From Climategate.tv – see video report below.
This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.
Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.
Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.
Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” Or where he concludes: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.
Or the email where he wrote: “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. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”
Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discuss ousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where they fret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.
Of course, the alarmists continue to argue—as they have ever since they first began to acknowledge the scandal—that climategate is insignificant. Without addressing any of the issues or specific emails, they simply point to the “independent investigations” that they say have vindicated the climategate scientists.
…
Regardless of what one thinks of the veracity or independence of these so-called investigations into the climategate scandal itself, what has followed has been a catastrophic meltdown of the supposedly united front of scientific opinion that manmade CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.
In late November of 2009, just days after the initial release of the climategate emails, the University of East Anglia was in the hotseat again. The CRU was forced to admit they had thrown away most of the raw data that their global temperature calculations were based upon, meaning their work was not reproducible by any outside scientists.
Complete transcript to the video here
The place where all the emails can be searched and read: http://eastangliaemails.com/
“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 this comment by Phil Jones in 2005 refer to the “raw” station data? If so, doesn’t this show that the data still existed in 2005 and that their claim that it was “accidentally” lost years earlier when they moved is bogus? I find it interesting that these climate scientists claim not to have deleted anything, yet so much of the data and emails they threatened to delete have turned up missing. What’s even more interesting is that the Climategate investigators and the media seem to have absolutely no curiosity about such things. It’s like discovering a long gap on one of the Nixon tapes during the Watergate hearings and nobody cares.
Is Climategate really the issue?
Surely it is just the symptom of the disease, not the cause or the cure?
It may, in historical terms represent a turning point in the playing out of this particular human insanity but we can’t quite know that yet.
I suggest that the real issue is the politicisation of science.
I wrote down my chief suspect’s name and sealed it in an envelope about nine months ago after I had read Mosheer & Fuller’s book. It seems that I was not the only one to draw that conclusion……
All we need now is for our gallant detective to gather the CRU staff in the Common Room, with rozzers at the door to prevent rushed escapes. And to unmask the true hero …the one who had the honesty and cojones to let the world see how corrupted they had become.
I’m beginning to wonder if the Sandbag website is really a parody to test the credulity of the general public. It contains a link called ‘Destoy Carbon’ which implores people to buy tonnes of carbon by pouring money into a paypal account on the Sandbag website. Can this be real? Some days I feel like I’ve followed Alice through the looking glass!
Following the orthodoxy still has it’s rewards.
http://www.sandbag.org.uk/blog/2010/nov/19/sandbag-founder-appointed-house-lords/
—————————
I followed the link, read the bio and found myself looking into the face of a woman who is either deeply evil or irretrievably insane.
I have to complement DJ Meredith on unearthing the ‘Rules of the Game’ – the game, in this case, being how to sell ‘climate change’ to the masses..
Insidious doesn’t come close. However, I had to chuckle at the quote on the back page, attributed to Mahatma Ghandi:
‘First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.’
Yep – that’s us, folks…
In a recent interview Phil Jones admitted that not all the information had been made public.
It looks like the hacker/whistleblower has held onto some insurance.
Jones also said he is ‘not worried’ about the withheld information.
It looks like a deal has been done, the hacker/whistleblower won’t be revealed/prosecuted.
As the british police have the CRU back up server containing of all their emails, can this now be accecssed under FOIA? Surely it is public property as it was created on public fundings back and never has this info been more relevant. I’m very curious if access could be that simple, anyone familiar with process care to comment?
they’re all watermelon heads
no they’re not watermelon heads, they have change to tomato heads – red all over
A year ago I was able to download the files within hours of the notification of it’s existence. It’s on a old laptop. I’m thinking about it’s eBay value. To me it marked the
(Phone’s are not the best way to post)
Climategate marked the point where suspition and reality met. A year later, I believe that it was the true “tipping point” in Global Warming.
“Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.”
And few understand that the data in question above is not relevant to global temperature records. Which is possibly the most important thing to understand, but surprisingly is scarcely mentioned.
——————
Latimer Alder,
Are you a Hercule Poirot fan? The hero of many of Agatha Christie’s mystery books fame?
I love it.
John
UEA CRU were not “forced to admit” the disposal of the raw data. They had actually publicly stated this information as a matter of course on one of their data availability pages months before the email theft…unsurprisingly,really,because the raw data had been voided almost thirty years ago for space reasons. Journalist Jonathan Leake has hardly covered himself with glory in confecting that little story,and it’s sad that you repeat it. Meanwhile the raw data still exists with the national agencies that collect it. As you know.
@onion
Two questions.
All you people who know the reason the (CO2) trillion dollar a year carbon tax market was destroyed, please step to the front of the stage. It’s only a one word answer.
33% of the audience who knows the answer are in the front, please don’t answer the question just yet.
You know why you 66% in the back can’t answer this question? Because you are sheeple. You get your news from the TV that does social engineering or not at all.
Will one of you persons in the front give me the answer to my question?
Yes, that is correct, “Climategate.
It’s OK you people in the back didn’t know the answer, the people in the front are looking out for you.
My second question is, for what reason why only 33% of the people object to TSA invasive procedures?
I want the 66% of the people in the back to answer this question. It has something to do with constitutional rights. Which amendment is it?
The reason why you people in the back can’t answer the question is because you are sheeple.
The answer is the 4th amendment.
It’s OK you people in the back don’t know the answer, the informed people in the front got your back.
I here it only took 8% of the population of the 13 original Colonies to beat the British and win a great country for everyone here.
One year on and no sign of a prosecution for the heinous crime committed by the “hacker”.
That suggests one of 2 possible scenarios, either:
1. As mentioned above, the holding back of further – perhaps even more damaging – information has allowed the leaker to do a deal with the authorities, or
2. The authorities have no wish to bring anyone to court, as this will force open, highly public scrutiny of the content of the emails in a court of law, where lying carries significant penalties.
My money is on number 2, and I hope that the leaker is very careful when crossing the road…..
One year on and much has changed, heartfelt thanks to whoever released the emails.
A short poem to mark the occasion
Copenhagen…
The world awaits with baited breath
Talks a matter of life or death.
Can we avert a grisly fate
Or will the timing be just too late.
Politicians warn to heed their pleas
That we hold the warming to 2 degrees.
The ‘scientists’ have had their say,
The ‘hockey stick’ brought into play,
Run away warming the fate to behold,
The science is settled or so we are told.
Man made CO2 the culprit found
So must be taxed or puppies drowned
In the floods that will ensue
So say the ads we’re made to view.
But Mother Nature won’t be told
And in a winter freezing cold
Rising scepticism takes hold.
The Hadcrut Hacker’s had his way,
The mails have found the light of day
Or perhaps a Whistleblower found
The science now no longer sound.
Runaway warming not there to see!
(Was this not a travesty?)
Nor on the tree ring history
[‘Cept if a cherry-picked one lone tree!]
A trick was used to hide the decline
By those ‘scientists’ not quite so fine.
Alternate views must not be published
Or editors they would be punished.
And so their lies were all exposed
They who would not be opposed.
Inquries they came and went
Run by the Establishment
Evidence of wrongdoing they couldn’t find
Those three monkeys come to mind
Refused to look or wouldn’t tell
For their sins they’ll go to Hell
No matter since the truth we know
And one day soon our wrath will show!
Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller had it right in their book, Not an exact quote, but they said that global warming is a fact but not near as bad as the idiot “scientists” say it is and co2 plus many other things natural and man made contribute to it and we need to do something about it. They did not say bend over and..well you know. They did not say what to do . We can control many things that are man made-but we can not control politicans and tyrants that could help with this. So, we’re kinda stuck and probably will have to live or die with what happens. Nature at present cannot be controlled. I challenge anyone to dispute those facts.
Climategate exposed certain important “scientists” as climate thugs–enjoying the benefits of incestuous peer review, marginalizing dissenters, attempting to prevent publication of other viewpoints, fudging data (or preparing to), concealing graphic evidence of the falsification of dendroclimatology in IPCC reports, daydreaming of committing assault and battery on skeptics, conspiring to delete evidence of malfeasance, planning to thwart FOI requests… The list goes on and on, revealing that the emperor hasn’t a stitch on, just as we suspected all along.
The subsequent whitewashes didn’t vindicate these people, but compounded the evil. Not only is the emperor naked, he now pirouettes down the boulevard in flagrant sky-clad splendour. And the FMSM stands by, praising his taste in clothes.
Before anyone asks, “F” stands for formerly.
“Following the orthodoxy still has it’s rewards.
http://www.sandbag.org.uk/blog/2010/nov/19/sandbag-founder-appointed-house-lords/”
=======================================================
“Her earlier career was as an environmental campaigner, heading Friends of the Earth’s climate change campaign. She studied English literature […].”
In short, she is a professional propagandist.
English literature surely hasn’t taught her anything about science, let alone climate science – most probably she doesn’t even know what science is.
Mike Borgelt says: “I followed the link, read the bio and found myself looking into the face of a woman who is either deeply evil or irretrievably insane.”
Or it could just be a bad camera angle.
Can anyone tell me how the science has been impacted by the emails? Have the major indicators been altered, or changed sign?
Thanks!