Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[Ambrocious]

KEITH JOHNSON
The Wall Street Journal
November 22, 2009


The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.

Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn’t immediately confirm the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet.

The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence policy makers around the world.

FULL ARTICLE


Global warming because of US, is a lie. It is happening but they are taxing us saying that we are the cause, driving us into the ground with poverty and sickness and a near complete collapse of the US Dollar. We will all see soon enough what the truth is.

 

[hotatlboi]

It is happening but they are taxing us saying that we are the cause, driving us into the ground with poverty and sickness and a near complete collapse of the US Dollar.

Once again, you're conflating so many unrelated issues, wildly casting about in your web of conspiracy, that you fail to make a sensible point on anything.

 

[Ambrocious]

Once again, you're conflating so many unrelated issues, wildly casting about in your web of conspiracy, that you fail to make a sensible point on anything.

So based on MY comment, not the article, you are saying it's fraudulent? Maybe you aught to read the article and see if it's true my friend.

 

[hotatlboi]

So based on MY comment, not the article, you are saying it's fraudulent? Maybe you aught to read the article and see if it's true my friend.

I've read about this incident in many articles already.

The emails show a scientist trying to make his graph look more spiffy.

It isn't some kind of huge conspiracy to fabricate data to support a false conclusion.

 

[Ambrocious]

Take a fresh look through open eyes...

 

[hotatlboi]

Take a fresh look through open eyes...

I'd invite you to take a fresh look with your tin foil hat removed.

 

[Ambrocious]

The Wall Street Journal must be lying then...that's where the article goes to. This IS real

In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.

Would you like to download the proof that shows that man made global warming is false? Of course you don't but here it is anyways. PROOF (THIS LINK IS LOCATED ON THE WRITTEN ARTICLE ON Wall Street Journal)

You have two options, deny this and shut those pretty little eyes or read the REAL leaked evidence. Choose.

 

[hotatlboi]

The Wall Street Journal must be lying then.

LOL, no they are not lying. yes this group was hacked.

But the Journal didn't take it as far as your are, that this proves global warming is a huge conspiracy.

I've seen the emails and there's nothing more than what I said earlier in this thread.

 

[Ambrocious]

You have seen the emails? Oh do tell us what the emails say?

 

[Ambrocious]

From: John Daly [Email address: Removed by Moderator]
To: [Email address: Removed by Moderator]
Subject: Re: Climatic warming in Tasmania
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 20:04:00 +1100
Cc: Ed Cook [Email address: Removed by Moderator], [Email address: Removed by Moderator], [Email address: Removed by Moderator], Mike Barbetti [Email address: Removed by Moderator], [Email address: Removed by Moderator], [Email address: Removed by Moderator]

Dear Neville,

You mentioned to me some time ago that in your view, the 11-year solar cycle
did not influence temperature. There have been numerous attempts by
academics to establish a correlation, but each has been shot down on some
ground or other. I remember Barrie Pittock was especially dismissive of
attempts to correlate solar cycle with temperature.

Have you tried this approach?

Load "Mathematica" into your PC and run the following set of instructions -

data = ReadList[ "c:sydney.txt", Number]
dataElements = Length[data]
X = ListPlot[ data, PlotJoined-> True];
fourierTrans = Fourier[data];
ListPlot[Abs[fourierTrans], PlotJoined -> True];

fitfun1 = Fit[data,{1,x,x^2,x^3,Sin[11 2 Pi x/dataElements],
Cos[11 2 Pi x/dataElements]},x];
fittable = Table[N[fitfun1], {x, dataElements}];
Y = ListPlot[fittable, PlotJoined -> True];
Show[X, Y]

The reference to "c:sydney.txt" is a suggested pathname for the following
set of data - which is Sydney's annual mean temperature.

16.8 16.5 16.8 17 17 16.7 17.1 17.4 17.9 17.4 17.2 17.1 16.9 17 17.2 17.2 17.4
17.6 17.6 17.6 16.7 17.1 16.8 17.4 16.8 17.3 17.8 17.5 17.1 17.2 17.6 17.3 17.1
16.9 16.9 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.6 17.5 17.4 17.2 17.1 17.3 17.2 17.2 16.9 17.5 17.4
17.2 17 17.5 17.4 17.5 17.7 18.3 17.8 17.4 17.2 17.4 18.3 17.3 18 18.1 18 17.5
17.3 18 17 18.2 17.4 17.6 17.5 17.4 17.1 17.4 17.3 17.5 17.7 18 17.8 18 17.4
17.8 16.8 17.5 17.4 17.6 17.6 17.2 17.4 17.9 17.9 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.7 17.6 17.8
18.3 18 17.6 17.8 17.8 17.8 18.1 17.9 17.5 17.8 18.3 18 17.7 17.3 17.5 18.5 17.4
17.8 17.7 17.8 17.7 18 18.5 18.2 17.8 18.1 17.5 17.8 17.8 18 18.6 18.1 18.1
18.6

So Far so good.

"Mathematica" first plots out the data itself (see Atachment 1)

The first part of the instruction set lets "mathematica" do a Fourier Transform
on the data, ie. searching out the periodicities, if there are any. The result is
shown on Attachment 2.

The transform result shows a sharp spike at the 11 year point (I wonder
what is significant about 11 years?). The second part of the instructions
now acts upon this observed spike (the Cos 11 bit), to extract it's
waveform from the rest of the noise. The result is shown as a waveform
in attachment 3, the waves having an 11-year period, with the long-term
Sydney warming easily evident.

Attachment 4 shows the original Sydney data overlaid against the 11-year
periodicity.

It would appear that the solar cycle does indeed affect temperature.

(I tried the same run on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU
must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the
11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys).

Stay cool.

John Daly http://www.vision.net.au/~daly

Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSydney.gif

Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachFourier.gif

Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSolar1.gif

Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSolar2.gif

One such letter that was sent too and fro from the scientists. They are discussing that Earth has an 11 year cycle in which it gets colder and hotter. Every 11 years, the earth goes through this. This is normal. I'll get more proof later as I am actually looking for the proof, no longer just saying it, I'LL POST IT!!!

.

.

.

.

 

[hotatlboi]

One such letter that was sent too and fro from the scientists. They are discussing that Earth has an 11 year cycle in which it gets colder and hotter. Every 11 years, the earth goes through this. This is normal. I'll get more proof later as I am actually looking for the proof, no longer just saying it, I'LL POST IT!!!

Um...dude...yeah that's common knowledge. You didn't prove anything.

The global warming trend is over many more than 11 years.

 

[hotatlboi]

You have seen the emails? Oh do tell us what the emails say?

Post 4 in this thread.

That's the one that has gotten the most press at least.

 

[Ambrocious]

OK, so YOU understand the depth of this, but the fact is that the mainstream media is making it a so called known fact the the main reason for the climate change is because of US and this simply isn't true. This has MUCH more to do with solar events rather than human events.

Yes, the scientist try and make what they found "look" spiffy but then that evidence is then sent to the eco-prophet Al Gore or rather it is in some form delivered to him in which he proceeds to tell everyone that it is MAINLY our fault when we hardly are to blame. This is the deception.

From: Tom Wigley [Email address: Removed by Moderator]
To: [Email address: Removed by Moderator]
Subject: Re: Your help, please?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:07:42 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: [Numerous email addresses: Removed by Moderator]

Dear Doug,

In response to Jay Fein's e-mail re den-cen, here are some points (which
may merely echo where you are already).

(1) Why study den-cen? Reason is: improve understanding of climate
system to aid in detection and prediction. You should read Ch. 8
(detection) of IPCC WGI SAR in this regard.

(2) How to study den-cen? Models and observed data are equally
important. Models (coupled O/AGCMs) can only give the internal component
of variability, instrumental and paleodata give internal-plus-external.

(3) How useful are paleodata? I support the continued collection of
such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community
try to oversell their product. A specific example is the ice core
isotope record, which correlates very poorly with temperature on the
annual to decadal timescale (and possibly also on the century
timescale)---question, how do we ever demonstrate the usefulness or
otherwise of ice core isotopes on this timescale?

There are other well known proxy data issues that need careful thought...

(a) Sedimentary records---dating. Are 14C-dated records of any value at
all (unless wiggle matched)?

(b) Seasonal specificity---how useful is a proxy record that tells us
about a single season (or only part of the year)?

(c) Climate variance explained by the proxy variable--close to zero for
ice core isotopes, up to 50% for tree rings, somewhere in between for
most other indicators. How valuable are such partially explained records
in helping explain the past?

(d) Signal-to-noise problems---a key issue is, what role has external
forcing had on climate over the past 10,000 years. There is a tendency
to interpret observed changes as evidence of external forcing---usually
unjustifiably. Few workers in the area realize that paleo interpretation
has a detection aspect, just like interpreting the past 100+ years---only
much more difficult. More work is needed on this.

(e) Frequency dependence of explained variance---the classic example
here is tree rings, where it is exceedingly difficult to get out a
credible low frequency (50+ year time scale) message. Work in this area
could reap useful rewards.

(f) Coverage---what about den-cen data from the oceans? We need much
more of this, especially in regions that might provide insights into
mechanisms (like NADW changes).

(4) Causes. Here, ice cores are more valuable (CO2, CH4 and volcanic
aerosol changes). But the main external candidate is solar, and more
work is required to improve the "paleo" solar forcing record and to
understand how the climate system responds both globally and regionally
to solar forcing.

I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful

Cheers,
Tom

P.S. I've added Ben Santer, Tim Barnett, Ed Cook, Keith Briffa, Malcolm
Hughes, Ray Bradley and Phil Jones to your mailing list.


On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, it was written:

> Dear Colleague:
>
> Doug Martinson is the Chair of the NAS, Climate Research
> Committee's Dec-Cen panel. He and his Panelists are drafting a
> Decadal-Century Climate Variability Science Plan (a US CLIVAR
> contribution). Doug and his Panel are trying to get the broadest
> possible scientific input for this Plan. Doug's approach is one
> that I strongly endorse. In this reagrd he asked me to solicite
> your comments on highest priority science questions and asks also
> for some help regarding examples of published work that would be
> useful for the Plan.
>
> I know you are busy, but urge you to think about this and comment.
> Doug's committee meet in mid-September, so to be of most use to
> him, your comments should be received by the end of August.
>
> Please email to Doug with a cc to me.
>
> Doug Martinson: [Email address: Removed by Moderator]
> Jay Fein: [Email address: Removed by Moderator]
>
> Thanks very much. Jay
>

The main issue is NOT humans causing this, it is the solar (all things in space, the Sun being the absolute main topic) conditions and events.

.

.

.

.

 

[hotatlboi]

The main issue is NOT humans causing this, it is the solar (all things in space, the Sun being the absolute main topic).

Dude, I'm going to say this in the least offensive way possible. You are hopelessly lost trying to interpret a mundane communication from a scientist in the context of your inforwars allegiance. Just utterly lost. That is in no way what the email is saying.

 

[Ambrocious]

Dude, I'm going to say this in the least offensive way possible. You are hopelessly lost trying to interpret a mundane communication from a scientist in the context of your inforwars allegiance. Just utterly lost. That is in no way what the email is saying.

OK then, shed some light on the subject please.

 

[hotatlboi]

OK then, shed some light on the subject please.

Well I don't have the context for it and I'm not a climate scientist so I'm hesitant to read too much into it but the immediate thing that jumps out at me from the text you highlighted was that he said the sun is the main "external" factor. He gave no consideration to how he saw internal factors (manmade or otherwise) contributing by comparison.

And I don't even know if this email was referring to global warming in it's entirely or some more specific phenomena that is a subset of those studies.

 

[Ambrocious]

Well I don't have the context for it and I'm not a climate scientist so I'm hesitant to read too much into it but the immediate thing that jumps out at me from the text you highlighted was that he said the sun is the main "external" factor. He gave no consideration to how he saw internal factors (manmade or otherwise) contributing by comparison.

And I don't even know if this email was referring to global warming in it's entirely or some more specific phenomena that is a subset of those studies.

Either way you look at it, a whole lot of information is being held back from the general public and it reeks like rotted fish to me.

I hope that this information will not wind up like pearls before swine...

More on WikiLeaks

 

[Corny]

A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.

Tell me where stuff like this isn't happening. For the moment I don't see the kind of conspiracy that you are reading into it. You know .. there are more scientists researching this topic than just those of east anglia ..

 

[jackoroe]

I think the point that needs to be made, is that the whole climate change argument isn't even a scientific theory. It's merely a hypothesis. This is the reason scientists are still arguing about the root cause of global warming and not about gravity.

 

[andysayshi]

OK, so YOU understand the depth of this, but the fact is that the mainstream media is making it a so called known fact the the main reason for the climate change is because of US and this simply isn't true. This has MUCH more to do with solar events rather than human events.

Yes, the scientist try and make what they found "look" spiffy but then that evidence is then sent to the eco-prophet Al Gore or rather it is in some form delivered to him in which he proceeds to tell everyone thatit is MAINLY our fault when we hardly are to blame. This is the deception.

The main issue is NOT humans causing this, it is the solar (all things in space, the Sun being the absolute main topic) conditions and events.

The entire piece you've quoted is discussing the validity of systems that TEST for climate change. The section you've highlighted merely says that studying solar records is more important than studying ice cores when assessing external causes of global warming. It is not addressing the validity of global warming in any way.

The entire document references a previous communication which is not presented here, with the result that we are viewing answers without knowing the questions. If I showed you that the answers to 3 questions were "red", "3" and "happy", they are meaningless. But when you know that the questions are "What colour is a fire engine", "what is 1+2" and "what is the opposite of sad", you have an understanding of the answers.

In addition, you claim the "mainstream media" is responsible for perpetuating global warming myth, and yet your source for questioning it is The Wall Street Journal - part of the mainstream media!

I'll confess I feel lost in the global warming debate. The best thing the UN could do before the big summit is to invite EVERY accredited climatologist on Earth to submit their opinion: in effect, get a verifiable vote from every qualified academic as to man-made global warming validity. THEN act accordingly.

But your posts here show a tendency to jump onto the conspiracy bandwagon, without even understanding the "evidence" that you proffer.