CRU Emails – search engine now online

The Ville (08:29:17) :
Amazing!
This site supports criminal activity?
What next?
For me it is no different to the (UK) Daily Telegraph exposing our MPs exploiting their expenses for thousands of pounds each.
Unfortunately neither dishonest MPs nor dishonest scientists are likely to end where they belong – in gaol

Re.: Richard Sharpe (09:32)
Andi Revkin himself appears if you search for him 🙂

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned. The journal “Climate Research” has a clear path to subpoena further emails and individuals in regards to clear collusion in trying to undermine the journal and use blackmail to force out an editor.
What are you talking about, blackmail? Force out an editor? Are you really that ignorant? No one forced von Storch out, he left of his own accord because the journal had become an embarrassment to science. And yes, it is perfectly acceptable for scientists to advocate crap papers aren’t published — it’s done all the time — and even to forswear specific journals. Science is a meritocracy, not a democracy.
You are eavesdropping on people thinking out loud in email, not gathering evidence for objectionable offenses.

Canadian Dr. Tim Ball:
“As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.””
…-
“Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud
The Death Blow to Climate Science
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.
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, …” (more)
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

Senator Inhofe needs to hit the American Team members with congressional subpoenas for every e-mail; every last scrap of data; and every last line of code.
JMHO.

Don’t think I’ve seen this one yet. 1200076878.txt:
From: Tim Osborn
To: santer1@xxx
Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al.
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:41:18 +0000
Cc: “‘Philip D. Jones'”
Hi Ben (cc Phil),
just heard back from Glenn. He’s prepared to treat it as a new
submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al. and he also
reiterates that “Needless to say my offer of a quick turn around time
etc still stands”.
So basically this makes the IJC option more attractive than if it
were treated as a comment. But whether IJC is still a less
attractive option than GRL is up to you to decide 🙂 (or feel free
to canvas your potential co-authors [the only thing I didn’t want to
make more generally known was the suggestion that print publication
of Douglass et al. might be delayed… all other aspects of this
discussion are unrestricted]).
Cheers
Tim
At 21:00 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
>Dear Tim,
>
>Thanks very much for your email. I greatly appreciate the additional
>information that you’ve given me. I am a bit conflicted about what
>we should do.
>
>IJC published a paper with egregious statistical errors. Douglass et
>al. was essentially a commentary on work by myself and colleagues –
>work that had been previously published in Science in 2005 and in
>Chapter 5 of the first U.S. CCSP Report in 2006. To my knowledge,
>none of the authors or co-authors of the Santer et al. Science paper
>or of CCSP 1.1 Chapter 5 were used as reviewers of Douglass et al. I
>am assuming that, when he submitted his paper to IJC, Douglass
>specifically requested that certain scientists should be excluded
>from the review process. Such an approach is not defensible for a
>paper which is largely a comment on previously-published work.
>
>It would be fair and reasonable to give IJC the opportunity to “set
>the record straight”, and correct the harm they have done by
>publication of Douglass et al. I use the word “harm” advisedly. The
>author and coauthors of the Douglass et al. IJC paper are using this
>paper to argue that “Nature, not CO2, rules the climate”, and that
>the findings of Douglass et al. invalidate the “discernible human
>influence” conclusions of previous national and international
>scientific assessments.
>
>Quick publication of a response to Douglass et al. in IJC would go
>some way towards setting the record straight. I am troubled,
>however, by the very real possibility that Douglass et al. will have
>the last word on this subject. In my opinion (based on many years of
>interaction with these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer
>are capable of admitting that their paper contained serious
>scientific errors. Their “last word” will be an attempt to obfuscate
>rather than illuminate. They are not interested in improving our
>scientific understanding of the nature and causes of recent changes
>in atmospheric temperature. They are solely interested in advancing
>their own agendas. It is telling and troubling that Douglass et al.
>ignored radiosonde data showing substantial warming of the tropical
>troposphere – data that were in accord with model results – even
>though such data were in their possession. Such behaviour
>constitutes intellectual dishonesty. I strongly believe that leaving
>these guys the last word is inherently unfair.
>
>If IJC are interested in publishing our contribution, I believe it’s
>fair to ask for the following:
>
>1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not
>as a comment on Douglass et al. This seems reasonable given i) The
>substantial amount of new work that we have done; and ii) The fact
>that the Douglass et al. paper was not regarded as a comment on
>Santer et al. (2005), or on Chapter 5 of the 2006 CCSP Report – even
>though Douglass et al. clearly WAS a comment on these two publications.
>
>2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the
>opportunity to respond to our contribution, and we should be given
>the chance to reply. Any response and reply should be published
>side-by-side, in the same issue of IJC.
>
>I’d be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance
>on 1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel
>free to forward my email to Glenn McGregor.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Ben
>Tim Osborn wrote:
>>At 03:52 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
>>>…Much as I would like to see a high-profile rebuttal of Douglass
>>>et al. in a journal like Science or Nature, it’s unlikely that
>>>either journal will publish such a rebuttal.
>>>
>>>So what are our options? Personally, I’d vote for GRL. I think
>>>that it is important to publish an expeditious response to the
>>>statistical flaws in Douglass et al. In theory, GRL should be able
>>>to give us the desired fast turnaround time…
>>>
>>>Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to
>>>Phil, this option would probably take too long. I’d be interested
>>>to hear any other thoughts you might have on publication options.
>>Hi Ben and Phil,
>>as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I’m on the editorial board
>>of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster
>>than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is
>>the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass
>>et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to
>>accompany any comment).
>>I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can
>>do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick
>>turn-around time (he didn’t quantify this) and he will also “ask
>>(the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online
>>asap after the authors have received proofs”. He genuinely seems
>>keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible.
>>He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I
>>emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the
>>hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et
>>al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could
>>appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process.
>>If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I
>>could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving
>>the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who
>>are both suitable and available. Obviously one reviewer could be
>>someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that
>>would enable a fast review – i.e., someone on the email list you’ve
>>been using – though I don’t know which of these people you will be
>>asking to be co-authors and hence which won’t be available as
>>possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need
>>to be independent, but you could still suggest suitable names.
>>Well, that’s my thoughts… let me know what you decide.
>>Cheers
>>Tim
>>
>>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>School of Environmental Sciences
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>e-mail: t.osborn@xxx
>>phone: +44 1603 xxx
>>fax: +44 1603 xxx
>>web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>
>–
>—————————————————————————-
>Benjamin D. Santer
>Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>xxx
>Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>Tel: (925) 422-xxx
>FAX: (925) 422-xxx
>email: santer1@xxx
>—————————————————————————-
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

anyone should translate all the e mails in several languages, first of all to german (with a good software this should be possible).
hundret million of people around the globe should read the mainpulation triks and disscremination of people like gavin schmidt, stefan rahmstorf, michael mann and others.
they should be happy not to live in the “wild west”…but i hope they will all loose their jobs and get pissed on by their own families!

Criminal?
Marc Sheppard thinks so:
“Criminal? Oh yes, indeed. As this mock-science serves as justification for trillions of dollars in imposed and proposed new taxes, liens, fees, and rate hikes — not to mention the absurd wealth-redistribution premise of international climate debt “reparations” — such manipulation of evidence should be treated as exactly what it is: larceny on the grandest scale in history.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html
Class Action Lawsuit I say.
Any lawyers out there? I’m ready to file suit and contribute to a legal fund.

Further to the Santer/Osborn exchange above, 1199999668.txt:
From: Phil Jones To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: An issue/problem with Tim’s idea !!!!!!! Date: Thu Jan 10 16:14:28 2008
Ben,
Tim’s idea is a possibility. I’ve not always got on that well great
with Glenn McGregor, but Tim seems to have a reasonable rapport
with him. Dian has suggested that this would be the best route – it
is the logical one. I also think that Glenn would get quick reviews, as
Tim thinks he realises he’s made a mistake.
Tim has let me into part of secret. Glenn said the paper had two
reviews – one positive, the other said it wasn’t great, but would leave it
up to the editor’s discretion. This is why Glenn knows he made the wrong
choice.
The problem !! The person who said they would leave it to the editor’s
discretion is on your email list! I don’t know who it is – Tim does –
maybe they have told you? I don’t want to put pressure on Tim. He
doesn’t know I’m sending this. It isn’t me by the way – nor Tim !
Tim said it was someone who hasn’t contributed to the discussion –
which does narrow the possibilities down!
Tim/Glenn discussed getting quick reviews. Whoever this person
is they could be the familiar reviewer – and we could then come up
with another reasonable name (Kevin – he does everything at the
speed of light) as the two reviewers.
Colour in IJC costs a bit, but I’m sure we can lean on Glenn.
Also we can just have colour in the pdf.
I’ll now send a few thoughts on the figures!
Cheers
Phil
Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor ,
Thomas R Karl ,
John Lanzante , carl mears ,
“David C. Bader” ,
“‘Francis W. Zwiers'” ,
Frank Wentz ,
Leopold Haimberger ,
Melissa Free ,
“Michael C. MacCracken” ,
“‘Philip D. Jones'” ,
Steven Sherwood ,
Steve Klein , ‘Susan Solomon’ ,
“Thorne, Peter” ,
Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt ,
“Hack, James J.”