Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
Eric Gisin
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.
Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, were victims
of a cyberattack by hackers sometime Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s
as well as scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University officials confirmed
the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm the authenticity of all the documents posted on
the Internet.
The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers,
most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence
policy makers around the world.
The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big climate-change summit in Copenhagen,
Denmark, meant to lay the groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and
fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by the economic slump, which
has put environmental issues on the back burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend
in global temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in climate models such as
the IPCC's.
A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own
research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among
themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion,
climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather
events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."
The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who
for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC
summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who
presented findings that differed from orthodox views.
Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and
concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to
climate scientists have dismissed those claims.
The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate
scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web
sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks
from prominent skeptics, for example.
Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as
"prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to
"beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for
papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at
times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose
findings they disagreed with.
One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such
tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to
us' . as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology
seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not,"
the email said.
More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data
used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a
reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw
data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds
that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to
the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to
their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals
that require them to make their data public.
Write to Keith Johnson at keith....@wsj.com
JohnM
evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the
falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/
communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down
to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
chemist
Rubbish. They show the "scientists" colluding to modify and inflate
temperatures to support their failling conjecture
Eric Gisin
Like all deranged trolls, you snip the OP and post something irrelevent.
Try again, you stupid fuck:
A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own
research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among
themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion,
climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather
events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."
The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who
for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC
summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who
presented findings that differed from orthodox views.
"JohnM" <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3494e474-9170-48f7...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to �get rid of the
MWP�, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the
falsifying of data, and no �marching orders� from our socialist/
JohnM
> You cannot refute the damning emails.
Which email is damning, pray? They do nothing but show the scientists
concerned were at worst being human. Post one, just one, that shows
evidence of a world-wide conspiracy to defraud the global population
of taxpayer money and I'll join you in your crusade.
> Like all deranged trolls, you snip the OP and post something irrelevent.
>
> Try again, you stupid fuck:
Sure. Your wish is my command.
<snip of redundant post that anyone can read upthread>
> "JohnM" <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:3494e474-9170-48f7...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
> evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
> nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
> MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the
> falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/
BDR529
> On Nov 22, 5:43 pm, JohnM<john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
>> evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
>> falsifying of data, and no �marching orders� from our socialist/
>> communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down
>> to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
>>
>> http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/11/21/the-cru-hack/
>
> Rubbish. They show the "scientists" colluding to modify and inflate
> temperatures to support their failling conjecture
But, this does not perse falsify the results. Has that thought already
occurred to you?
Q
Green Turtle
>Which email is damning
A very large number of them show people suppressing ANY information that
would be contrary to their views. In other words, it not peer review, but
individuals rubber stamping their own views. Boycotting and threatening to
not send papers to publications that are not of their view is NOT open
science anymore but politics.
Ignoring science and information that don't help their case is not a problem
here?
Really? If you don't think this is damaging, then you are in the same group
as Goldman Sachs and the dishonest money traders who supposed followed the
law and scammed everyone.
If you don't have problems with this type of deceitful process, I really
have to wonder if you care that it this type of behaviors that produced the
Enron scandals. The we done no wrong here is ridiculous.
> Post one, just one, that shows
evidence of a world-wide conspiracy to defraud the global population
of taxpayer money
World-wide conspiracy? Who the hell said that socialism is a world wide
conspiracy? Are you telling me the banking scandals and frauds are world
wide conspiracies? Are you telling me Enron was a world wide conspiracy?
Man, are you stupid or what? Lets not be stupid here. We taking about rotten
scoundrels and their rotten behaviors.
lets see:
However, defraud tax payer money?
<quote>
That is why it is important for us
to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE
and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer
the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
big taxes
</quote>
So, it clear that ways to hide, or even to avoid how money is doled out for
projects. You seem to forget that these people don't pay taxes in the first
place!!! (that is correct, they are LIVING OFF the tax system. So, while
they file income tax, they are revving more tax dollars then they are
paying. The simple math lesson here is that they don't pay taxes, they
receive and live off the tax system).
At the end of the day, this comes down is there real peer review? Or, are
these folks using every trick in the book to avoid ANY results that would
put a dent in their AGW theories?
And, MORE important the emails show that every effort here is not about the
science, but about policy, the public impression and do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE
to KEEP the GRAVY TRAIN of grant and research money flowing.
It you don't think that ignoring anything that hurts your cause, and using
ANY thing that SUPPORTS your cause is not corrupted science, then I can
really can't help you. It is exactly YOUR kind of mentality that gives us
the banking scandals, the Enron's, and now this rotten to the core behaviors
by climate scientists...
Super Turtle
I M @ good guy
What climate science?
JohnM
wrote:
> "JohnM" <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
Yet another pillock that hasn't read a single one of the emails.
JohnM
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:43:07 -0800 (PST), JohnM
>
Sorry. I only reply to posts in English.
Green Turtle
> And, MORE important the emails show that every effort here is not about
> the
> science, but about policy, the public impression and do EVERYTHING
> POSSIBLE
> to KEEP the GRAVY TRAIN of grant and research money flowing.
>
> It you don't think that ignoring anything that hurts your cause, and using
> ANY thing that SUPPORTS your cause is not corrupted science, then I can
> really can't help you. It is exactly YOUR kind of mentality that gives us
> the banking scandals, the Enron's, and now this rotten to the core
> behaviors
> by climate scientists...
>>Yet another pillock that hasn't read a single one of the emails.
You really need to clean your glasses. I quoted direct from those emails in
that post of mine...
I don't really understand you. You seem to be taking the same corrupt point
of view that these people have. Why do you spin and put words into my mouth?
Seems birds of feather really do flock together when it comes to this issue.
I have quoted SEVERAL time here, I seek the truth...nothing but the truth
here.
I really can't imagine you standing here and think this type of behaviors by
these scientists is just fine and dandy and does not WARRANT A SEROUS CHANGE
in how this peer process works, of which clearly there is none!
I can ONLY think you really don't care about truth and science, do you? That
what makes our side differnt then your side....
What part of the email quote I used did you fail to read?
Super Turtle
george
wrote:
> You really need to clean your glasses. I quoted direct from those emails in
> that post of mine...
>
> I don't really understand you. You seem to be taking the same corrupt point
> of view that these people have. Why do you spin and put words into my mouth?
>
> Seems birds of feather really do flock together when it comes to this issue.
>
> I have quoted SEVERAL time here, I seek the truth...nothing but the truth
> here.
>
> I really can't imagine you standing here and think this type of behaviors by
> these scientists is just fine and dandy and does not WARRANT A SEROUS CHANGE
> in how this peer process works, of which clearly there is none!
>
> I can ONLY think you really don't care about truth and science, do you? That
> what makes our side differnt then your side....
>
> What part of the email quote I used did you fail to read?
>
johnm is the poster I'd expect to the Global Warming gravy train to
launch to reduce the damage they're at present suffering.
And might I add the excerpts you posted don't show the collusion of
the 179 'scientists' and others in presenting a united front.
mrbawana2u
> More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. [NOT]
You can't keep changing the subject forever, moron.
mrbawana2u
> "JohnM" <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6f2eda0d-b25a-4abf-82fd-
>
> > And, MORE important the emails show that every effort here is not about
> > the
> > science, but about policy, the public impression and do EVERYTHING
> > POSSIBLE
> > to KEEP the GRAVY TRAIN of grant and research money flowing.
>
> > It you don't think that ignoring anything that hurts your cause, and using
> > ANY thing that SUPPORTS your cause is not corrupted science, then I can
> > really can't help you. It is exactly YOUR kind of mentality that gives us
> > the banking scandals, the Enron's, and now this rotten to the core
> > behaviors
> > by climate scientists...
> >>Yet another pillock that hasn't read a single one of the emails.
>
> You really need to clean your glasses. I quoted direct from those emails in
> that post of mine...
>
> I don't really understand you. You seem to be taking the same corrupt point
> of view that these people have. Why do you spin and put words into my mouth?
>
> Seems birds of feather really do flock together when it comes to this issue.
They can't wait for the next lie to come out of their pie holes.
> I have quoted SEVERAL time here, I seek the truth...nothing but the truth
> here.
>
> I really can't imagine you standing here and think this type of behaviors by
> these scientists is just fine and dandy and does not WARRANT A SEROUS CHANGE
> in how this peer process works, of which clearly there is none!
Lib-turds, like johnmoron,
are not offended by those type of behaviors
and does not want any change.
They have no moral compass and strangely,
they derive satisfaction from being lied to.
JohnMoron and his ilk are damaged units.
b*o*n*z*o
I M @ good guy
wrote:
179 scientists?
Where can I find that?
Rob Dekker
"Green Turtle" <Super...@greenpiece.com> wrote in message
news:SgiOm.77524$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
....
> However, defraud tax payer money?
>
> <quote>
> That is why it is important for us
> to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE
> and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer
> the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
> and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
> will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
> big taxes
> </quote>
>
> So, it clear that ways to hide, or even to avoid how money is doled out
> for projects. You seem to forget that these people don't pay taxes in the
> first place!!! (that is correct, they are LIVING OFF the tax system. So,
> while they file income tax, they are revving more tax dollars then they
> are paying. The simple math lesson here is that they don't pay taxes, they
> receive and live off the tax system).
>
Not much is clear from this text at all.
Do you know what this was about, who wrote it, and to whom ?
Also, how do you know FOR SURE that there is NO tax difference between small
donations and large, lump sums ?
All this would be a bit more informative than simply snipping some text and
putting your own spin on it.
As for the "they are living off the tax system" remark, well, I have no clue
where you got that from.
Do you have some evidence of that ?
Either way, if there is some tax law violated, then I would expect the IRS
to be all over it very quickly.
Rob
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Transfer funds to personal accounts?
There are no personal account tax free charities,
the avoidance of sums over 10k is to avoid a record
going to the IRS, maybe you will be inclined to be
their friend in court and argue that it was all just
for being planet saviors.
Who gives so much money to personal
accounts that the recipient has to be concerned
about the deposits being too big?
Suggest that they use a land line for all
subterfuge talk, not email.
Maybe you missed what I think of the scheming
leftist who thinks ignoring tax law is ok.
JohnM
wrote:
> "JohnM" <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6f2eda0d-b25a-4abf-82fd-
>
> > And, MORE important the emails show that every effort here is not about
> > the
> > science, but about policy, the public impression and do EVERYTHING
> > POSSIBLE
> > to KEEP the GRAVY TRAIN of grant and research money flowing.
>
> > It you don't think that ignoring anything that hurts your cause, and using
> > ANY thing that SUPPORTS your cause is not corrupted science, then I can
> > really can't help you. It is exactly YOUR kind of mentality that gives us
> > the banking scandals, the Enron's, and now this rotten to the core
> > behaviors
> > by climate scientists...
> >>Yet another pillock that hasn't read a single one of the emails.
>
> You really need to clean your glasses. I quoted direct from those emails in
> that post of mine...
Nope. You cut-and-pasted, most likely from a website comment
elsewhere. In order to quote you need to post a reference to the
original location.
JohnM
You can't. It's all part of his obviously drug-induced illusions.
Claudius Denk
> More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
> evidence of any worldwide conspiracy,
It seems to me it was chalk-full of evidence of a conspiracy. But,
then again, there has always been abundant evidence of conspiracy.
> no mention of George Soros
> nefariously funding climate research,
Yeah, so?
> no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
> MWP’,
Uh, now you are just being evasive.
> no admission that global warming is a hoax,
Prisons are full of people that swear to their innocence.
> no evidence of the
> falsifying of data,
No? Did you read it?
JohnM
> On Nov 22, 9:43 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
> > evidence of any worldwide conspiracy,
>
> It seems to me it was chalk-full of evidence of a conspiracy. But,
> then again, there has always been abundant evidence of conspiracy.
>
> > no mention of George Soros
> > nefariously funding climate research,
>
> Yeah, so?
>
> > no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
> > MWP’,
>
> Uh, now you are just being evasive.
>
> > no admission that global warming is a hoax,
>
> Prisons are full of people that swear to their innocence.
>
> > no evidence of the
> > falsifying of data,
>
> No? Did you read it?
I think enough of you have done so to be able to cut-and-paste the
relevant parts of any incriminating emails in this collection. The
'floor' is yours, Denkipoo. Roll 'em on.
george
> Nope. You cut-and-pasted, most likely from a website comment
> elsewhere. In order to quote you need to post a reference to the
> original location
Upon which you will go further into denial.
The quotes he gave came from the emails which I rather suspect you
know but for some reason will not admit...
george
> I think enough of you have done so to be able to cut-and-paste the
> relevant parts of any incriminating emails in this collection. The
> 'floor' is yours, Denkipoo. Roll 'em on.
>
Explain then if you can:
Phil Jones warns Michael Mann that Steve McIntyre and Prof Ross
McKittrick,
two sceptics who first debunked Mann's "hockey stick", are now wanting
to
check CRU data:
***"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. "
Is that how you Poms run scientific enquiry?
JohnM
> On Nov 24, 5:06 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Nope. You cut-and-pasted, most likely from a website comment
> > elsewhere. In order to quote you need to post a reference to the
> > original location
>
> Upon which you will go further into denial.
> The quotes he gave came from the emails
That much is certain. What is most unlikely is that he actually read
the emails, rather than just a denialist website's cherry-pick.
JohnM
What's to explain. I can see that PJ doesn't want two of the Three
Stooges fabricating nonsense from a valuable collection of data. If
you were the owner of a van Gogh, would you send it to a mafia owned
Sicilian museum that asked for a loan of it?
george
> On Nov 25, 8:35 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 5:06 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Nope. You cut-and-pasted, most likely from a website comment
> > > elsewhere. In order to quote you need to post a reference to the
> > > original location
>
> > Upon which you will go further into denial.
> > The quotes he gave came from the emails
>
> That much is certain. What is most unlikely is that he actually read
> the emails, rather than just a denialist website's cherry-pick.
>
If he is 'cherrypicking' information from the emails he, by dint of
your argument, must be reading the emails to glean the information
that he then posts.
The 'climate scientists' advocating manmade global warming are doing
so from invented data.
They have been caught out
JohnM
> On Nov 26, 8:43 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:> On Nov 25, 8:35 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 24, 5:06 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Nope. You cut-and-pasted, most likely from a website comment
> > > > elsewhere. In order to quote you need to post a reference to the
> > > > original location
>
> > > Upon which you will go further into denial.
> > > The quotes he gave came from the emails
>
> > That much is certain. What is most unlikely is that he actually read
> > the emails, rather than just a denialist website's cherry-pick.
>
> Let's take your point and examine it to see just how asinine it is.
> If he is 'cherrypicking' information from the emails he, by dint of
> your argument, must be reading the emails to glean the information
> that he then posts.
No, stupid. I proposed he's reading a denialist website. The denialist
website cherry-picks because it's what they do.
george
> On Nov 26, 12:26 am, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 8:43 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:> On Nov 25, 8:35 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 24, 5:06 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Nope. You cut-and-pasted, most likely from a website comment
> > > > > elsewhere. In order to quote you need to post a reference to the
> > > > > original location
>
> > > > Upon which you will go further into denial.
> > > > The quotes he gave came from the emails
>
> > > That much is certain. What is most unlikely is that he actually read
> > > the emails, rather than just a denialist website's cherry-pick.
>
> > Let's take your point and examine it to see just how asinine it is.
> > If he is 'cherrypicking' information from the emails he, by dint of
> > your argument, must be reading the emails to glean the information
> > that he then posts.
>
> No, stupid. I proposed he's reading a denialist website. The denialist
> website cherry-picks because it's what they do.
>
Just looking through some of the posts made that show deliberate
attempts to hide the fact that data was altered with an agenda in
mind.
Keith Briffa <k.br...@uea.ac.uk>
To: Edward Cook <drde...@ldeo.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 16:02:09 2003
Snip
I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural,
Biological, and
Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from
Berkeley, that claims
that the method of reconstruction that we use in
dendroclimatology (reverse regression)
is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask
recon as the main
whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes
from your 1992 paper.
Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it
possible to resurrect the
column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to
refute their claims.
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is
also an ugly paper to
review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-
Jenkins stuff in it. It
won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be
correct theoretically,
but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out
theoretical deficiencies,
without showing that their improved inverse regression method is
actually better in a
practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows
the superiority of
their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but
NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask
reconstruction from what you produced.
Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will
let Tornetrask sink into
the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of
course).