[Kszyhu]

Yeah, supporters of anti-global warming policy forged some of their data, so their opponents are responsible for imminent end of the world...  Anyway, I think that global warming theory won't be discredited because of this leak, people will just take relevant news with a grain of salt.

[Janos]

In science word "trick" actually is some suspicious fraud, not a a normal way of dealing with problems. THE MORE YOU KNOW. Destroying emails and using a normal procedure to match datasets to another are the biggest proofs of fraud someone can find in 15 years' worth of emails? Seriously?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853 has a

Noise, noise, no substance. Scientific politics as petty and hateful as they are. People being *****es at each other. No falsification of AGW.

edit: removed unnecessary flaming

[Uchuujinsan]

I think there's plenty more to say, given the implications of what this release reveals.  You shouldn't blindly accept one side's opinion on such a controversial topic, especially when the primary sources have been made so easily available to examine.

Searchable archive of the emails:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

I've done researches about similar matters many times, and the result has always been the same. Quote mining. The quote of "trick to hiding the decline" doesn't explain what decline refers to, and the guy who quoted it didn't bother to give the proper context (probably because it wouldn't help the implication that a decline in temperature was meant), and if this is the worst he can find I don't need to waste my time perusing that material. I've wasted my time that way too often already.

[General Battuta]

I don't think Liberator's a bumbling moronic retard. C'mon, now - if your argument is strong, you don't need to belittle your opposition.

Liberator takes the time to post his beliefs here knowing he'll probably be jumped on. Let's show a bit of respect.

[Flipside]

Agreed, let's cut it on the personal attacks.

[BloodEagle]

For the love of.... STOP CALLING IT 'GLOBAL WARMING'!

[Bobboau]

I egerly await seeing the best evidence of fraud that the anti-global warming group can find in this, it's a huge chunk of data so it will take some time, but if this group is up to something they should be able to find a few smoking guns in this haystack, I hope they can do better than personal snipes and that out of context 'hide the decline' statement referring to a data set with a known error in it, with this volume of data I hope for there sake that they can find something real.

[Mika]

I don't think anything more substancial will surface.

The only issue is if measurement data has been destroyed or withheld. Suggesting it is odd coming from a mouth of a scientist, but to actually destroy it is still another thing. It is not clear if they have carried out this. This is the part I referred to by saying there needs to be a public inquiry. It might be so that one or two persons have to resign after this, but that's the worst that I can expect to happen.

This incident serves as a remainder that emails can get published at any time whether author wants it or not, and this should be remembered when writing one.

[Janos]

I don't think Liberator's a bumbling moronic retard. C'mon, now - if your argument is strong, you don't need to belittle your opposition.

Liberator takes the time to post his beliefs here knowing he'll probably be jumped on. Let's show a bit of respect.

It wasn't aimed at Liberator, though. Sorry.

[General Battuta]

I don't think Liberator's a bumbling moronic retard. C'mon, now - if your argument is strong, you don't need to belittle your opposition.

Liberator takes the time to post his beliefs here knowing he'll probably be jumped on. Let's show a bit of respect.

It wasn't aimed at Liberator, though. Sorry.

It was aimed at Blackhole, not at you. No worries.

[redsniper]

...people will just take relevant news with a grain of salt.

I think you're vastly overestimating the rationality of most people.

[Liberator]

The hoax in Global Climate change isn't that it's happening.  Climates change, that's what they do.

The hoax is that we're to blame for it and that we can do something to stop or slow it by forcing the adoption of overpriced, underpowered technologies that aren't ready for prime time because they're too complex and/or too expensive to manufacture at meaningful levels all in the name of saving the world from ourselves.

[Colonol Dekker]

I approve this topic as it makes no difference in my life

[Goober5000]

See, this is very bad. Why? Because bumbling moronic retards like Liberator will latch on to this and say GLOBAL WARMING IS ALL A HOAX LOLOLOL. This in turn will cause a massive economic collapse of alternative energy sources, which means we'll attempt to go back to our old coal reserves only to discover that they're all but depleted and then be like F-CK.

If this gets too extreme, then the entire public will start thinking its perfectly ok to abuse the environment, which could in fact start global warming if it hasn't already happened! If people use this to rationalize littering, wasting, etc, then we'll have massive destruction of ecosystems across the world in a matter of decades and global warming will be the least of our concerns.

So basically the entire human race is now doomed to its own stupidity. I hope you're happy, Liberator.

You've constructed a ridiculous strawman here.  If global warming is proven a hoax, people are not magically going to start polluting the environment like their life depends on it.  There's already an environmentalist movement independent of the presence or absence of global warming; that will continue.  And people generally want to be good stewards of the Earth - reuse, recycle, don't litter, etc..  That's not going to change.

And suppose suppose global warming is a hoax; do you really want the hoaxers to run wild with laws and regulations to suit their own interests?

You can make your argument without personal attacks.  Do so, or you'll be prevented from posting in this thread.

I've done researches about similar matters many times, and the result has always been the same. Quote mining.

You're generalizing.  Just because something was true about a previous controversy doesn't mean it's true here.

Furthermore, "quote mining" is dishonestly stringing together quotes taken out of context.  These emails are quotes taken in context, and which can stand on their own without being strung together.

I don't think anything more substancial will surface.

The only issue is if measurement data has been destroyed or withheld. Suggesting it is odd coming from a mouth of a scientist, but to actually destroy it is still another thing. It is not clear if they have carried out this. This is the part I referred to by saying there needs to be a public inquiry. It might be so that one or two persons have to resign after this, but that's the worst that I can expect to happen.

How about these emails then?

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

To: santer1@XXXX

Subject: Re: A quick question

Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008

Ben,

Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails - unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

Anyway requests have been of three types - observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter - and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these - all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business - and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

Makes you wonder very strongly what Jones is trying to hide, doesn’t it? Also makes you laugh all over again at his claim once that the data being sought had, sadly, been ... um, lost.

And, most damagingly...

From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil:

There's a lot more available with only a few minutes' worth of Googling.  I've just posted the tip of the iceberg here.

[Janos]

Goober,

that's no evidence of fraud;
that's academia for you.

They can be even worse and they can hate some other scientists, but it's not like all those thousands of studies are based on personal vendettas against McIntyre et al. I have no idea what the entire "delete e-mails" stuff is, but if I have to guess some conservations could've been leaked to unwanted sources. No idea.

Actually hey Goober,  I have a question for you!:

If ACC is a hoax, then who is to benefit? How do these thousands of scientists which are testing 0-hypothesises against working hypothesises and get their result published benefit? Why does this huge conspiracy exist? Why?

[Scotty]

that's no evidence of fraud;
that's academia for you.

Deleting correspondence and data so someone else can't see it is academia?  How long was I asleep last night?

If ACC is a hoax, then who is to benefit? How do these thousands of scientists which are testing 0-hypothesises against working hypothesises and get their result published benefit? Why does this huge conspiracy exist? Why?

Funding?

[Janos]

that's no evidence of fraud;
that's academia for you.

Deleting correspondence and data so someone else can't see it is academia?  How long was I asleep last night?

Hey, I don't like it either, and I have no idea what these guys are doing, and why they are deleting some messages, and what it has to do with anything, but if you know your academia this kind of petty **** and fierce competition goes on all the time, despite the standards of science. The reasons are theft, jealousy and other way too human attributes. They show when you deal with groups of like 15 people. People talk **** around water machine. But overall the entire fumbling machine of empirism produces relatively good results, despite the fact that academia is filled with dicks.

This is not some arcane knowledge, this is natural sciences, and even Bachelors know this is how it works - if they don't, they don't know their scientific bull****. No one really likes it. It's not what is supposed to happen. It's just what happens.

Welcome here. I'm in biology. Publication is power. Power is funding. Funding is publication. Allow anyone to snatch anything from you and they'll do and they'll publish and you will be ridiculed for allowing it to happen. Ever read Terry Pratchett? The Unseen University sadly is not complete fiction.

Funding?

You cannot be serious.

You are completely insane if you actually believe this and there's no other way to put this.

Do you think climatologists drive around in BMWs or even get adequate funding? Where do you live in?

Lets deal with some sound presumptions. After all, a fraud theory has to explain some of the facts away, which I am certain everyone who believes in fraud can probably dissect my comment in logical way. Let's begin:
So, this huge click of different scientists from all around the globe starts to run this hoax in early 1980s to convince people that something is happening.

They keep this cabal secret for 20 years and publish, publish and publish. People dont' react to their alarms for about 20 years, after which these scientists have a mountain of practically similar evidence. People start to pay some kind of attention (late 1990s).

They then are faced with multi-billion assault from energy giants which freely fund junk science via front groups. The governments that actually are sometimes even responsible for the scientists' funding are reluctant to do anything about the problems.

These scientists are spread all around the globe, hundreds of them lose all funding every years, competition is absolutely fierce and yet they manage to get relatively similar results. And still the fraud keeps on running, and even 15 years' worth of e-mails from these conspirators has one example of people deleting e-mails which no one knows the context to! After this, they somehow "get funding" (from whom?) to... ummm, live like masters, which doesn't seem evident, because most of them certainly don't and apply for research grants and don't get them, and those who do use the funding to... do more research. This is only explainable with superhuman powers and most elaborate money laundering scheme I can imagine.

They truly seem to be omnipotent if they can manage this.

[General Battuta]

Janos is correct.

[Bobboau]

so it is unpossible that they would falsify data to provide results that would get them published that would lead to more funding, totaly unpossible.

[General Battuta]

No, that's completely possible.