spare time (when they really should be making television programmes). So apologies for its shortcomings.

The makers of the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle have made many science documentaries before. The thing they found most shocking when they started to make this one, was the weakness of the case for man made global warming, and the quantity and quality of the evidence which flatly contradicts it.

 

[Marie]

Mann is one of the GW conspirators. He invented the “Hockey Stick” graph that Al Gore is so in love with. His conversations with “Phil” are revealing.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

check the updates ,...particularly the last one which has all of these emails as supporting evidence about wayward scientists....

[Marie]

The search term “FOI” is good...

(Slowly weeding through it now. There’s a lot of stuff about avoiding it.)

“Freedom of Information” is revealing also.