Hadley CRU files/emails hacked!

Great - so by posting illegally obtained, private correspondence makes you feel better... great.

 

After reading a few excerpts I'd bet $10 that it's a hoax. The deniers have grown desperate.

 

Looks like it really happened (email account was hacked), but it doesn't look like anything significant has been revealed. I haven't read any of the content myself.

RealClimate: The CRU hack

 

There is some amazing stuff in these emails. As one commenter on RealClimate noted:

"The revelation is the degree of backbiting, smear and sabotage indicated in the leaked emails. Reviewers of papers are pre-selected, plans are hatched to remove an editor for publishing skeptical research, instructions shared for deleting emails in anticipation of FOI [Freedom Of Information] requests."

We now have firm evidence that many scientists are promoting a global warming agenda, ahead of good science.

The real question is, will these revelations increase the pressure on Hadley and other research groups to release data and research for review? One would hope so.

A key facet of the scientific method is the reproducibility of results. When scientists withhold data and methodologies so that others can not test their results, it goes against the tenants of sound science.

More on this is available here, here, and here. Amazing stuff. But not surprising.

 

Why do I have the feeling that if it was some dirt on Sarah Palin or her family this policy wouldn't be enforced?

 

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1

 

OK, it's real. See here for calm discussion:
RealClimate: The CRU hack

and here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?hp

 

Tempest in a teacup, has the teabagging knuckledraggers all worked up though.

 

So someone that doesn't fall into your line of thinking is a call for you to resort to name calling? AMAZING!

 

Maybe he is simply reacting to the fact that some people in this thread contribute nothing to PC and appear to be here only to piss other people off and spread their worldview.

Seriously though. Did someone close Fred's House of Politics today? LOL

 

Joe the plumber has spoken, Ya'll.

 

Hahaha you crack me up man! :rockon:

 

As I posted in FHOP, this is a reverse Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers infamy. Then, Leftists cheered at the illegal breach of security that supported their cause. Will Leftists cheer or jeer this revelation obtained by the Ellsberg method? Will assumptions be revised for accuracy? Or will it devolve into the usual "attack the messenger" red herring? Has this appeared anywhere in the MSM?

 

Yet PriusChat in the past and will no doubt in the future routinely release pre-embargo product information.

 

So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

Scientists' e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public


[SIZE=-1]By Juliet Eilperin[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Washington Post Staff Writer[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Saturday, November 21, 2009 [/SIZE]

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world's foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.
The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.
University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how many of the stolen items were authentic.
"We are aware that information from a server in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the statement says. "We are extremely concerned that personal information about individuals may have been compromised. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm what proportion of this material is genuine."
Michael E. Mann, who directs the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said in a telephone interview from Paris that skeptics are "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious."
In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. "It's hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.
But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.
"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."
In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.
Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment. :mad2:
Just wait until all of this comes out in its full glory - it can't be good GW alarmists.

Can't say I'm surprised by this revelation after watching the zombie like followers of GW worship at the alter of al gore -- what a crock!