This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Somebody is using my nudes against me
- I need help. Instagram account.
- what's up with the mass psychosis on tiktok?
- How to destroy someone at school
- Coventry University or De Montfort University for Ethical Hacking/ Cyber Security
- Unethical American Surveillance Recently,
- Official: University of East Anglia (UEA) A100 2023 Entry
- Anyone applying for 2023? (UEA)
- Official: University of East Anglia A100 and A104 Offer Holders 2024 entry
- uea student support
- Official: University of East Anglia (UEA) A100 2024 Entry
- Leaked 2023 MAT paper
- Official University of East Anglia (UEA) 2022 Applicant Thread
- Paramedic science 2022!!!!
- Official: University of East Anglia A100/A104 2023 Offer Holders Thread
- University of Dundee A104 (Gateway to Medicine) 2023 Applicants and Offer Holders
- Make it More Breakfast-ey !!
- CHASE PHD studentships
- MyUEA Account
- Cyber security at uni
Hacker leaks thousands of (UEA) emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the
A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.
The link to the data appears to have been posted to a number of climate science websites yesterday by an anonymous hacker or insider going by the name “FOIA,” an apparent allusion to the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science sites.
The information contained in the leaked emails and documents are as shocking as they are damning of the scientists who have been most vocal about the manmade global warming scare. Some of the excerpts include this email, purportedly from Phil Jones to researchers including Michael Mann of “Mann’s hockey stick” fame:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxxDear 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
And this excerpt in which researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal because he seems to be sympathetic to climate realists:
M,
This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.
T.
According to Investigate magazine out of Australia, Dr. Phil Jones has now confirmed that these emails do appear to be real.
The importance of this information will not be lost on The Corbett Report’s audience, as a recent interview I conducted with Tim Ball discussed the very issue of the Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones’ intense secrecy regarding their data:
Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty talks, it is imperative that we have a true and open debate about climate change before we make potentially world-changing decisions based on this science. It is up to all of us to push this story and its staggering implications into the mainstream.
The link to the data appears to have been posted to a number of climate science websites yesterday by an anonymous hacker or insider going by the name “FOIA,” an apparent allusion to the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science sites.
The information contained in the leaked emails and documents are as shocking as they are damning of the scientists who have been most vocal about the manmade global warming scare. Some of the excerpts include this email, purportedly from Phil Jones to researchers including Michael Mann of “Mann’s hockey stick” fame:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxxDear 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
And this excerpt in which researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal because he seems to be sympathetic to climate realists:
M,
This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.
T.
According to Investigate magazine out of Australia, Dr. Phil Jones has now confirmed that these emails do appear to be real.
The importance of this information will not be lost on The Corbett Report’s audience, as a recent interview I conducted with Tim Ball discussed the very issue of the Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones’ intense secrecy regarding their data:
Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty talks, it is imperative that we have a true and open debate about climate change before we make potentially world-changing decisions based on this science. It is up to all of us to push this story and its staggering implications into the mainstream.
Scroll to see replies
Any proof?
sandeep90
Any proof?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner
These people do not deserve to call themselves scientists.
This is gonna run! SP
heres one from the new york times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
Does anyone else find it odd that Global Warming as a world problem has only come about in recent years when the Western world can see that China and India are gaining fast on them?
I thought of it as being a whole plan on stopping the East from becoming powerful as India and China need to go through the same process the West did (e.g. Industrialisation) to get into the position we are in now.
Plus the West is trying to get India and China to lower its emissions which is kind of hypocritical considering the 150 years that the West had been using extremely polluting factories.
I wouldn't be surprised if data had been changed. Happens all the time in every stat used by the Governments of the world.
I thought of it as being a whole plan on stopping the East from becoming powerful as India and China need to go through the same process the West did (e.g. Industrialisation) to get into the position we are in now.
Plus the West is trying to get India and China to lower its emissions which is kind of hypocritical considering the 150 years that the West had been using extremely polluting factories.
I wouldn't be surprised if data had been changed. Happens all the time in every stat used by the Governments of the world.
Wasn't there a thread on this yesterday?
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=22379247
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=22379247
Craig_D
OK, well didn't know, just replyed to your question on the other thread. as long as its out there.
jodylee
Thats kina the point, the fact that it was reported at all, when the mainstream media are well behind the man made global warming theory just shows how big a story it is.
We have contributed massively to global warming.
Take a look at the research which has been published by major universities world wide.
Global warming is a fact, all this proves is that 1 department in UEA could not be asked to do the experiments and research properly back in 1999.
I'm sure a jackass made stuff up when researching aspirin back in the day, it makes if no less effective.
It's kind of tucked away as an article on BBC. It's all very weird though; they admit it's been genuinely hacked into and material has been published on the internet but not made any comment on on whether all the climate change info is genuine (except to say that they can't say whether it's genuine or not...surely if it wasn't they would say so, even if they can only comment on the gist of it? They should only surely have reason to be evasive if it was true.) And why would anyone hack into their computer system just to make stuff up? At least some of it must be genuine.
But even the suggestion that there might be evidence they've fiddled with climate change data should be a main news story. It's very fishy that it's not.
And this will be including the UK government who sacked their own independent drug advisor because they wouldn't toe the party line?
If amounted to anything substantial it would be the main headline on worldwide news.
But even the suggestion that there might be evidence they've fiddled with climate change data should be a main news story. It's very fishy that it's not.
^^ dont think so, this article came out on the 20th and I havent heard of it till now. Governments wouldnt let that happen.
And this will be including the UK government who sacked their own independent drug advisor because they wouldn't toe the party line?
vas876
If amounted to anything substantial it would be the main headline on worldwide news.
How about you look at the data before jumping to a conclusion? They were pruning data points to get better overall analyses, they knew full well that they'd made a serious mistake (setting data out upside-down) even though they publically ridiculed the scientist who pointed it out at the time, they were colluding to expel skeptics from scientific organisations, and they were abusing intellectual property law with the specific intention of delaying and denying FoIA requests to prevent oversight, which is now understandable given how unscientific they were being.
Substantial enough for you?
Firstly this is probably the most important department in the world when it comes to climate resurch and data, seconly they did do the experiments right they just didn't like the data so tried to hide the decline in temperatures. don't get me wrong I think we should all be using solar and wind and planting not cutting down trees etc... but I can't except bad science and these scientists have our trust and when they lie to us how can we trust them. Thirdly the whole argument is based on data when you have been shown to manipulate that data then there is no argument.
Most people have been misinformed about this here is one example anwser these questions#
What makes up 98% of green house gases?
does carbon dioxide cause temperature to rise?
are we in the warmest period of all time?
Most people have been misinformed about this here is one example anwser these questions#
What makes up 98% of green house gases?
does carbon dioxide cause temperature to rise?
are we in the warmest period of all time?
numb3rb0y
How about you look at the data before jumping to a conclusion? They were pruning data points to get better overall analyses, they knew full well that they'd made a serious mistake (setting data out upside-down) even though they publically ridiculed the scientist who pointed it out at the time, they were colluding to expel skeptics from scientific organisations, and they were abusing intellectual property law with the specific intention of delaying and denying FoIA requests to prevent oversight, which is now understandable given how unscientific they were being.
Substantial enough for you?
Substantial enough for you?
What you said i quite agree with.
But the OP implied that climate change is a lie.
Qaz25
Does anyone else find it odd that Global Warming as a world problem has only come about in recent years when the Western world can see that China and India are gaining fast on them?
I thought of it as being a whole plan on stopping the East from becoming powerful as India and China need to go through the same process the West did (e.g. Industrialisation) to get into the position we are in now.
Plus the West is trying to get India and China to lower its emissions which is kind of hypocritical considering the 150 years that the West had been using extremely polluting factories.
I wouldn't be surprised if data had been changed. Happens all the time in every stat used by the Governments of the world.
I thought of it as being a whole plan on stopping the East from becoming powerful as India and China need to go through the same process the West did (e.g. Industrialisation) to get into the position we are in now.
Plus the West is trying to get India and China to lower its emissions which is kind of hypocritical considering the 150 years that the West had been using extremely polluting factories.
I wouldn't be surprised if data had been changed. Happens all the time in every stat used by the Governments of the world.
not only that we our paying taxes called Climate change levy CCL on our power bills already more to come and who will manage the new carbon taxes and CCl's the IMF and world bank.
jodylee
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxxDear 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
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxxDear 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
Hahaha
Busted! Shame Phil
Global warming is a conspiracy made by rich and powerful countries and in order for the ruling classes to control the lower classes. There are people who are trying to stop working class people going to Alicante and Benidorm for a holiday flight when regular flights to New York, Tokyo and Sydney are seen as acceptable.
Also low emissions apparatus like these new apparatus are being introduced so the government can gradually gain more control of markets, with things like BT, EOn and British Gas.
Also low emissions apparatus like these new apparatus are being introduced so the government can gradually gain more control of markets, with things like BT, EOn and British Gas.
Related discussions
- Somebody is using my nudes against me
- I need help. Instagram account.
- what's up with the mass psychosis on tiktok?
- How to destroy someone at school
- Coventry University or De Montfort University for Ethical Hacking/ Cyber Security
- Unethical American Surveillance Recently,
- Official: University of East Anglia (UEA) A100 2023 Entry
- Anyone applying for 2023? (UEA)
- Official: University of East Anglia A100 and A104 Offer Holders 2024 entry
- uea student support
- Official: University of East Anglia (UEA) A100 2024 Entry
- Leaked 2023 MAT paper
- Official University of East Anglia (UEA) 2022 Applicant Thread
- Paramedic science 2022!!!!
- Official: University of East Anglia A100/A104 2023 Offer Holders Thread
- University of Dundee A104 (Gateway to Medicine) 2023 Applicants and Offer Holders
- Make it More Breakfast-ey !!
- CHASE PHD studentships
- MyUEA Account
- Cyber security at uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
