Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center." [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The emails are part of the normal scientific discussion. There is no proof in them of a conspiracy to lie about climate change. There is no proof in them that current climate change theory is off base. In fact, they reach the opposite conclusion.
They can, however, be viewed more selectively, and less in context, and be made to look as if they're proving whatever the reader wants them to prove.
The furore, therefore, stems from the fact that these are not documents, but pieces of a conversation. Without taking into account the entire conversation, it's really not wise to read anything into them. There's a reason these emails were not intentionally published, and it's not nefarious.
I've gone through a lot of them, certainly not all or even close to all. But, none of the communications I read were out of context at all. I read entire email conversations and the insult to the integrity of science and peer-review is unforgivable in what I have seen.UEA emails: Cherry picking phrases (out of context) doesn't further the climate discussion | Midwest Voices
The emails are part of the normal scientific discussion. There is no proof in them of a conspiracy to lie about climate change. There is no proof in them that current climate change theory is off base. In fact, they reach the opposite conclusion.
They can, however, be viewed more selectively, and less in context, and be made to look as if they're proving whatever the reader wants them to prove.
The furore, therefore, stems from the fact that these are not documents, but pieces of a conversation. Without taking into account the entire conversation, it's really not wise to read anything into them. There's a reason these emails were not intentionally published, and it's not nefarious.
I've gone through a lot of them, certainly not all or even close to all. But, none of the communications I read were out of context at all. I read entire email conversations and the insult to the integrity of science and peer-review is unforgivable in what I have seen.
Luckily, I was able to save a lot of that before it was no longer available, too.
Excellent! I was looking for something like that earlier.I've gone through a lot of them, certainly not all or even close to all. But, none of the communications I read were out of context at all. I read entire email conversations and the insult to the integrity of science and peer-review is unforgivable in what I have seen.
Luckily, I was able to save a lot of that before it was no longer available, too.
A searchable index: CRU Emails - Searchable
The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.
The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.
dopey libs.The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails (the text of which I still haven't seen) which just happen to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming. And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails (the text of which I still haven't seen) which just happen to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming. And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
You didn't read them? lol...Yet you are already jumping to conclusions? You should look at them, read them, understand what they mean. Then you can cry for a while after you realize that you've been duped by a scientific hoax.
Doesn't New Zealand have a cow fart tax? .
Subpoenas? For WHAT? You gonna sue, sweetheart?
Congress and UK Parliament both are looking into now. Really should keep up, sweetie.
Congress knows? Imagine that. Here I thought NOBODY knew except the right-wing blogosphere. At least that was the OP analysis.
Climategate: This story won't die
By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
CBS News Correspondent Declan McCullough provides an excellent summary of where things stand and the significance of the revelations. George Monbiot, a U.K. climate-change activist, admits that it's "no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
Congress may investigate. East Anglia acknowledges that it's systems were hacked, but hasn't yet confirmed the e-mails' authenticity. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia page. For journalists, the question of whether to delve into this would seem obvious. You already have a very big breaking story. Maybe it will ultimately support the claims of those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, maybe it won't.
But right now, we have enough info to conclude there's probable cause to believe people at the Climate Research Unit fiddled with the data and discussed destroying e-mails to thwart a freedom-of-information requests. One e-mail talked about how to "hide the decline," the phrase that's become a rallying cry for AGW skeptics. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com is all over this one: Just keep scrolling.
Submitted by mcclanahan on November 25, 2009 - 11:50am.
November 26, 2009 'Climategate' puts warming in question | detnews.com | The Detroit News
'Climategate' puts warming in question
NOLAN FINLEY
President Barack Obama is about to stride off to Copenhagen, where he'll sign away any hope that America can return to sustained prosperity.
The president promises next month's international palaver on climate change will be marked by aggressive action to combat global warming and a firm commitment by the United States to shoulder its share of the responsibility.
Translation: Obama will pledge the United States to curbing its appetite for energy, and thus its economic growth, will make reducing emissions a higher priority than creating new jobs and will agree to transfer $1.6 trillion of our wealth to China, India and the other booming developing economies.
And it may be based on doctored numbers.
The so-called Climategate scandal hasn't hit the front pages of American newspapers yet and may never. But it ought to at least raise the skepticism level of a public that has been panicked into believing the sky is falling, or the polar caps are melting, because of manmade global warming...
...When you read some of those files including 1079 emails and 72 documents you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be the greatest in modern science. These alleged emails supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
...
But perhaps the most damaging revelations the scientific equivalent of the Telegraphs MPs expenses scandal are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. 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.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. Hes not in at the moment minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I dont have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, Ill be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
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 backI 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 dont yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back .
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.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do about this? 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?
I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September I wrote the story up here as How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie - CRUs researchers were exposed as having cherry-picked data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC....
It won't die:
Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
Climategate: This story won't die
By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
CBS News Correspondent Declan McCullough provides an excellent summary of where things stand and the significance of the revelations. George Monbiot, a U.K. climate-change activist, admits that it's "no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
Congress may investigate. East Anglia acknowledges that it's systems were hacked, but hasn't yet confirmed the e-mails' authenticity. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia page. For journalists, the question of whether to delve into this would seem obvious. You already have a very big breaking story. Maybe it will ultimately support the claims of those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, maybe it won't.
But right now, we have enough info to conclude there's probable cause to believe people at the Climate Research Unit fiddled with the data and discussed destroying e-mails to thwart a freedom-of-information requests. One e-mail talked about how to "hide the decline," the phrase that's become a rallying cry for AGW skeptics. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com is all over this one: Just keep scrolling.
Submitted by mcclanahan on November 25, 2009 - 11:50am.
The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
It won't die:
Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
Climategate: This story won't die
By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
CBS News Correspondent Declan McCullough provides an excellent summary of where things stand and the significance of the revelations. George Monbiot, a U.K. climate-change activist, admits that it's "no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
Congress may investigate. East Anglia acknowledges that it's systems were hacked, but hasn't yet confirmed the e-mails' authenticity. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia page. For journalists, the question of whether to delve into this would seem obvious. You already have a very big breaking story. Maybe it will ultimately support the claims of those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, maybe it won't.
But right now, we have enough info to conclude there's probable cause to believe people at the Climate Research Unit fiddled with the data and discussed destroying e-mails to thwart a freedom-of-information requests. One e-mail talked about how to "hide the decline," the phrase that's become a rallying cry for AGW skeptics. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com is all over this one: Just keep scrolling.
Submitted by mcclanahan on November 25, 2009 - 11:50am.
The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
It won't die:
Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
We'll see. CBS and ABC and WaPo all have 'bloggers' that have written about it, with critical eyes. Now the question, do they release these reporters, that are low paid just above internees? Sort of like Woodward and Bernstein in the 70's?
I've sen those opinions in print too, Emma.
Problem is that there are precious few facts to back up that opinion-based "journalism".
And don't tell me that the author of that piece has gone through all 250+ gigs of documents in this dump, because nobody has.
