Massive Leak! Proven Collusion to Stop GW Critics!

[Groovy_Guy]

This is probably the biggest leak ever in terms of catching the global warming scientists working together to silence critics. This is absolutely required reading. It's spreading around the internet and is admitted authentic by the hacked party.

It contains, among other things, many personal emails, with back-and-forth chatter on eliminating certain scientists ideas and data. Again, extremely important information here. I've opened it all and found no viruses or trojans, it's just lots and lots of reading!

Enjoy:

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

[jjohnson]

Can someone independently confirm that this is safe to download? Sounds interesting, but...

[solrey]

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

This appears to be genuine. I trust the WUWT link above.

An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents

The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.

It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.

I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.

Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments

Here's a sample of an email from that file:
emphasis mine

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx



Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
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.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

This one is a gem, regarding Michael Hockey Stick Mann.

From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley



Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not
without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.

My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.

I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate
change.

Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
then…

I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
it.

What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?

Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.

Cheers, Peck

Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903

WOW! I think many of us suspected this kind of stuff, but here's absolute proof (apparently CRU admitted to being hacked) of why I don't trust the "scientific" community in general, and especially as relates to AGW.
And why I trust you all instead.

Me thinks the repercussions will reach far and wide.

It's astonishing that this guy, even with reservations, has to ask this question:

What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?

NO. If you have to ask, you should not be a "scientist".

[Groovy_Guy]

The link I provided was via a comment on the original blog that broke the news in the first place.

Everyone on the blog was searching for a download link, so this was provided. I know links are sketchy, but we need to share this information somehow.

[Grey Cloud]

Thanks for posting this Groovy_Guy. Looks good.

[solrey]

Here's a good interview, from the Corbett Report, of a retired climatologist.

According to Dr. Ball, the hijacking of the peer-review process by this small group is the most disturbing revelation, even more so than the data manipulation.

Makes me wonder how much of that kind of thing is going on in cosmology/astrophysics, or any of the other sciences. It's probably rampant, considering Scientific Fraud May Be More Widespread Than Thought, Poll Says

Maybe helps explain why the EU skeptics are always demanding "peer-reviewed" papers 'cause they know the "referee deck" is stacked against any theories contrary to their dogma.

[Groovy_Guy]

I'm not as worried with the implications of this data in regards to E.U. theory as I am about carbon taxing and other methods of control.

If E.U. theory pans-out, we could be looking at nothing short of a revolution. We have been in a 100-year slumber as powerful interests grabbed our energy, science and made us dependent on it. Now that people are able to draw their own electricity without being on the grid, and are learning to be less dependent, we have a real chance to be free again.

It's about information and freedom. If we can all keep our wits, resist any changes to the internet (which has been an invaluable tool of knowledge), resist taxation on carbon (which is a tax on everything) and believe in a world in which debt isn't a necessity.....

Hope is nice every once in awhile eh?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Groovy_Guy,
Not sure what part of the world you are in but here in the UK the story has featured in the Daily Mail (Saturday and Monday), although not on the front page. Decent coverage from the DM which mentioned the moral aspects as well as asking questions about how true is MMGW etc. Not sure if any of this is in the online edition.
The BBC has the story on its website under 'Science and Environment' which redirects to 'Technology' where they have managed to turn it into a computer security issue. Pathetic but to be expected from the Banalities and Bullshit Corporation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm

There is another story about the proposed Swine flu vaccination and lying experts doing the rounds at the moment:
http://www.vimeo.com/7298827 (Spanish with English subtitles)

Grey Cloud's Iron Law has never been more true:
"Whatever an expert says, immediately assume the opposite to be the case".
It's kept me in good stead for several decades.

[keeha]

Only 62 out of 165 Megs of data so far released. Getting MSM coverage:
Youtube: Fox News: Calls for Investigation of Climategate Grow

[Grey Cloud]

Only 62 out of 165 Megs of data so far released. Getting MSM coverage:
Youtube: Fox News: Calls for Investigation of Climategate Grow

Nice one Keeha.
It's come to something when Fox, owned by the diabolical digger Murdoch, reports on this but not the BBC which sees itself as the paradigm of objective and unbiased reporting. 'Auntie' is still selling this as a computer security issue. Meanwhile it has already begun peddling the propaganda for Copehagen.

[kc0itf]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/

If we can't trust the climate science peer-reviewed process, why trust any other?!

[Anaconda]

Make no mistake about it, the revelation of manipulation of data and more important for Plasma Cosmology, the unethical behind the scenes political pressure to keep papers from publication in peer-reviewed journals, paints a picture where the powers that be in a scientific discipline will work in concert to suppress rival scientific analysis & interpretation.

In astronomy, it's doubly difficult because the graduate schools have choked off the study of alternative theories.

Post graduate students fast realize the path of least resistence to publication and promotion in the discipline is one of parrotting the party-line. Ostricism and professional isolation are the reward for challenging the status quo.

Few souls are willing to buck that kind of political pressure to conform.

But for the few who do challenge the status quo, by the only way possible, through submission of scientific papers that challenge the status quo, it seems their lot is to be politically blackballed and have their papers unethically declined for publication -- yes, "hide the decline" -- has multiple meanings in this case.

The persistent request for peer-reviewed papers is likely made with the comforting knowledge that there are active political forces preventing such papers from getting published.

It's sick...

No promotion, no publication, no professional acceptance in the discipline, is it any wonder why up and coming astronomers, open-minded about Plasma Cosmology, are so hard to find

[Anaconda]

Why spell out such a stark reality?

Hopefully, with a mind's eye to the possibility that "peepers" will see this and know in their gut how wrong this situation is for Science.

Science is for considering possibilities, not dismissing them out of hand.

That's the direction Science needs to go.

[Anaconda]

"For may claim of the recent lack of warming I cite Kevin Trenberth, who states in one of the e-mails, “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.” Note the joke? It can’t be the theory that is wrong; it must be the data because it does not fit the theory."

Where have we seen that before?

[davesmith_au]

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 86&start=0

A video recently released by forum member MagicJava is now linked from our multimedia section. Send as many friends as you can to see this video - it's already had over 20,000 views in just four days!!

Cheers, Dave.