If this story in the Wall Street Journal is correct the answer is yes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Backgound:

As the WSJ reports, hackers accessed thousands of documents and emails from the servers of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. These have now been placed on the internet.

Here are some quotes from WSJ

"The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists…is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. ..."

"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."

So they fudged their data.

This has ramifications that extend beyond climate research. In what other fields are scientists fudging data? I know of at least one other field in which important research has been suppressed because of the political implications.

Have we truly reached the point where the so-called scientific consensus is what scientists who value their positions, pay, pensions and research grants are prepared to say in public?

Do scientists expect the public to continue taking them seriously?

Do they expect to continue getting public funding?

Fudging data by adding to it, subtracting from it or manipulating your data sources is THE cardinal sin of science. Any scientist who engages in that sort of behaviour needs to be sacked immediately. That's the way it used to be and that's the way it should be again.

You can find the hacked archive here:

http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

It is interesting that at the time of writing neither the ABC nor the BBC appear to have reported on the story

Correction.

It turns out the BBC has reported on the hacking of the Climate Research Unit server – after a fashion.

See:

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

The report covers the bare fact of the hacking. It does not describe what the hack revealed.

stevenlmeyer: << It is interesting that at the time of writing neither the ABC nor the BBC appear to have reported on the story >>

I would think that they are investigating the story in some depth, given the potential ramifications. Seems like a much more objective - not to mention effective - way of reporting the unfolding apparent scandal, than sending premature and ignorant trolls out into the blogosphere in order to generate yet another hatefest.

Since virtually nobody here has access yet to the information on which this story is based, this appears to be just another troll from Steven, of the kind to which we're accustomed.

I'm going to hang back for a while until more information is available - but I'm sure that won't stop the usual crew from taking the bait and running with it.

CJ writes

'I would think that they are investigating the story in some depth, '

What a joke. Maybe they should check out the ridiculous predictions of some of these High Priest before they annoint them as experts. The ABC/SBS are so indoctrinated with dogma and have been caught up in this scam refusing to report any sort of balance. Mr Rudd and Ms Wong should apologise while it has become fashionable to them. They have been caught out as very naive or extremely deceitful.

Yes, I'll reserve judgement at this stage too, CJ. This story has a way to run yet, I'd say.

Here's a more balanced take on it for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

I'd be surprised if these emails are a random sample. More likely someone's been working on this for a long time and been paid very handsomely for it too. By whom is the question.

Oh I dunno, Bronwyn. runner seems to have inside info of the kind that Steven obviously wants to attract.

Of course, runner's source is impeccable - Jesus told him ;)

Bronwyn,

You don’t need a "random sample" to prove fudging.

I have managed to gather what I THINK is a reasonably complete set of hacked emails.

Excerpt: Email from Mick Kelly to Phil Jones dated 26 Oct 2008.

"Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years."

In other words when I give the talk again I'll exclude the inconvenient data points.

Phil Jones is director of the Climate Research Unit.

I think "Mick Kelly" is the editor of Tiempo. See:

http://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/newswatch/editors.htm

Excerpt of email from Phil Jones, 16 Nov 1999.

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 (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

"Ray" seems to be Ray Bradley. See:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/

"Malcolm" is probably Malcolm Hughes. See:

http://www.environment.arizona.edu/

I think "Mike" is Michael Mann. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

On the face of it these seem pretty damning.

FOR THE RECORD

I do not doubt the risks inherent in continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I hope Copenhagen and its aftermath will lead to a binding treaty on emission reduction.

However I despise scientists who cook their data. IF (repeat, IF) that's what's happened here these guys need to be fired for the good of science.

The Guardian article notwithstanding CRU appears to have confirmed that the documents and emails are genuine.

its funny its been a talking point all week..
on the links

finally it hit the..our..papers today....
and hopefully by tony abbot..at question time

hopefully an..oppology to tony from tony..on lateline tonight

anyhow..here is more on the scam
and the..eugenics adgenda..behind the lie

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-road-to-copenhagen-part-iii-a-%e2%80%9cplanetary-regime%e2%80%9d-in-the-making.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-bombshell-hacker-leaks-thousands-of-emails-showing-conspiracy-to-hide-the-real-data-on-manmade-climate-change.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/portland-protest-of-al-gore.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/stolen-e-mails-reveal-venomous-feelings-toward-climate-skeptics.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/how-we-discovered-verizon%e2%80%99s-spamdetector-could-be-twisted-into-a-disguise-for-censorship.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/inhofe-to-boxer-we-won-you-lost-now-get-a-life.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/britains-new-internet-law-as-bad-as-everyones-been-saying-and-worse-much-much-worse.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/wells-fargo-says-it-doesnt-have-to-reserve-against-its-off-balance-sheet-residential-exposure-because-the-fha-meaning-the-taxpayers-will-pay-for-it.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-allies-want-new-tax-to-pay-for-cost-of-protecting-afghan-opium-fields-bribing-taliban.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fed-sicks-attack-dogs-on-ron-paul-after-audit-amendment-passes.html

It would not surprise me at all if our SA Premier now becomes a champion of the gw movement. It seems integrity means nothing to them both. I wonder who will be the first Labour pollie to have some integrity in this issue? Don't hold your breath.

I've been reading through a few of the emails this morning, and I can't see any "smoking gun".

The flat-earthers are going to seize on the apparent discussion of "spin" - how to present data and theory in order to give a particular view of the science - but I can guarantee you right now that they'll refuse to recognise the context. Most of the supposedly conspiratorial emails are discussions of how to present the science intelligibly without giving industry spin-doctors ammunition to misrepresent the case.

The industry lobby and its employees rely on the fact that the public is ill-informed and not very scientifically literate. This allows them to publish any old rubbish (It's the sun! People who research climate for a living never even thought of the sun!) and have it believed by a decent minority of the population because it tallies with a political ideology.

Personally, I'm going to enjoy this entire episode. The "sceptics" are going to dig themselves even further into the conspiracy theory that the world's scientists are sleeper agents for global socialism - thus alienating anyone who isn't, you know, mad - and prompt environmentalist hackers to go for payback.

The real gems are going to be the leaked emails from Astroturfed think tanks and neo-Lysenkoists like Ian Plimer. Would any "sceptics" like to place their bets now on whether that correspondence will contain either rigourous science or outright discussion of how to lie most effectively?

Steven,
I beginning to see a pattern here, I wonder if you aren't simply playing games.

Nice neat tidy bundles in science don't exist nor do godlike scientists.

I find it amazing that you seem to be implying that there is anything odd about the in fighting in scientific circles much less in *Observational sciences*.

Last time I checked most scientists are human (well almost) that simply means, they are less than perfect and one should expect all of the above.

My limited exposure to the scientific communities confirms this.
One wonders at time how these characters can agree on when and where to hold the conferences based on the back room hostility. Every conference unleashes clandestine motives and a flurry of axe grinding and knife sharpening.

As an observational science there will be a larger area for interpretations and 'fudge' levels etc.

Despite the enormous computing power involved their models are still relatively speculative. No computer or group thereof would be able to make all the calculations let alone the inputs to provide pin point accuracy.

As for the IPPC report it is/was a snap shot based on a conservative synthesis of published (peer reviewed) articles. Add to this it was for policy makers not scientists.

Untill I see contexts I am neither surprised nor shocked (I assumed there would that and a lot more.)

Of course the BBC only gave the bare bones. Details may turn out to be libelous.

There is an old joke " what do you get if you line competing scientist in a line?"
Answer: "I don't know but it will be noisy and it won't be a conclusion".

The whole topic at the moment is a sensationalized beat up. Comes under the heading of "yes dear" (unless you have an axe to grind)

Sancho,

I am not a climate change denier. On the contrary I think the case for anthropogenic global warming is VERY strong

Is there a "smoking gun"? That's a matter of opinion. There is certainly PRIMA FACIE evidence that some scientists engaged in data fudging – something that goes beyond "data presentation".

That fact that climate change deniers like Plimer engage in similar deception brings no comfort.

Examinator,

Having been in the scientific world myself many decades ago I know that science is a BLOOD SPORT. The backbiting, bitchiness and insults don’t bother me at all.

What does bother me is indications that some scientists may have fudged their data.

It is precisely because I think the integrity of the scientific enterprise is so important that I would like to see these allegations investigated in an OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER.

Here is how the NY Times covered the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&ref=science

Quote:

"In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, ... said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

"Dr. Mann ... confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

This is ingenuous to say the least. Good scientists do not normally use "tricks" to hide something.

To repeat, it is the INDICATIONS of FUDGING, not the atmospherics, that concern me.

So far I have not come across any rebuttal or explanation from Phil Jones, CRU head.

Examinator,

Regardless of your opinion of me personally I would have thought that you, of all posters here, would appreciate the importance of maintaining the integrity of science. Indications of data fudging on important matters need to be taken seriously and you can hardly deny the indications are there.

stevenlmeyer,

There has been a scandal, but this isn't it. You apparently haven't noticed the real one.

It may come as a surprise to you to know the scientists are human and are subject to all the usual human foibles. This includes killing one another when passions run high enough. They are also guilty of far worse crimes, like fudging or faking data.

Scientists know there are just as capable of these types of shenanigans as everybody else and have set up a system to prevent it. The success of this system in delivering reliable rational conclusions is what makes science so valuable. It is this system that prevents scientists from sinking to the level of corporate spin doctors, not any human virtue inherent in scientists.

The system itself is relatively simple. Rather than just publishing claims, scientists are required to say what evidence they base those claims on, and explain their methods so anybody else can repeat their results.

So what is the scandal? Some climate scientists have refused to release the raw data they based their papers on. They instead release massaged data, which is often summarises of the underlying raw data. This is massaging absolutely necessary and is an accepted practice. However if they don't release the raw data, no one can check their massaging. The raw data did cost enormous sums of money to collect, and some of it was commercially constrained. However the bulk is collected on publicly funded equipment, collected by people on public salaries, and done on the basis it was for the common good - science.

The net result is the usual system science works under broke down. All you are highlighting here is the mess that inevitably followed this break down. Regardless of whether there is any substance to the allegations you posted and whether there is a real scientific underhandedness, this refusal to release the data has left the science open to conspiracy theories and has undermined the confidence we can put in the science itself. That is the real scandal.

Climatic Research Unit Hacked E Mails & Data

Wikileaks
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

http://88.80.16.63/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip

Summary

This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.

The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a computer hacker 3-4 days ago.

This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.

The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.

DOWNLOAD/VIEW FULL FILE FROM
fastest (Sweden), current site,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip

slow (US),

http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip

Finland,
http://wikileaks.fi/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip

Netherlands, Poland, Tonga, Europe, SSL, Tor
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climatic-research-unit-hacked-e-mails-data.html

RELATED: Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

RELATED: Caught red-handed in a monumental fraud, disgraced Climategate scientists settle on a ludicrous defense
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/11/caught-red-handed-in-monumental-fraud.html

RELATED: E-mail leak turns up heat on global warming advocates
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1213483&srvc=business&position=recent

RELATED: Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward climate skeptics
http://www.prisonplanet.com/stolen-e-mails-reveal-venomous-feelings-toward-climate-skeptics.html

RELATED: CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-bombshell-hacker-leaks-thousands-of-emails-showing-conspiracy-to-hide-the-real-data-on-manmade-climate-change.html

Prison Planet.tv Members Can Watch Fall Of The Republic
http://prisonplanet.tv/

rstuart

I mostly agree with your last post. I should have placed greater emphasis on the failure to release raw data.

Yes it is scandalous that access to data gathered with the aid of public funds for the common good of science should be denied.

Thank you for pointing this out.

There is no disgrace, CJ, in having been taken in by these warming propagandists. Look at the European governments whio were duped.
How long have I been calling for info on why CO2 is being blamed? The premise that CO2 could drive weather patterns and climate change was fanciful from the start.
CO2 is a plant food and is an essential gas for life support.
Even UN Secretary general Mr Ban Ki-moon must have realised this when, last week, he called for more food production on the planet. He can't have more food without an increase in CO2.
The world needs more CO2.
The Hadlet CRU debacle indicates that global warming is a non issue.

If it was not for the case that the Uni East Anglia is so tightly
involved with the Hadley Centre and have had such a prominent part in
the whole global warming statistics this whole matter would have
hardly raised an eyebrow.

The upshot is some highly respected scientific body should examine
not just the emails but the relationships between the various
people involved. Would the Royal Society be suitable ?

AS so much of their information has driven the whole IPCC program
it puts the whole AGW promotion into an impossible position.
Understand that trillions of dollars are to be spent on CO2 so the
legal niceties should be ignored.

Examinator
Aha you have been caught out again. I always knew these numpties in white coats and clip boards were at it and more importantly "At me!" All this hogwash so rudd could put in a brand new tax. This has blown it all out of the water and the best you lot can do is go and have a lie down and think of the next thing that is going to kill us all.

Steven,
I Don't attack INDIVIDUALS unless provoked by the same. I do attack Actions the two are separate. I was questioning the apparent lack of objectivity from someone of your background. i.e. speculation at this stage.

True, scientific integrity is paramount in the published, peer reviewed data AND when there is *corroborated evidence* to talk about.

Untill the details have be verified and that it has been shown there is something that HAS impacted the end result.

*This is an Observational science which is largely dependent on judgement and that pin point accuracy is moot*.

Realistically, on the surface it is an ACADEMIC scandal only.
One that I'm sure would be present in other areas too.

If proven that the scientific integrity of the result can be shown in the final results then, I agree that careers should suffer accordingly. My understanding is that the integrity of end, published
peer reviewed result is where the crime is.

So far from what I've seen this correlation is currently lacking.
I agree with the others speculation is premature.

I lament the likelihood of the rabbit brigade using this to discredit ALL AGW research. Watch the 'sceptics' (sic) overstate the case wildly.

JBowyer.
The whole AGW thing just so Rudd can impose a new tax hey?
Gee! Like I always say if you're going to think up a paranoid conspiracy theory why not make it a doozey.

Psst aluminum foil coated colanders as hats don't work people can still see you.

Examinator Thank you for the usual gratuitous insult but you are the nong who believed all this nonsense. You and your dopey mates swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Rudd never dreamed it up he just took advantage of the opportunity backed by idiots like you. If you are so keen on more tax why not suggest public servant and politician pensions are taxed see how keen rudd is then.

I’ve been following the breaking news about the CRU since last Friday. As I understand it the UK Telegraph lodged a request under the FOIA for their climate data in July 09, this was rejected at appeal in August 09. It is possible that the files which were subsequently made public (hacked) were neatly “zipped” as a package for the CRU’s defense against the FOIA request. It looks increasingly like either an inside job or at least some collusion to direct an outsider to the location and content of these files.

CJM, all the 1,000 plus emails and reports are available at:

http- -www.anelegantchaos.org-cru-.url.

There is even a basic search engine to assist navigation of the large volumes of content.

Sadly for science, the level of self incrimination by the CRU scientists is self evident. It is even sadder that the cornerstones of the AGW case that have been hammered at the public have been irrevocably shattered.

Scientific Consensus? They clearly don’t agree on warming or no warming, they are frustrated that the real measurements don’t agree with their modeling.

Computer Modeling? Futile by their own admissions and those of the IPCC.

Geoengineering to mitigate carbon emissions? In their own words “hopeless”, can’t measure it so can never know if it works.

Peer Review Process? Comprehensively adulterated.

Not to mention references to “inventing” the 1995 temperatures, changing data sets to “hide the decline”, hiding behind “personal” contributions of research data. (non reviewed and outside formal channels), admissions that the “data are surely wrong. Our observing system inadequate”. Allegations of preselected sampling in tree ring research to force desired outcomes. Changing historical timelines to force desired results and admissions that the MBH method is “disastrously wrong” and the real “errors in proxy reconstructions”

For those concerned about such references being taken out of context, avail yourselves of the correspondence before making such assertions.

CPRS anyone?

“Look out [Steven] it's somethin' you did
God knows when but you're doing it again”

Don’t you know by now that there are certain issues that are too important to be left to the plebes.
Decisions on such are best made in back rooms away from the public eye: it’s called “showing leadership”.
Throwing such issues into the public arena –as you have irresponsibly done – is plain and simply “a dog whistle ” and can only stir one or other of those virulent primal forms of “ISM” that afflict common folk.

I was impressed by The Guardian's , “balanced” coverage, giving over the latter half of its article to “climate scientists”* to recite their articles of faith : ( there is a) “ huge body of evidence” & (any thing that says other wise is) “that taken out of context” .(* apparently one is only climate scientist if one believes in AGW, if one has the same qualifications but doesn’t believe, one is merely a sceptic).

I can understand the ABC & SBS, being style manuals of proper behaviour, might be reticent to cover the story.

And I can well understand certain persons who shall remain nameless , counselling caution, and there is wisdom in that. Though I do wonder if they’d be as careful if it was the reverse, with “sceptcs “ being outed?

It seems to me that whether or not the emails are a ‘random sample” has no bearing.--one (if shown to be accurate) would be damning enough for its author.

Examinator

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, 3 February 2005:

Excerpt:

"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."

"They" is apparently "The two MMs" whoever they may be

This is extraordinary. A scientist threatening to destroy a data set, one that was presumably acquired at great expense, rather than comply with an FOI request. This goes beyond a robust exchange between scientists.

I wrote the above earlier today but was unable to post it because I was up to my limit. Since then I have watched Lateline try to spin this statement. The excuse that these data sets were acquired under contract and were confidential will not wash. If that were the case Jones would have had a legitimate reason for refusing the FOI request. There was no need to threaten to delete the data set.

If anything the attempted whitewash of Phil Jones troubles me more than the email I quoted.

Horus

We are still stuck with some basic facts. Increase the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and, ceteris paribus global temperatures should rise.

Did we observe an actual increase in temperature?

We did. The rise has now plateaued. No one is sure why. It could be because we are in a period of low sunspot activity. (Google "maunder minimum" and "little ice age").

Is the case for AGW made beyond all reasonable doubt?

No.

But the preponderance of evidence points in that direction.

its clear from lateline...that its govt leaders/and big poluters[and economists/securities traitors[money market ready to speculate up the cost of carbon to all the market will bear

then that lovelly cap...that sure knowing next year there will be less units...and we know rarity creates a prenium demand...bid for todays price of carbon...the carbon securities traiters will trade for big bonus

its our sold out leaders/and the banking /money market elites...lol...are leading this...their adgenda to install a global tax..[not payable to govt...but to a big new world..govt..[not elected by the people of the wotrld

a [global cartel/..looking for funds to initiate a new industrial revolution...[having bankrupted their capitalist system]..forming the new eu/type quasi rulers of the globe[to enact their eugenics plan..

[two thirds will die...lest these times..are cut short...

the bailouts..clearly reveal the system went broke..big time
they throw money at it...till the new global/carbon..tax..comes on line...[to build industry..again...in third world...where they got their new age wage slaves..ready to work for a few bucks a day

or some future world body elite[leader...willing to let big business exploit its people..or resorrces..or labour force....factories closed..will simply move to cheaper places...getting green credits..to do it with

nasa has been renamed,..suopersised..its now some environmental agency...so they...get carbon funds/credit's...natives leaving their forrests get nothing...this is about a new tax...thats it..

the rest is spin...like y2k[like sars/like pig/bird flue....like lucitania[like 911/like crystal nacht....simply fill us with fear...then sell us their preplanned/solution...ie give mates their dues

noting gore owns a carbon trading sceme...possably explains why he needs to ophotshop cyclones onto his data

UOG This url: http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-tv-sunday-edition-18hacked-emails-show-climate-science-ridden-with-rancor.html,
needs sending up to our Gov.representatives.
I am surprised they never talk about the 2-300page Copenhagen Treaty report,whether anyone has ever read it,as it is clearly setting us up for the final run of the NWO.

i have forwarded the info to two prominant anti carbon tax minesters
one in each house...im pretty sure its a done deal..[if we keep the banker lawyer..in controle of the opposition

its is today..wether we see..the sellouts...following a new leaders demands..that figure heads order paRTY POLICY..or wether the party makes the party line

malcom wants this new derivitives..with a reducing cap...based on a global trillion dollar..carbon/tax take ..for the globalist tpo pull off their global rule...run by coorperate intrests for coorperate intrests

the same coorperate intrests..[non elected elect..that sek to rule our world..via their franchise fiefdoms...how come we can givaway,,,govt services...and stoll get more 'pub0licking servants'..in the public subsidised..pension sceme...for public servants serving private intrests

i hads enough of the fearless god head leader..[lol...two party system...that has no controles over their own ego's...if its turnbull the tax for his banker mates is a surity

personally i couldnt give a stuff...[being on pension...i will simply get more pension...but others..will pay...remember co2...is them bubbles in their wine...in their kids soda..in your bread..in your breath...this is huge..but no one gives a damm

i watched the new taxes...as the tax burden shifted ever more on to the poor...no death duties..the poor got gst....govt gets hyped up by a spiel for tamiflue...decides all them deaths.of workers...mean in a disaster..workers move to bigger money..so we got work contracted into 5 year bondage

i watched as compulsory supoper overinflated a cashed up supper induistry...that lost one third our wealth...we been limping along sustaining capitalism...but it has failed

the carbon tax..is to convert the income further from the poor..to the new mega rich....rebuilding their latest entention of the industrial sevitude age

Only one person looks more stupid than Ms Wong on this fantasy of gw and that is Mr Turnbul who was to gutless or naive to stand up to these corrupt 'experts' on climate change. Barnaby Joyce is looking smarter by the minute just by not being a gullible fool.

Quote of the year comes from Mr Monibat

'I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.'

That is what happens when you swallow Green dogma. At least he had the decency to face up to his lies. Hopefully Mr Rudd, Turnbull and Ms Wong will stop their blind stupidity when it comes to ETS.

By the way CJ Jesus never lied like the Greens have been blatantly caught out doing. I think I will continue to listen to Him rather than the father of lies whom your party seems to take such delight in.

This tax will go through whether the earth is warming or not. It covers the loss of revenue as oil starts to dry up. It's an infinite revenue stream (will never dry up again) that covers everything we ever do and fits perfectly with increased population/perpetual growth. The perfect tax a Polly could ever dream of!

Only thing to do now is make sure you put plenty of gel on, visit Dr. Ben Dover and hope it doesn't hurt too much!

Steven,
The trouble with your “we are still stuck with some basic facts” is it seems to leave us open to the proposition that it is prudent to take precautions –just in case. Which has a folksy, common sense appeal.

Except, in the case in point, some of the precautions proposed are no simple measures and have outcomes as bad as the outcomes they seek to ward off.

The precautions include --at their core -- a major redistribution of industry & wealth .Which is less like some folksy herbal remedy and much more like cutting a vein and bleeding the patient treatment.

And there is a growing tendency to misrepresent all unfavourable outcomes as symptoms of AGW, and exempt the real causes-which are likely to be:
–Over population
--Poor siting of settlements
--Poor agricultural practices
--Over fishing
--Poor governance
If we were to bring industry produced CO2 down to zero tomorrow, those other afflictions would still be there--festering away.

No Steven, these blokes are way deeper than any of the corporates have ever got to.

The corporates just want a bit of your money. For them to succeed long term they need you, to not only survive, but actually prosper.

This lot of the "scientists" have been prepared to destroy our whole way of life for god knows what. Not try to improve anything, just destroy.

I suppose their best chance of avoiding suitable punishment is the scale of the fraud. So many people look so stupid, & our pollies are even still perpetuating the stupidity today.

Will it ever stop?

Ye of black and white disposition,
There is a new report out tomorrow that doesn't involve the people in the this storm in a tea cup (?) it doesn't paint a good picture about AGW. Apparently things are worse the the worst scenarios put up in the IPCC report.

Steven,
I read that on the web site .....so what.
Like I said to prove anything these emails need to correlated to specific written and publish papers. Then matched with those papers cited in the IPCC report to show they they ACTUALLY affected anything other than the scientist's personal credibility.

In reality while a number of deniers are salivating over this I doubt that in the shake out it will have any scientific impact on the bulk of the science measurements etc that indicate AGW is real.
The key data isn't subject to destruction by a cantankerous prof.
Too many institutions involved check out the evolving readings from the satellites like CMOS, Jason2 etc.

It's looking, at the moment, like a storm in an academic dirty coffee mug.

Steven
for a full contextual argument of the hack emails they cover a 13 year period.

Read this site to see the context http://www.realclimate.org/ There is a very detailed explanation.
Before getting to excited read this and see why it doesn't phase me.

Runner

<< Quote of the year comes from Mr Monibat (sic) 'I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.' >>

Whoever you've got this from has cherry-picked from the comments section and conveniently ignored the preceding article, in which George Monbiot states -

"But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is 'the final nail in the coffin' of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here. >>

He then goes on to produce a piece of satire and concludes by stating "The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientist

No, Runner, I wouldn't quote George Monbiot in future if I was you. He's admitted to feeling some disappointment in a very small number of scientists, that's all. He's hardly joined the ranks of the born-again skeptics. The fact he's linked to another article describing the leaked emails as an "orchestrated smear campaign" is a fair indicator he's not the pin-up boy you think he is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change

What disappoints me is that those that believe in AGW are so set in
their beliefs they are not concerned about the emails.
Ever since I had an understanding what AGW was about the Climate
Research group has been accepted and promoted as the best temperature
centre and was considered pre-eminent in their field.

Now suddenly they are just another group and not that important.
Surely the very least that should happen is an enquiry into their
climate temperature work.
Much other work appears to have been based on their findings.
The scientific community owes it to the rest of us to not just
assume that their work is valid but to prove it to us.

Examinator,

For the umpteenth time – whatever umpteen is – this is NOT, repeat NOT, one more time, NOT, primarily about anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Get that?

This is NOT about AGW.

There is a mountain of evidence supporting AGW.

This is about the INTEGRITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. The emails indicate that some scientists, at times, fudged their results and tried to suppress data.

No there is no smoking gun. But there is plenty of smoke. To put it another way, there is a prima facie case for some fudging. Anyone who pretends it ain't so does science a disservice.

That is why an enquiry is needed. If some scientists did fudge their results, did deny access to data, then we need to know about it and the scientists concerned need to be sacked.

I repeat, this is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT about AGW.

Get that?

NOT about AGW.

It is about preserving the credibility of science. It is about demonstrating to the world that cases of fudging, of denying access to data, of trying to bully publication into refusing papers, will not be tolerated.

I do not know how to make that clearer examinator. If you won’t see it, then you won't.

As it happens I have been corresponding with two Australian climate scientists. Both have argued for an open and transparent enquiry. Both agree that evidence for fudging needs to be taken seriously.

Bronwyn,

In the article you quoted, George Monbiot called for Phil Jones of the CRU to step down. I endorse that sentiment

extracted
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=5431

Pascal Lamy..admits that global governance..is an abstract and distant idea...Historically,especially with the United States and its libertarian roots,..governance is local and familiar with the people and their needs.

He states,..“In sum,..the specific challenge of legitimacy in global governance..is to deal with the perceived too-distant,..non-accountable..and non-directly challengeable...lol..decision-making at the international level.”

Ultimately,..Lamy sees the United Nations..playing a central role in global governance,..with the G20 and other international groups reporting...directly to the “parliament”..of the UN.

This beginning stage,..according to Lamy,..will eventually condense into a solid..world government.

via..“Menace/of a new war”

Global and regional governance..faces another problem,..specifically the fact that without the perception of an outside threat..the coherence of the system falls apart...Lamy states,

“The anthropological dimension of supranationality..has probably been underestimated...Once the imminence of the menace..of a new war/read threat..has disappeared from our horizon,..it is as if the glue that holds Europe together/as a community will also disappear...As if there were..no common myths,..delusions/dreams and aspirations.”

Lamy goes on..to admit that,..“…We are witnessing a growing distance between European public opinions..and the European project.”

Despite popular resistance,..the establishment is continuing its agenda...Outside of war,..global warming hysteria is,..as the 1991 Club of Rome report/..The First Global Revolution proposed,

a unifying threat – or perhaps more appropriately a unifying myth,..as Lamy stated – that..the global government..needs to maintain any veil of legitimacy.

The Club of Rome report states,

“In searching for a new enemy..to unite us,..we came up with the idea that pollution,..the threat of global warming,..water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….

All these dangers are..able to be/caused..by human intervention…

The real enemy,..then,..is humanity itself.”

Herman Van Rompuy has stated..that the upcoming Copenhagen climate change treaty “…is another step towards the global management..of our planet.”..Additionally,..the anthropogenic global warming theory will give the global government a taxing mechanism..on a world-wide scale.

http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/wto_director_general.htm

noted the next...combo..sars/birdflueplague...attempt to genocide the people..has surfaced in the field test..''worse than birdflue''..just in time to redirect the sheeple

http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=5306

More from George Monbiot:

"...But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

"Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed."

Later in the comments he writes:

"I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely."

contrarian2 makes the following comment:

"But if the science is that "settled," why refuse to disclose the data? If global warming so obvious and incontrovertible, why be in such a panic about FOI, why talk openly about re-defining "peer review", why threaten to (or actually) delete data?"

Monbiot's reply:

"I agree. It is exactly for those reasons that Phil Jones should resign. There's a word for his lack of openness and control of the data: unscientific".

Real scientist simply do not behave like Phil Jones.

I wholeheartedly endorse Monbiot's stance on this matter.

Examinator,

So should you.

The Penny Wong/Kerry O’Brien Double Act? Watching the 7:30 Report with baited breath for the last two nights for some recognition that even last weeks big news actually existed, we were rewarded in the dying seconds of the interview with a “Dorothy” question from Kerry to Penny asking for comment on the publication of emails from the CRU? To paraphrase the response, “well Kerry, we rely upon our own scientists and especially the CSRIO”

Really? So is this tacit recognition by Penny that the CRU and IPCC scientists no longer merit support from the Australian Government? Does this ignore the fact that the emails indicate collusion between the CRU and the CSIRO as indicated by Australia’s WWF request to provide “beefed up” reports with copies to the CSIRO so they could provide supporting public comment?

One has to question why a publicly funded broadcaster is choking on significant aspects of the news and seeking to trivialize content. Is this not precisely one of the crimes leveled at the CRU?

Perhaps we can look to the BBC in the UK for an answer? Under an FOIA request, investigators have discovered policy that facilitates coverage of the “crime” aspect of the email hacking story whilst allowing discretion to censor that which they perceive to be lack of balance.

There are many intuitors and pragmatists within our society, such people have built in “bulldustometers”. It is not the content of topics that triggers scepticism; it is the way it is “sold”. This is a classic example of how destructive proponents of “the great causes” can be.

Sadly, such “causes” do merit public concern and sometimes action. The evangelical, in your face, fervor and manipulation that drives the “protest industry” is, for many, a skeptic generator.

When will emotively driven proponents realize, “that which they seek to avoid, they create”

What a sad, lost soul you are Kerry

Bazz: "What disappoints me is that those that believe in AGW are so set in their beliefs they are not concerned about the emails."

The answer has been given in other threads, and I am sure you have read it.

I personally find it hard to be excited by this is there is going to be a long wait see the effect they have on the science - if any. Short of one of the authors of published papers coming out and saying "I made it all up" the steps are roughly:

- The raw data still has to be prised out of them.
- Someone has to analyse it.
- They then have to write up their results and get them published.
- Some consensus has to develop over the conflicting interpretations so we plebs can see what the end effect is.

That will take literally years. This of course assumes they haven't given other independent groups access to their data. I know they didn't make it publicly available, but if others have had a poke at it and said nothing, then odds are very high the published papers based on the data are sound.

And just to repeat what was said elsewhere: the IPCC bases its conclusions on the published scientific papers, not emails. The talking air-heads will of course have fun with the emails, as that is the level they operate at. But it is not the level people who intend their work to last lifetimes, such as science and engineering, operate at. The hot air created by the talking heads will dissipate within a couple of months.

Steven,
I accept your point but I doubt that many others are seeing it that way, my last couple of posts were to you as a neutral party (a vector). I was focused on the feeding the deniers reason to continue their blind ally reasoning. sorry.

To your point: *On the surface* it does have merit.

But in the absence of full evidence and context, I reserve my opinion.

Clearly you and I differ (in nuance) on issues of 'right (?)' to know, 'absolute' freedom of speech, 'public interests' and where they intersect with society's needs.

We appear to differ is the concept of 'absolutes'...I simply don't believe they are any more than theoretical constructs, aspirational goals. You don't.

IMHO The world would dissolve into anarchy without some sense of WIP secrecy.

I suggest (contextual) perspective should be be a factor in considering guilt and opprobrium. Which appears to be neglected in this topic.

*NB That doesn't mean I am either condoning or excusing unethical behaviour.*

There are two issues of which I need some convincing in this case.

- That any 'action' has actually taken place. Suggesting, something is hardly a crime except in national terrorism. i.e. My views on people with cats near wildlife areas and what I'd like to do to them is hardly a secret but to this date, I haven't done any of them.

As I understand the the IPCC report it is a synthesis an executive summary including overall conclusions if you like, of published information at that date.
Therefore, is there any proof that the separate behaviour of Mr Jones actually attempting to compromise the IPCC report? If not these emails are totally irrelevant and any breach of ethics could be better handled by peer judgement/academia.

I also have difficulty of the absurd notion that (mass) opinions without effort, context and all the information is any more than titivated prejudice and mob rule. To me all rights come with equal an opposite responsibility to be as fully informed as possible. Something sadly missing in most public debates. Pax?

stevenlmeyer

<< I wholeheartedly endorse Monbiot's stance on this matter. >>

You've cherry picked Monbiot's article in the same manner Runner has. You've even repeated the same quote he's already used on this thread. You made no mention of the satirical piece Monbiot used, which is the whole point of his article, and you've completely ignored the overall conclusion he came to.

Monbiot is not at all persuaded that these emails discredit the whole of the science on climate change. As he said in the quote I used in my reply to Runner, they form only a very small part of the overall body of evidence.

<< For the umpteenth time – whatever umpteen is – this is NOT, repeat NOT, one more time, NOT, primarily about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). >>

Stop dictating the terms of discussion. Of course this debate is about AGW.

Yes, it's about the integrity of the scientific process, I agree. But the glitches that have been exposed have to be placed in context. They don't in themselves destroy the validity of the bulk of scientific data. They also need to be scrutinised in terms of timing, of who these hackers are and who is paying them, and why. There are a whole range of issues to be discussed.

Narrowing the terms of debate might suit your agenda, but people like examinator, CJ, rstuart and myself, who are interested in balanced and perspective-based discussion, will continue to ignore your demands, as is our perfect right to do so.

Folks,

A few more issues for thought.

Perhaps Steven wants narrowly limited debate that isn't primarily about AGW but....

I'll bet that was the objective of the Hackers.(e.g. why didn't they hack theoretical mathematicians involved in Collider research? that's far more academically controversial).

And a more interesting point is why isn't there any moralistic discussion about their clear committal of crimes? or about the scientist's "right" to privacy?

As I said before 'public's need to know' or 'public's good' has yet to be established let alone proved.

In the absence of these 'community good' being clearly obvious I think these criminals should at least be the subjects of opprobrium lest privacy means nothing.

Again this isn't a reasoned debate (i.e. informed etc) it's largely pack (lynch mob) mentality, only the excuse varies.

Rstuart said;
>And just to repeat what was said elsewhere: the IPCC bases its
conclusions on the published scientific papers, not emails.

Well that is just the point, what is in their papers ?

A related concern is the cooling that is what a lot of this discussion
has not shown up in the IPCC computer projection of temperature.
This apparently concerned the CRU and its correspondents.

This taken together with the refusal for the source code of the
computer modelling program to be made available raises numerous
questions.

Many of you will know the old saying GIGO.
Considering the amount of money hanging on the output of this
program the UN or a government should purchase the source code and
release it. Failing that being agreeable a government should by
passing a law obtain and release the coding.
It is just too important.

Bazz: "Well that is just the point, what is in their papers ?"

I'd wager no one here has read them - and that includes me. What we have here is a whole pile of accusations the emails somehow prove the conclusions in the papers are wrong - from people who haven't read the papers and don't have a clue as to what those conclusions are.

More to the point, as far as I can tell there was no data in leak. So there is no way to double check their work and prove the conclusions are wrong, even if you were familiar with them.

The bitchiness displayed in the email's isn't unusual. The "I found a better trick than Johnny did" thing is pretty much par for the course in all social settings, from kindergarten to University halls. So no, Bazz, there is no news that deserves to go beyond a socialites gossip column under the heading "I am so much better than X"

As for them not releasing their models or data - as I said that is the real scandal. But it is not something new, as it has been going on for decades. Hopefully this leak will force them to clean up their act.

And to those who say the person leaking the data should be prosecuted - it is a two edged sword. We only get to find out a lot nasty things going on behind closed doors because of leaks. We also get to see harmless dirty laundry, as is most likely the case here. But even in this case it may lead to them opening up their data which would be a good thing.

Forget The Emails,..Code Discusses..“Artificially Adjusted”..Temperatures
http://www.prisonplanet.com/forget-the-emails-code-discusses-artificially-adjusted-temperatures.html

Although..the majority/of the attention..around ClimateGate/has focused on emails..exchanged/between CRU scientists,..the real smoking gun...proving deception and fraud..can be found in the code of climate-models..which prove that..temperature numbers were..“artificially adjusted”..to hide/..the decline..in global warming/..since the 1960’s.



“Climate Gate”..Development:..CEI Files..Notice of Intent..to Sue NASA
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-gate-development-cei-files-notice-of-intent-to-sue-nasa.html

Today,..on behalf of..the Competitive Enterprise Institute,..I filed three Notices..of Intent/to File Suit..against NASA..and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies..(GISS),.for those bodies’/..refusal..for nearly three years..to provide documents requested..under the Freedom of Information Act.



Climate Alarmists..Finally Admit..The Debate..Is Not Over
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-alarmists-finally-admit-the-debate-is-not-over.html
Top climate alarmists..have conceded that the climategate scandal..represents a huge blow to the global warming movement..and that the debate is not over,

and yet establishment media organs are still..invoking South Park’s Officer Barbrady..in downplaying the story despite the fact..that it clearly illustrates how evidence..which directly disproves global warming is being censored..by agenda-driven scientists.

BBC Climate Correspondent Was Forwarded CRU Emails Five Weeks Before They Were Made Public
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bbc-climate-correspondent-was-forwarded-cru-emails-five-weeks-before-they-were-made-public.html

A BBC Weather presenter..who was discussed by scientists..in the “climategate” emails #
says he was forwarded the material..more than five weeks before it was made public on the internet.

Obama’s Science Czar..John Holdren involved in unwinding..“Climategate” scandal
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama%e2%80%99s-science-czar-john-holdren-involved-in-unwinding-%e2%80%9cclimategate%e2%80%9d-scandal.html
from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit..(CRU)...scandal,..now riding as “Climategate”.



Climate Expert:..“Compromised”..UN Scientists should be excluded..from IPCC,..Peer-Review Process
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-expert-compromised-un-scientists-should-be-excluded-from-ipcc-peer-review-process.html

A prominent German scientist..who was attacked in the leaked CRU emails..by UN affiliated climate scientists has stated that the group..should be barred from taking part in the peer-review process..and excluded from the International Panel on Climate Change.



Call of Duty Has Gone Too Far: How Our Children Are Being Programed Right Before Our Very Eyes
http://www.prisonplanet.com/call-of-duty-has-gone-too-far-how-our-children-are-being-programed-right-before-our-very-eyes.html

This is one of the more disturbing things..I have seen in a while.
To think of the way that our society is programmed..and conditioned..is becoming sickening.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-scientists-would-rather-change-facts-than-their-theories.html

Climategate:..Monbiot makes it all suddenly OK..through medium of satire
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-monbiot-makes-it-all-suddenly-ok-through-medium-of-satire.html

First the good news. George Monbiot..has issued a personal apology..for the shabby behaviour of his climate-fear-promoting scientist chums..in the Climategate scandal.

All Your Emails Are Belong To Us
http://www.prisonplanet.com/all-your-emails-are-belong-to-us.html
EXPOSED: Man-Made Global Warming Fraud!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/audit-the-fed-attached-as-an-amendment.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckton-prosecute-the-climate-change-criminals.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-on-climategate-hoax-of-all-time-a-global-ponzi-scheme.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-tvhow-to-expose-the-climate-fraud.html

Brownyn

Your blind faith is impressive. If you can't see how corrupted the whole gw scam is it just proves how strong your faith is despite true scientific evidence. Of course you believe the 'science is settled'.

The point I was making about Monibat is that at least he had enough integrity to acknowledge fraud and deceit unlike those who claim the 'science is settled'. Mr Rudd, Turnbull and Ms Wong are among those. They are looking increasingly gullible or deceitful each day as more and more scientist fell they can speak other than the dogmas the lying 'experts' have demanded. IN fact may scientist like in the 1970.s acknowledge the planet has cooled over the last 12 years. It certainly has not cooled due to a decrease in coal burning.

Bronwyn wrote:

"Monbiot is not at all persuaded that these emails discredit the whole of the science on climate change."

Neither am I.

Nor have I written anywhere in this thread or any other thread that I believe AGW is a hoax. On the contrary I have been at pains to point out that, this contretemps notwithstanding, the weight of evidence supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Telling me to "Stop dictating the terms of discussion" is absurd. I do not have that power. Nor do I wish to have it.

And so your point is….?

Bronwyn, examinator and rstuart

I fail to see how anyone can read these emails and not feel that there is a real possibility of scientific fraud here. As I said before, no smoking gun but plenty of smoke.

To quote Monbiot again:

"Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed."

Do you disagree with that statement?

Monbiot also says:

"I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign"

Given Britain's draconian libel laws that is a bold statement.

Do you believe Phil Jones should keep his job?

As rstuart has pointed, restricting access to data obtained with the aid of public funds is a scandal.

Do you think Jones and his friends should be allowed to restrict access to climate data?

Monbiot also writes:

"Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "

Do you think dissenting voices should be silenced?

Get real folks. This is not just scientists being bitchy. This is not merely privacy for WIP. There are clear indications of the possibility of fraud and attempts to manipulate the publication process as well as refusing access to data obtained with public funds.

And to repeat yet again, no this does not discredit all the science behind AGW. It MAY discredit some of it.

stevenlmeyer You assert "no this does not discredit all the science behind AGW. It MAY discredit some of it".
What are you suggesting, just being a bit pregnant?

If the people doing the research are even hinting that some of the work is fudged how can it not have an impact on their credibility,
and not lead to re-evaluation of their “findings” , especially when such research is being used to justify major changes in many peoples lives.

I cannot imagine another profession where such could be revealed and not lead to a major inquiry .What if a judge or doctor was found to have made similar about their judgments/operations . Or Imagine if similar had been sourced from George W’s or Sarah Palin’s email , does anyone really believe they’d be considered of no consequence. Would we be talking about their “right to privacy” & “ prosecution” being of foremost importance —not bloody likely.

And as for “The hot air created by the talking heads will dissipate within a couple of months.”
Nay, it is only just beginning, Copenhagen is just around the corner and there will be a lot of hard-sell hot air emanating from that point.The Haj, Mecca,2009, by comparison small bikkies -- all true believers please face Copenhagen and exhale ommmmm—all the rest had better hold your breath.

Steven,

I doubt that anyone is saying that this doesn't look good but proof of wrong doing? Hmmm. I didn't say it didn't warrant further investigation.
Just that the Judge Roy Beam dictum " We'll give him a fair trial, then we'll hang him" IMO denies the 'accused' natural justice i.e. the presumption of innocence *untill FOUND guilty*.

One might suggest that your question is akin to 'push polling' in that in its wording suggests an expected outcome.

BTW I'm curious of your justification of the method of discovery was illegal and therefore possibly inadmissible in court (fruit from a poison tree) and a clear breach of right to privacy.
Given, our notion of Justice, imperfect as it may be, is based on checks and balances ...clearly ignored here.

Given you past support for absolute individual 'rights' you appear to be arguing the exact opposite here.

My over all point here is that I think 'in the public interests' hasn't been proved and untill guilt is proven it won't and even then it (ITPI) is dubiously overblown.

In this instance "where there is 'percieved' to be smoke there may not be fire, just heat" E44

stevenlmeyer

<< Telling me to "Stop dictating the terms of discussion" is absurd. I do not have that power. ... And so your point is….? >>

My point was that your comments to examinator on page seven were out of order. The use of capitals and repetition, and telling him what the debate was and wasn't about, certainly seemed like attempts to control the debate to me. I wasn't referring to the rest of the thread. It was that post only, which I would have thought was clear, seeing as I'd posted on the same morning, but perhaps I should have been more specific.

<< Do you think dissenting voices should be silenced? >>

I absolutely think we've all been forced to listen to far too much waffle from climate change denialists, much of it on this site. This issue is far too urgent to allow ourselves to be sidetracked by these nutters. So yes, I do think there is a case for some voices to be ignored, if not silenced. If time was on our side we could sit round to our heart's content and talk it all through. Time is not on our side. The time for talking is over and it's now time for real action. That's what the overwhelming majority of people want and expect at this very late stage.

That's what this is all about. It's a deliberate campaign to highjack the measures about to be put in place. The denialists, backed up by all the big corporate polluters, have the rest of us over a barrel. This is just another last-ditch attempt to delay action so the big guns can keep polluting with gay abandon. For decades now, the denialists' orchestrated campaigning has cast doubt on every attempt of scientists to get their data out into the public realm. No wonder, they've been forced into some collusion of their own. How else do they compete with the huge vested interests lined up against them? Whatever else, these scientists have truth on their side and at the moment that is what really matters.

TBC

stevenlmeyer (continued)

<< Do you believe Phil Jones should keep his job? >>

Yes, I do. And he should start fighting back over this. He needs to go on the attack and start defending his hard-working scientists, Sure, admit the mistakes and promise and work towards greater accountability, but stand up and get some perspective into all of this. These emails were not randomly selected. They were carefully cherry picked from thousands of others and taken out of context to smear the efforts of those involved. What organization anywhere wouldn't have private email correspondence that could be incriminating if deliberately manipulated and taken out of context?

As stated by the Guardian's George Marshall, << ... the emails are extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on realclimate.org, the emails contain "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/communist/vegetarian overlords." >>

I agree totally with his conclusion - << This is a desperate, last-ditch tactic by fanatics who have lost the rational debate. >>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change

bronwin quote<<.. agree totally with his conclusion..<< This is a desperate,..last-ditch tactic..by fanatics..who have lost the rational debate.>>

thats so funny...so it is a debate..

that explains the lack of fact...
or any concern about the truth of the facts..

its so funny reading the opinion of the ignorant of fact..and recognise a last ditch tactic...by the true global hollow cause...your children will cry at your mindless gullability

its easier to agree..than study the facts...
so the sheeple say fleece me...

that is unless..their one of them paid to blog mob...or getting some of the govt lucre/...direct

JBowyer wrote:

stevenlmeyer You assert "no this does not discredit all the science behind AGW. It MAY discredit some of it". What are you suggesting, just being a bit pregnant?

There are many strands of evidence that support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Some, not all, have been compromised.

Instead of the pregnancy analogy, think in terms of a net. Some of the strands have been damaged. The net still exists but is not as strong as it used to be. It needs to be repaired.

Bronwyn,

So you think a man who threatens to destroy data, who denies other researchers access to data, who tries to silence dissenting voices, who boasts of using tricks to hide things should remain as head of an important research unit. That tells me all I need to know about you.

Examinator,

I think it's time you lived up to your nick. Stop seeing (non-existent) nefarious Zionist plots everywhere, get over your self-evident dislike for me, and take a good hard look at the evidence.

I disagree with George Monbiot over many things. But he at least is prepared to face facts. To quote from his latest blog:

"Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science

"...It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

"... Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

Bronwyn, first you insult anyone who disagrees with you and call them "Nutters" then you say there is no time too lose on allowing any more argument, we have to act now? Well first your gratuitous insult masks only the weakness of your cause. Secondly we have plenty of time the only reason that you need a quick ETS is so when the drought breaks you can say "See I told you what we needed was an ETS".
A few years ago the electric utilities of Britain scammed a billion pounds sterling from consumers on some nonsense or other, nothing said or done. At the moment those same utilities are leaving retail prices high although wholesale prices have reduced considerably. Of course the foreign Companies that own all our utilities would not do that would they? Oh yes they would! The media is focused only on the opposition not on the government and certainly not on those lovely foreign utilities paying loads of money to advertise themselves. Nutter yourself!

There are some people in the world that hate peace.
They would do pretty good to tune in here, this is war.
I don't think picking on anyones grammer will solve any thing.
I am sure you can get the gist of what is being said.

Here's an example of where this is leading:

Andrew Bolt suggests the data showing a warming trend in NZ is fudged:

See:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_making_new_zealand_warmer/

The explanation New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) gave for making temperature adjustments may well be correct.

See:

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise

But, in the light of what we now know do you think anyone will accept on trust a bland re-assurance that NIWA is using "internationally accepted techniques" to adjust temperatures?

Are you prepared to put your hand on your heart and assure people that these numbers are not fudged?

If you are prepared to put your hand on your heart the natural question is:

You know this how?

How do you know someone hasn't used a clever trick to hide something?

Can you say whether an independent auditor has had access to the raw data and been able to verify the reasonableness of the adjustments?

For what it's worth I am inclined to believe NIWA. But I cannot prove it. If someone asks me these questions all I can do is shrug my shoulders.

In a matter as sensitive as climate change even a hint of impropriety destroys trust. The measures needed to combat climate change are going to destroy the livelihoods of millions of people and cost literally trillions of dollars. Governments are going to have a hard enough time selling this even if people have faith in the honesty of the scientists. But what if they start thinking that maybe, just maybe, some of these these guys have been cooking the books?

Here's how George Monbiot puts it:

"Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science."

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

I don’t often find myself agreeing with Monbiot but in this case he's on the money.

This is an unmitigated catastrophe and every day Phil Jones keeps his job makes it worse.

Selected excerpts..of George Monbiot’s..article..in the UK Guardian/are reproduced..below.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-new-deniers-uk-greenie-george-monbiot-most-of-the-environmentalists-i-know-have-gone-into-denial-pretending-the-climate-email-leak-isnt-a-crisis-wont-make-it-go-away.html

The New..‘Deniers’:..UK Greenie George Monbiot:..‘Most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial’...'Pretending the climate email leak,,isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away’..By George Monbiot/UK Guardian/November 25,2009

George Monbiot Excerpt:..I have seldom felt so alone.,,Confronted with crisis,..most of the environmentalists..I know have ..one into denial.

It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support..(the end of global warming,..the death of climate science)...But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic,..as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial.

Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis..isn’t going to make it go away...Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities.

We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality,..apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again...[...]

One of the most damaging emails..was sent by the head of the climatic research unit,..Phil Jones...He wrote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.

..'Kevin and I will keep them out somehow..even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” [...]

Even so,..his message looks awful...It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change:..that the IPCC process is biased.

However good the detailed explanations may be,..most people aren’t going to follow or understand them. Jones’s statement,..on the other hand,..is stark and easy to grasp...[...]

If you take the wording literally, ..n one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted,..which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity.

Even if no other message had been hacked,..this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-zealand-climate-data-shows-clear-evidence-of-fraud.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/manufacturing-conensus-why-climategate-hurts-the-warming-faith.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens%e2%80%a6.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-people-need-to-go-to-jail.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-congress-investigates-climategate-e-mails-this-could-be-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-agw.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/author-points-to-climategate%e2%80%99s-perry-mason-moment.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/i-might-not-know-the-truth-about-climate-change-but-i-recognise-trickery-and-slippery-excuses-when-i-see-them.html

I have just read some of a sequence of emails where another researcher
is asking for the data and list of wx stations.
He has picked up on a point where interpolation has been used between
two wx stations. He notes that the interpolation site is higher than
the two either side. Interpolation should give a value halfway between.
Jones is refusing the info because "He only wants to prove it is wrong".

Jones continues to refuse Freedom of Information requests.

And people think this does not corrupt confidence in the science ?
It is only one small point, but it is consistent with the rest of
the emails.
It has to be remembered over recent times the UEA CRU has been
quoted as the most pre-eminent source of climate temperature information.

Steven,
On the issue of AGW, one needs to understand that many people are obsessed about it. Take the rants of the PM recently and the rant of Turnbull last night, for example. That is why I have never involved myself in the debate. Its like arguing about religion, believers will not accept reason.

I reckoned that IF AGW is one day proven, we will hear about it and in the meantime carry on.

It seems to me that most adocates of AGW are in shock and denial.

But gradually the media is getting the word out about the fraudulent behaviour of the top scientists.

Steven,

I don't dislike you, I just disagree with IMO, haste to judgement. neither do I see Zionist plots everywhere, least of all in this post.

We just disagree on
a. IMO there is perhaps, prima facea evidence for an internal inquiry, at best.
b. That there is insufficient information to hang the people out to dry or AGW.
(Natural justice) much less AGW.
c. I question encouraging (albeit indirectly) yobs to break the law.
d. neither am I currently convinced that whistle-blower immunity is apposite. Especially, given their probable motives.(the mindless desperation) for fame and to discredit AGW.
e. I don't dispute the substance of George Monbiot’s article, just the emotional intensity of his interpretation of the issue. I would dispute some of his reasoning and assertions...I prefer objectivity.

AGW is real, it is far too substantiated by other sources, and the weight of evidence to be the objective crisis Monboit makes it out to be.
IMO it is a crisis in of image, of a university and maybe a few individuals, not necessarily substance.
I have no doubt that the screaming ninnies will prompt the exit of Jones but is it justified? I'll wait for all the facts, context etc.

OUG

<< thats so funny...so it is a debate.. >>

What is funny, OUG, is the fact that someone who rarely posts a readable argument is attempting to pass judgement on others about what is and what isn't classified as debate. Whatever your divine judgement on that, you're never in the debate for me, because I scroll your posts every time and I know I'm not the only one.

<< that explains the lack of fact...or any concern about the truth of the facts.. its so funny reading the opinion of the ignorant of fact.. by the true global hollow cause...your children will cry at your mindless gullability >>

And this from someone whose main source on the topic at hand is that of rightwing reactionary climate sceptics at Prison Planet. I hardly see you, OUG, as having any credibility in commenting on others' so-called gullibility.

stevenlmeyer

<< Bronwyn, So you think a man who threatens to destroy data, who denies other researchers access to data, who tries to silence dissenting voices, who boasts of using tricks to hide things should remain as head of an important research unit. That tells me all I need to know about you. >>

As I've said repeatedly, you're ignoring the context in which these actions have occurred. Yes, some of them will possibly be proven to be sackable offences, but at this stage as the current head of the unit I see Jones' role as one of spokesperson, of taking up the fight and of defending the work of his team, the majority of which is thoroughly defensible. As I've already made clear, yes, he needs to acknowledge any shortcomings and he needs to initiate reform towards greater openess and accountability. But to resign right now would in my view simply be giving a huge free kick to the climate change sceptics, whose only interest is in bringing down the case for reducing carbon emissions.

And quite frankly, Steven, your opinion of me is irrelevant and your attempt to write me out of the discussion will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

JBowyer

<< Bronwyn, first you insult anyone who disagrees with you and call them "Nutters" then you say there is no time too lose on allowing any more argument, we have to act now? Well first your gratuitous insult masks only the weakness of your cause. Secondly we have plenty of time the only reason that you need a quick ETS is so when the drought breaks you can say "See I told you what we needed was an ETS". >>

Yes, personally, I do see them as 'nutters', though granted perhaps 'dinosaurs' would have been a less inflammatory description. Such language however in no way exposes any weakness in the case for urgent action to avert climate disruption. It's purely a sign of frustration at seeing the real debate being highjacked by a highly orchestrated campaign to indiscriminately write off all scientists in the field as cheats, frauds and liars.

Regarding the fallacy that we have plenty of time, scientists have been warning of this impending disaster for over three decades now and in that time many of the indicators have worsened and many of the projected timelines have had to be brought forward. As the predicted changes are occurring and they are, they are now expected to create a tipping point, which will only accelerate the warming and melting already occurring, most probably to beyond a point of any return.

You can sit back and relax, but just stay out of the way of the majority of people who do realise that at the very least the precautionary principle needs to be urgently enacted. It's only those who refuse to read the warnings who truly believe we have plenty of time.

Steven,

I don't dislike you, I just disagree with, IMO, the haste to judgement. Neither do I see Zionist plots everywhere, least of all in this post. I do wonder at your motivation for such haste.

We just disagree on:
a. IMO there is perhaps, prima facea evidence for an internal inquiry, at best.

b. That there is insufficient information to hang the people out to dry (Natural justice), much less AGW.

c. I question encouraging (albeit indirectly) yobs to break the law.

d. Neither am I currently convinced that whistle-blower immunity is apposite. Especially, given their probable motives.(the mindless desperation) for fame and to discredit AGW.

e. I don't dispute the substance of George Monbiot’s article, just the emotional intensity of his interpretation, and some the points in his OPINIONS,and assertions on this issue. ...I prefer objectivity.

AGW is real, it is far too substantiated by other sources, and the weight of evidence to be the 'objective' crisis some deniers make it out to be.

I have no doubt that some axe grinders are attempting to arrange the exit of Jones but that doesn't make it justified? I'll wait for all the facts, context etc.

to/...the..two/party/.'s:..
via fraud science...Your Movement..Has Been Hijacked

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091125_enviro_message.htm

Transcript:..You/who..have watched..with growing concern..the ways in which/the world around us..has been ravaged..in the pursuit of..the almighty dollar.

You..who are concerned.with the state of.the planet..that we are leaving..for our children..and our grandchildren..and those generations yet unborn.

This..is not/a message of/divisiveness,..but cooperation.

This..is a message/of hope and empowerment.. but it..requires us..to look at a hard..and uncomfortable truth:..Your movement..has been usurped..by the very same...financial interests..you thought/you were fighting against.

You have suspected..as much for years.

You watched..at first with hope..and excitement..as your movement,..your cause,.your message/began to spread,..as it was taken up by the media..and given attention,..as conferences were organized and as the ideas..you had struggled/so long and hard..to be heard..were talked about..nationally...Then internationally.

You watched with growing unease..as the message was simplified...First..it became a slogan...Then..it became a brand...Soon it was nothing more..than a label..and it became attached to products/bands/parties.

The ideas..you had once fought for..were now being sold/back..to you. For profit/..via carbon tax.

You watched..with growing unease..as the message became parroted,..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi1LU45Nip0
.. not argued, worn like a fashion
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/11/17/green-fashion-8-celebrities-with-eco-friendly-collections/
..rather than something..that came..from/the conviction..of understanding.

You disagreed..when the slogans–and..then the science–were dumbed down...When carbon dioxide..became the focus..and CO2 was taken up as a political-cause..Soon..it was the only cause.

You knew that..Al Gore was not a scientist,..that his evidence/was factually incorrect,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html

knew..that the movement..was being taken-over..by a cause..that was not/your own,..one that relied..on beliefs..you did not share..to propose a solution..you did not want

It began..to reach a/breaking-point..when you saw..that the solutions being proposed..were not solutions..at all,..when they began to propose..new taxes..and new markets..that would only serve..to line their own/pockets.

You knew something..was wrong..when you saw them argue..for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay,
http://cei.org/gencon/019,02898.cfm

..when you saw Goldman/Sachs..position itself..to ride the carbon trading bubble,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/inside_the_great_american_bubble_machine
..when the whole thrust..of the movement..became ways..to make money or spend money..or raise money/from this panic.

Your movement..had been hijacked.

The realization..came the first time..you read The Club of Rome’s 1991 book,..The First Global Revolution,
http://www.archive.org/stream/TheFirstGlobalRevolution#page/n85/mode/2up

..which says..QUOTE..“In searching..for a common/enemy..against whom..we can unite,..we came up..with the idea..that pollution,..the threat of global warming,..water-shortages,..famine..and the like,..would fit the bill