Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – Leaked documents and emails

[birdie1971]

From their website:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/

“The Climate Research Unit (CRU) is widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.”


The CRU has recently been hacked (20 November 2009) and hundreds of emails and documents have been published on the internet.

What these emails have shown is that several of the 'top' climate scientists have been actively conspiring to destroy data that disproves anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and openly discussing ways in which scientists who don't believe AGW is real should be 'blocked' from publishing their findings in peer reviewed scientific journals.

http://www.timesonlin...nt/article6936328.ece

[birdie1971]

The shrill cry from proponents of AGW has always been – the time for debate is over; the science is settled.

No it isn't. I've always strongly suspected that the CRU and the IPCC are no strangers to fraud and now these emails prove exactly that. For years, the 'top' scientists have been unwilling to take on the sceptics in a debate and now we can see why - their science doesn't stack up and they know it. It has become clear that important data has been manipulated and/or destroyed.

This is not how real science should work. All data should be available to any inquiring scientists who want to look.

This is a public disgrace and predictably, the mainstream media (the BBC in particular) are playing the story down as if it's not important.

The BBC clearly don't care about scientists who lie, cheat, commit fraud and violate the Data Protection Act (it is illegal to destroy data following a 'freedom of information' request – but that is precisely what has happened), deliberately withhold information from other scientists and attempt to block contrary evidence from getting into the public domain.


Here's a searchable database so you can see for yourselves what the scientists have been discussing...

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

[Sqad]

birdie...This is quite an embarrassment for the IPPC.

[jake-the-peg]

They show nothing of the kind

They have hacked in and taken a bunch of E-mails and displayed them out of context.

They've taken words like "trick" and told everybody that that means a deception was going on. In reality the "trick" is the sort of "trick" someone might have for polishing shoes.

But Sqad is right - it is an embaressment - but more for the computer security people.

Looking forward to seeing the criminals responsible for the hacking getting gaol time

[jno]

just woken up to this, have we?

http://www.theanswerb...s/Question831247.html

[Gromit]

//This is a public disgrace and predictably, the mainstream media (the BBC in particular) are playing the story down as if it's not important. //

Copies of these emails were sent to a BBC journalist, who did nothing. That was his only option, because they were stolen. A public Service Broadcaster such as the BBC cannot deal in stolen property. This does not show that the BBC is in on the climate change conspiracy, it means this journalist has standards and so does the BBC.

Of the ones I have looked at, they do not seem to prove what you think they prove. They are certainly open to interpretation, rather like the data they are talking about.

[Sqad]

Destroying original research date is scandalous and leaves one open to accusations of fraud.

[jake-the-peg]

Open to interpretation Gromit?

By who exactly?

Do you have technical opinions on brain surgery too? or perhaps on the design of fast breeder reactors? or is it only in climate science you feel qualified to contribute?

Tell me where do you get your information?

From a scientist or from a journalist?

[Sqad]

jake....surely you are not suggesting that:

Only opinions on brain surgery are relevant from Neurosurgeons.

Or opinions on nuclear reactors from Nuclear Physicists.

Or opinions on Climate change by Geo Physicists.

They MAY be more "informed" opinions, but I will always defend the right for anyone to voice their opinions.....however many A-levels the may or may not have.

[Quinlad]

The 9/11 debate isn't over either.

Yes, the most prominent authorities and those with a vested interest agree that it was the work of Al Qaeda, but look online and you'll find several commentators who disagree. But the proponents of the Al Qaeda theory say that the debate is over. IT'S NOT.

They've been consistently unwilling to take on the sceptics in a debate - even though there's plenty of evidence online to show their argument doesn't stack up.

This is a public disgrace and the mainstream media are forever playing it down. In fact, those who do have the courage to question the received 'wisdom' are painted as heretics. What happened to freedom of speech???

[jake-the-peg]

Er yes I do when important decisions are bein made - I want the information to come from people qualified

I suspect you do too

Would you let somebody unqualified operate on you?

Fly a plane that you're on?

Come on it's a no-brainer

Because I have a probelm - the Royal society disagrees with you skeptics

So do I believe a group of the most emminent and accomplished scientists in the country?

Or do I believe a bunch of people with no qualifications in the subject in which they have such a strong opinion?

And this is way more important than flying a plane

[jake-the-peg]

And Quinlad - 9/11 conspiracies - do me a favour!

If the plane had been flown by Iraqis I might have listened

The reason that nobody wants to debate it or publish along side climate skeptics is the same reason that nobody want's to take part in a debate on flying saucers or the Loch Ness monster

[Sqad]

jake;

"Or do I believe a bunch of people with no qualifications in the subject in which they have such a strong opinion?"

How do you know?

You are being very silly, I was defending their right to have an opinion, not their expertise on performance in their expertise.

[Quinlad]

I was being sarcastic.

[jake-the-peg]

Why do people have a right to an opinion if they cannot defend where that opinion comes from?

I might have an opinion that cancer is purely in people's minds - and treatment is harmfull

Do you think I should have the right to go telling people that at a vulnerable stage in their lives

[jake-the-peg]

Does you opinion come from a scientist or a journalist?

[Sqad]

////Why do people have a right to an opinion if they cannot defend where that opinion comes from? ////

jake....because an opinion is just that...an opinion.....based on either fact or personal experience.

////I might have an opinion that cancer is purely in people's minds - and treatment is harmful ////

Doubtless some people do.

////Do you think I should have the right to go telling people that at a vulnerable stage in their lives////

If you ask my opinion, then the answer is no, but that is just my opinion.

[Gromit]

jake-the-peg

You misunderstood my comment. It was more of an observation. The material in the emails is being interpreted differently by the different sides. Not the data, but innocent phrases.

You also seem to have me in the anti camp and I am not.

You also seem to be up your own ar$e. Most unlike you, come down.

[Quinlad]

I think there is a difference between this thread, which rightly or wrongly questions the probity of the scientists (which surely any of us can legitimately do) and most other climate change threads in which people try to scientifically debunk the widely accepted theory of the world's top scientists with sketchy tit-bits they've culled from school, a magazine or a show they once watched on TV.

[Sqad]

Quinlad

/////with sketchy tit-bits they've culled from school, a magazine or a show they once watched on TV.///

Do you think that is where the antagonists, some of whom are the "world's top scientists" gleaned their opinions?

[Oneeyedvic]

Jake The Peg - DO you think Hitler was right with his Eugenics programme? After all, to quote those lovely words of yours, all the scientists at the time agreed.

Have scientists been wrong about anything before?

When all the scientists of the day agreed that the world was flat, would you have just agreed with them? Or is that different?

On the presumption that no one on AB has a PPE degree, should noone have a valid argument about Politics?

I don't have a football coaching certificate, so should I not have an opinion on football tactics?

I don't have an engineering degree so should I not be able to comment on the infrastructure in my town?

I don't have a degree in economics, so should I not talk about the economy?

Blimey - the pub must be pretty boring where you are!