Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
While I don't believe the debate is necessarily over, this revelation and scandal cast into serious doubt not only the "research" of the CRU, but all those who reviewed and verified it as accurate and those whose subsequent findings were based upon both CRU's cooked numbers and the conclusions of those reviewers.More premature acclamation. Debate over? I think not. What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years. We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.
This thread is demonstration of how the "science" has been faked and that the "deniers", who can't come up with hard and verifiable numbers (like that oft-parroted 90% myth), are the GlobalClimateCoolerWarmering scaremonger cargo cultists, like you.
I agree. But this gives a lot of people something to latch onto without actually giving it any thought other than what they read on partisan blogs.More premature acclamation. Debate over? I think not. What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years. We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.
Stolen E-Mails Sharpen a Brawl Between Climate Scientists and Skeptics - NYTimes.comMann said the second portion of Jones' message referred to a known problem with certain temperature records gleaned from tree rings. Up until 1960, temperature records measured by weather stations agree with records extrapolated from tree rings. But after 1960, it's a different story. Some of the trees no longer accurately register temperature variations.
That's a problem that CRU scientist Keith Briffa identified in a journal article more than 10 years ago, Mann said, arguing that scientists shouldn't use the inaccurate post-1960 data.
While I don't believe the debate is necessarily over, this revelation and scandal cast into serious doubt not only the "research" of the CRU, but all those who reviewed and verified it as accurate and those whose subsequent findings were based upon both CRU's cooked numbers and the conclusions of those reviewers.More premature acclamation. Debate over? I think not. What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years. We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.
This is an instance where nearly everyone within the AGW academic/political structure could well have the misinformation clap.
anyways I will leave you and the rest of your moronic friends to spinning yourselves silly.
While I don't believe the debate is necessarily over, this revelation and scandal cast into serious doubt not only the "research" of the CRU, but all those who reviewed and verified it as accurate and those whose subsequent findings were based upon both CRU's cooked numbers and the conclusions of those reviewers.More premature acclamation. Debate over? I think not. What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years. We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.
This is an instance where nearly everyone within the AGW academic/political structure could well have the misinformation clap.
Indeed they might. I have no doubt that science, like any other human endeavour, is capable of producing egotistical, lying bastards (although politics has science snookered on that one) and if there's been skullduggery here then the individuals who perpetrated it should be sorted out. We know that more than one researcher has been busted for making data fit a hypothesis, but then sometimes that assertion loses it effect in the wake of further knowledge. Sometimes intuition is ahead of current knowledge
Oil-drop experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But that's not an excuse for wholesale fabrication. And as I say, if that is the case here then get the pitchforks out. Anyway this isn't bad thing, it's good to have a bit of sunlight (sorry) on an issue to see what's really going on.
Say it ain't so, Joe!
So much for the credibility of that mythical "90% of scientists"!
8.15 PM UPDATE: The Hadley CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine:
The director of Britains leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazines TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding the decline, and Jones explained what he was trying to say .
So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. Ive been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will peer review be used to shout down sceptics.
This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider whos now blown the whistle.
Hadley hacked: warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?
yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?
Jay, you're not too fucking bright are you?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAScientific opinion on climate change and global warming
SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE
Environmental groups have warned of the contribution to climate change from human activities for decades. It has taken the scientific community many years to begin making definitive statements about the accuracy of these claims. It should be noted that while the overwhelming majority of scientists now accept that human activities are a major cause of global warming, there is still a small number of scientists who disagree with these conclusions.
evidence supporting global warming & human causes
The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century. Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together. The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused.
The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.40.8 °C over the last 100 years, and the current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years. Climate change attribution studies using both models and observations find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity. Natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change. Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included.
There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above, reflected in official statements by professional associations related to climate science. Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly however that is defined we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future.
Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects such as sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves in the future.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAScientific opinion on climate change and global warming
SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE
Environmental groups have warned of the contribution to climate change from human activities for decades. It has taken the scientific community many years to begin making definitive statements about the accuracy of these claims. It should be noted that while the overwhelming majority of scientists now accept that human activities are a major cause of global warming, there is still a small number of scientists who disagree with these conclusions.
evidence supporting global warming & human causes
The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century. Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together. The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused.
The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.40.8 °C over the last 100 years, and the current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years. Climate change attribution studies using both models and observations find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity. Natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change. Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included.
There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above, reflected in official statements by professional associations related to climate science. Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly however that is defined we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future.
Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects such as sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves in the future.
You cite an article that's data source came from the exact people that have just been shown to be lying.
Jeez you are an idiot.
Ame®icano;1748555 said:Liberal Credo:
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -Albert Einstein
On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.
As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. As of today, Saturday 21 November, there have been no statements that I have seen doubting the authenticity of these texts. It is here just as a curiosity!
Ways to use this search:
Enter keywords in the search box (try not to use quotation marks, the system automatically checks the words of your phrase and returns best match firstSee the menu below, all emails are laid out in pages of 25 or you can click on the filename (if you know what you need) to simply view a single fileSee what keywords and phrases others have been using recently and just click on those to see what is therePage 1 Filenames:
826209667.txt / 07 Mar 1996
835015638.txt / 17 Jun 1996
835819980.txt / 26 Jun 1996
837094033.txt / 11 Jul 1996
837197800.txt / 12 Jul 1996
839635440.txt / 09 Aug 1996
839858862.txt / 12 Aug 1996
841293339.txt / 28 Aug 1996
841418825.txt / 30 Aug 1996
842992948.txt / 17 Sep 1996
842996314.txt / 17 Sep 1996
843161829.txt / 19 Sep 1996
844968241.txt / 10 Oct 1996
845217169.txt / 13 Oct 1996
846715553.txt / 30 Oct 1996
846781264.txt / 31 Oct 1996
847838200.txt / 12 Nov 1996
848679780.txt / 22 Nov 1996
848695896.txt / 22 Nov 1996
850159177.txt / 09 Dec 1996
850162662.txt / 09 Dec 1996
850320678.txt / 11 Dec 1996
853426848.txt / 16 Jan 1997
854306192.txt / 26 Jan 1997
857600338.txt / 05 Mar 1997
Edited for the sake of space....Trust Annie, there are a boatlaod of e-mails here
~Dude
Page 43 Filenames:
1255496484.txt / 14 Oct 2009
1255523796.txt / 14 Oct 2009
1255530325.txt / 14 Oct 2009
1255532032.txt / 14 Oct 2009
1255538481.txt / 14 Oct 2009
1255550975.txt / 14 Oct 2009
1255553034.txt / 14 Oct 2009
1255558867.txt / 14 Oct 2009
1256214796.txt / 22 Oct 2009
1256302524.txt / 23 Oct 2009
1256353124.txt / 23 Oct 2009
1256735067.txt / 28 Oct 2009
1256747199.txt / 28 Oct 2009
1256760240.txt / 28 Oct 2009
1256765544.txt / 28 Oct 2009
1257532857.txt / 06 Nov 2009
1257546975.txt / 06 Nov 2009
1257847147.txt / 10 Nov 2009
1257874826.txt / 10 Nov 2009
1257881012.txt / 10 Nov 2009
1257888920.txt / 10 Nov 2009
1258039134.txt / 12 Nov 2009
1258053464.txt / 12 Nov 2009
I really just made this because I really couldn't see me going through the sheer number of text files in any realistic fashion. This will help me find emails that are being discussed on forums and blogs I read.
But this page is now being hit a lot, so I feel it only fair that I tell you what I am hoping to get done - and for you to send me suggestions or ideas (or tips). I'm hoping to get the time tomorrow to also make the various Word and Excel files online and searchable, and also to do what I can with the text from the PDF files (some might be easier than others). I am also hoping to get some improvements done to the overall search box to make the results weighted to number of hits for main keywords / filter out unimportant words (you, me and I) and make the tool more useful.
The entire thing is running off a single mysql database and three main php scripts, the emails are parsed automatically into the database and there is also another file that I made earlier that generated hard copy html files just to get something online.
Hope you enjoy
Last updated Tuesday, 24 November 2009 19:13:20
