Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

Tenuc (06:31:23) :
Phil Clarke (02:47:31) :
“So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.”
No one need worry about this happening.
1. The file, and quotes from it, are turning up all over the place and it is impossible for them to try to prosecute everyone.
I suppose if such a law would apply to this they could trace all files back to the beginning. But I’m not sure if there is a law that covers this. It seems the original hacker/cracker would be the only one in line for possible prosecution.
But we may find it is a wistleblower from this inner circle.

climatebeagle (11:15:48) :
The MP for the UEA area is Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP. Even though he is Labour, I tend to think that he is one of the more responsible and honest ones. He is now a backbencher after having been Home Sec under Bliar.
I have been wondering whether to make a formal complaint to Norfolk Constabulary regarding the efforts to delete emails subject to the FOI request. Right at the moment I have enough grief in my life without doing any more stirring of the brown stuff.
I think it would be very nice news to hear that Phil Jones and Keith Briffa were helping the police with their enquiries if anyone else wants to take make the complaint.
Alec J

Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud
By Dr. Tim Ball Saturday, November 21, 2009
Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.
Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.
Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists
Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).
I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.
Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.
Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.
Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.
Total Control
These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.
CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”
You can download the climate change fraud documents from the link below:
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009 or http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

ABC has finally picked this up, with a contribution from AP.
Note this has an AP contribution credit so AP is also looking into it which suggests it will now go mainstream as many media get lots of their initial copy from AP.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9145220
Apparently MSNBC (shocked) picked it up this morning as a washington post item.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149/ns/us_news-washington_post/
Still no joy from CNN or CBS that I can find.
Larry

Kevin,
I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account
for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two
different things — the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++
email text 1255550975
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geo engineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
Odd. I thought the science was done and dusted.

Is it illegal to delete data in order to not comply with a FIO request? I thought it was. Are there going to be any prosecutions?

I want to read here that individual scientists who have been involved with this issue (or those of you who have professional standing in your organizations) are calling and writing their legislative representatives in Congress, in their professional organizations, and in what remains of the free press.
Some of the people no longer in government also can get heard, like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. Contact the Republican Party, too.
We need to get the ear of someone who can get a press conference held that the media will cover, in spite of itself and its loyalties.
Thompson knows how to navigate the legal system.

And if the blogowner goes to my website, which is in my e-mail address, he can find out all about me.

You have simply GOT to get on the blogs that people READ. Call Glenn Beck. Call Rush Limbaugh. Call Michael Savage, Thomas Lifson at American Thinker, Howie Carr at the Boston Herald, and others. Tap the contact lists at some of the conservative sites. Post at Free Republic.
Get the word out yourselfs by posting to blogs.
The best thing, of course, is to hire a lawyer NOW. Pool your resources and hire the best attorney you can. Hire Rudy Giuliani, or call him.
Go to the most powerful and influential people.
I’m assuming some folks here have contacts. I want to hear that you are all busy getting the word out that this entire thing needs to be looked at.
Call the FBI….. be creative…. but please do it and post that you have done it. It will hearten the rest of us if you do these things, but it will disappoint millions if you continue to WAIT for the lamestream media to suddenly see their folly of joining the sinking ship that is trying to destroy America and what’s left of the free world.

What I believe is a new WSJ article is up on their site’s front page:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
NOVEMBER 21, 2009, 3:39 P.M. ET.
Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
By KEITH JOHNSON
The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.

A university degree: 4 years, $100,000
A PhD in something climate-ish: 5 years, you get a small stipend
A few million research $$’s and a tenured position: learn the dogma, repeat the mantra
Evidence of your scientific fraud gone viral on the internet: PRICELESS
absolutely, positively, eff-ing priceless
…sorry

oops! Looks like it is illegal to destroy data to avoid FOI:
“Information covered by the Act
Minutes of meetings, letters, e-mail messages between officers, internal reports, notes etc. It also includes information that has been sent to us from other organisations – just because we don’t own the information it doesn’t mean we don’t have to disclose it.
Any important documents that we hold will have a ‘retention period’ attached to them which means that they have to be kept for a certain amount of time before we dispose of them. If a document has already been disposed of according to our retention rules then we cannot be expected to provide the information. We only have to provide existing recorded information. However, it is illegal to destroy information that has been requested to try and avoid having to disclose it. Anybody found guilty of doing this could face a personal fine of up to £5000.”
(from a UK council on their FIO policy, which must apply to all government bodies?)