http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/brea...files-released/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb...s/hadley_hacked

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T





The global warming scientific community now has their credibility completely, utterly destroyed.

Google for 'hadley server hack' for more information.


This is BIG, the biggest fraud that would not just drag down prominent Nobel Prize winning scientists but also politicians and corporations who are part of the massive conspiracy to defraud the world.

The conspiracy has been exposed, and yes, it's not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact.


Enjoy people!


http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefi...ta-is-real.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-Coun...docs-and-emails

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7806

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2390537/posts

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...rming/#comments


For those who can't download the entire 60 megs of hacked email and fortran source code, you can read the hacked contents online here

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/




This is explosive!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm



Hackers target leading climate research unit



The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

"We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated.

"Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.

"This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.

"We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry."

Researchers at CRU, one of the world's leading research bodies on natural and human-induced climate change, played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, which is considered to be the most authoritative report of its kind.

'Inside information'

Graham Cluley, a computer security expert, suggested that December's key climate summit in Copenhagen, which has made headlines around the world, could have increased the university's profile as a possible target among hackers.

"There are passionate opinions on both sides of the climate debate and there will be people trying to knock down the other side," Mr Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos, told BBC News.

"If they feel that they can gather inside information on what the other side is up to, then they may feel that is ammunition for their counterargument."

Mr Cluley added that universities were vulnerable to attacks by hackers because some many people required access to IT systems.

"You do need proper security in place; you need to be careful regarding communications and make sure your systems are secure.

"I trust that they will now be looking at the systems, and investigating how this happened and ensuring that something like this does not happen again."



This post has been edited by manami: Nov 21 2009, 04:41 AM

The first place it occured.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/1...-62-mb-of-gold/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/1...lown-wide-open/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/no-consensus/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/4567/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/busted-2/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/it-keeps-going/

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 21 2009, 04:46 AM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hacker-releas...-warming-fraud/


But then, the whole package is very large — 63 megabytes — and seems to be very internally consistent. Several people have already corroborated a number of the emails as being ones they wrote or received. The package also includes substantial data and computer programs, which are being explored as this is being written.

The best we can say right now is that we should keep our eyes on this. If these files are eventually corroborated and verified, it is a bombshell indeed — evidence that there has been a literal conspiracy to push the anthropogenic climate change agenda far beyond the science.

It will mean the end of some scientific careers, and it might even mean those careers will end in jail.

The Global Warming scandal of the century.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-g...of-the-century/

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009...de-open-as.html


"And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails


Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in data about temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.

"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact the police about the data breach.

TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.

"That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?" he said.

The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.

Others suggest the comments are simply "scientists talking about science." In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that "if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists."

Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:

"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?"

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-h...2009-files.html


So far, the most interesting file I found in the "documents" directory is


pdj_grant_since1990.xls (Google preview, click)

which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. The major amounts came from HEFCE (6.6 million pounds) and NERC (2.7 million pounds). Later, we will get some idea whether he has used the money to do proper science and whether the truth and objectivity was kept as the key principle, beating a possibility to double the amount. ;-)

One big release of emails discrediting a climate research unit, and all of the advocates of anthropogenic global warming is now discredited? Surely you're joking. (Hint: not every advocate is in that unit)

I'll note that I'm somewhat disturbed by Hadley's comment on the trick though, but the context at which he sent his emails matters, and we'll have to examine the paper for faults - it is the paper after all that matters, not what the scientists' opinions are.

They're human too, and in a (what they expected to be a) private setting, they chose to go on rants against people who disagreed with them. Shocker, I know!

Heck, even presupposing that AGW is false, how do you propose we stop acidification of our oceans due to the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 21 2009, 09:59 AM

You did not read the data at all. You did not even read what other scientists said about them.


Global warming is a fraud. What is happening is we could be entering ice age.



Finish reading all the links and material before you make a decision. Furthermore Phil jones himself has admitted the emails were real.


There's evidence of clear conspiracy, scientific fraud, collusion and every one who's read it would agree.


There is a line one must draw between factual scientific facts and blind religious advocation of a particular topic.

What is available is very very clear cut case of scientific fraud.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16889

Climategate: Stunning Deception and Misconduct at UK Warming Research Center Revealed
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 20, 2009 4:00 PM

Climate researchers at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit may have intentionally and artificially skewed temperature data in studies

The field of global warming is a fascinating facet of atmospheric science. Unfortunately, few are approaching the topic from an unbiased perspective -- the majority is dead set on proving it, while other are equally passionate about disproving it, or at least removing the implication that man may play a role in global warming. Both sides have been found to falsify data, withhold information, or otherwise distort views on the topic, reportedly. Notably internal investigations found that the Bush administration worked to silence climatologists at NASA who published pro-warming papers. Likewise, James Hansen, the leading climate scientist at NASA, was found to be engaging in an equally deceptive game of altering temperature data to make warming look more serious than it was.

Now a stunning new example of biased science and policy has come to light. The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, one of the UK's top climate research centers, has been hacked by an unknown party, who release an archive of the emails and data from the center, which can be viewed here. The emails in the archive contain evidence of misconduct, casting climate research done at the center in a new light.

A spokesperson for the center confirmed the breach, stating to BBC News, "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry."

Some of the emails seem merely cruel, but do not indicate misconduct. For example CRU director Phil Jones cheers the death of leading climate skeptic John Daly stating, "In an odd way this is cheering news." In another email he fantasizes about physically assaulting a climate skeptic, stating, "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

Other emails are far more damning. Writes Phil Jones:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

The email reads like a flat out confession of academic misconduct and deception. Obviously hiding data and doctoring values is the kind of thing that gets you expelled from graduate school, but here these seasoned researchers seemed to have engaged in such practices and gleefully got published.

The emails also contain passages concerning the center's attempts to hide the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Writes a colleague of Mr. Jones:

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

Still other emails reveal that the Phil Jones and others at the center engaged in campaigns of trying to silence skeptics, removing them from the journal peer-review process. Not all of the researchers at the center seemed to be onboard with the deceit, though. Some expressed doubts about the theory of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming and refused to support some of the center's actions, putting their own careers in jeopardy.

Writes Jonathon Overpeck:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

While there's been evidence of foul play among both global warming advocates and skeptics, the emails from the CRU may be the most shocking evidence of blatant misconduct to date. The CRU was considered a prominent climate research center, which, along with other organizations in the U.S. and abroad, has helped steer the policy of the Internation Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The University of East Anglia described the center, writing, "Widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change."

The admissions of falsification of data and suppression of counter opinions run contrary to everything that the scientific community should stand for. One can only hope that a thorough investigation is conducted and at the very least the center's director, Phil Jones is dismissed for academic misconduct, if the emails are confirmed. After all, how can we tell our college students not to cheat, when the director of a prominent research institution is advocating such fraud?

Best comment I've read!!!::


" Trying to fit data to a result you wish to achieve is not science. It's religion. And religion bears no resemblance to reality. If you're trying to fit data to a predetermined result, you're not practicing science, you are practicing religion and you are an idiot."

OT - TS, your post count just increased by 11. grats.

So what's the conclusion of all these? Sorry,lazy to read all the links.

^ That is his conclusion I suppose.

Oh, did you read the data other than paraphrasing whatever others found? I'll admit beforehand, I have not read the 64 megabytes of data, it is simply way too much data for me to handle

First, you disbelieve the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Fair enough. Made any steps to prove it other than shouting at the rooftops that it's false?

Have you finished reading all the links? I've been following skeptics for a while now, and right now I'm leaning towards it being more real than not. Come, change my mind with evidence, of clear conspiracy, scientific fraud, collusion, other than 2-3 emails where the people who advocate it being true b*tching about the skeptics (as if the other side doesn't do it.... hmmm, wait, aren't you doing it yourself?)

Please, tell me why it's so damning, instead of pointing me at the 64mb worth of data, and then saying you'll find out the truth there, because I bet you have not even looked through 10% of it yet, if at all. Provide some original commentary instead of repeating the party line or posting links. Convince us that it's true, instead of saying if you look for it you'll find it.

Here's a counterpoint, for balance: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/

And answer the question about ocean acidification please, I'd be interested to know.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 21 2009, 08:25 PM

You are in denial just like the scientists who have been exposed as frauds in their field.

The counterpoint realclimate link is bs by the same team of PHD cretins whose emails got hacked.

Guilty parties would always try to weezel their way out of their crimes.

The evidence of data manipulation, collusion to prevent peer review, conspiracy, it's all there in my links.


Global warming is a political tool for carbon taxes, a profit making venture for elites to impose a tax on the poorer nations.

Tons of corporations and political powers stand to benefit from these taxes.



Why should anyone in mainstream or rather, the ordinary people trust your ilk anymore?


Proponents of global warming, especially the academic elites, seem to effectively show themselves to be nothing more than arrogant god complex self labeled learned PHDs who would falsify and commit fraud in the name of those who funded them.


Why, should the general public trust your ilk anymore?


This fraud has exposed what is probably just a tip of the iceberg in the scientific community.


It's time the masses wake up and realize that scientists are as much a problem even though we've always grown to assume they're the solution to our problems.



These global warming scientists have shown me they're not much different from religious terrorists, except these terrorists are the types who carry PHDs, labels and other academic credentials who decide who shall live or die.



Those who're interested in the financial interests of who benefits from the global warming agenda should read up on Goldman Sachs and the Cap and Trade.

Goldman Sachs is one of the most scandal ridden financial companies and anyone who has an interest in finance would know about them.

They have people sitting and making policies in the US government. Timothy Geithner anyone?

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 21 2009, 10:32 PM

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/

Collusion, Corruption, Manipulation and Obstruction

That's ONE department tampering with data. You've got thousands of other identical departments all over the world.
Saying global warming is a fraud because of one rotten apple is like saying that the Holocaust never happened
Get over it, the world is warming up, and frickin cows are not to blame, it's us humans.

The world is not warming up, it's cooling down. Another one who can't read.

Why am I in denial? I've considered the possibility that I am, but have you?

Same team? You sure? Or are suddenly all people with PhDs with an interest in global warming just part of a giant conspiracy? Sure I accept that if they're guilty they might want to avoid it. (Heck I don't even have a PhD for goodness' sakes, nor am I studying for one right now, heck I'm not even interested in any climate science at all)

Why the heck do you think that I'm of their ilk? I'm not even certain that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but I'm leaning towards it after being shown the evidence. All you've done is come in, make various claims, most unsubstantiated, throw in multiple accusations without showing any proof whatsoever, throw in a conspiracy about 'my ilk', people I have no relation to or know, or have heard about until I read your links, and claim that I am in denial.

Stop making silly accusations about me [edited word out], and if you want to make an attempt at convincing me, perhaps you should actually start showing scientific evidence that the results were faked, no, the emails don't work, because if it were truly faked you could go back to the original paper and show the flaws in the methodology.

All you have done is say these fellas are discredited, that because of this, their research output is discredited. That's not exactly true, because the papers will live and die based on the data and methodology used, which is the important scientific principle here, and whether it's acceptable or not, not whatever their beliefs are. Stop concentrating on the beliefs and start concentrating on the science itself if you want to make a strong case.

Again, I say that this is, for me, the most disturbing (or you would call damning) piece:



But RealClimate seems to downplay it by putting it into some context, which is most important don't you think?


Also, you have not addressed the question of how is the WHOLE of climate science discredited from just having ONE research unit's (out of many) dodgy looking emails leaked.

What's with you and the religious language of choosing people to live and die? Preventing some form of global warming isn't choosing who to live and die, heck if you suppose that it's real it might even prevent people from dying based on their geographical position due to climate change.

Start concentrating on the science, cut down on the conspiracies please, if you want to convince me at all, and please, if you don't want to alienate people who are on the fence, stop attacking them personally. What you are doing now is not making a concrete argument based on the science, but throwing in all kinds of conspiracies. Start working on the evidence, and you might just win me over.

I'm going to pose this question for the third time, since you seem to have missed it the first 2 times: What do you propose to do about ocean acidification, which is a byproduct of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere?

---

Added on November 21, 2009, 11:23 pmThe world has been cooling down in the past 8 years, except that all of these 8 years have been the 14 warmest years measured (directly, I presume) on record. Have you ever considered that for context?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 22 2009, 12:20 AM