leaked files reveal climate change is a HOAX

climategate the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists
Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online
Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.
The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.
The veracity of the emails has not been confirmed and the scientists involved have declined to comment on the story, which broke on a blog called The Air Vent.
The files, which in total amount to 160MB of data, were first uploaded on to a Russian server, before being widely mirrored across the internet. The emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement: "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."

just a few of the very incrimintaing emails
fiddling the data big time!!
This is HUGE!!
For example:

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
X-Sender: f023@pop.uea.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.1
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:11:47 +0000
To: mike Salmon <m.salmon@uea.ac.uk>
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Fwd: Re:


>X-Sender: lkeigwin@mail.whoi.edu
>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:18:19 +0100
>To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
>From: lkeigwin@whoi.edu (Lloyd Keigwin)
>Subject: Re:
>
>Dear keith,
> The data follow (age, cal yrs; d18-O of G. ruber; 3-pt avg). I've
>decided to present the data in a slightly different manner than which they
>were originally published. Here, now, I have taken the two series of
>measurements (two subcores of same box core), each with their own age model
>based on AMS 14C, and lumped them. Next, I've run a 3-pt avg through the
>combined series.
> The final figure of the published data (1996) attenuated the signal
>by lumping the data into 50yr boxes, whereas this way we see the fuller
>amplitude of the signal and the good agreement between the two series.
>However, I only calculated the SST for the "boxcar" data. If the following
>are suitable, that's Ok with me. If you want SSTs, either you go with the
>original figure or give me more time. Best wishes, Lloyd
>



for m.kelly@uea.ac.uk; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:55 +0100
Received: (from root@localhost) by fw.greenpeace.org (8.9.1a/8.6.12) id PAA07053 for <m.kelly@uea.ac.uk>; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:46:48 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: by fw.greenpeace.org via smap (V1.3)
id sma006373; Tue, 10 Oct 00 15:45:28 +0200
Received: from mail3.uk.gl3 (mail.uk.gl3 [192.168.244.10])
by bb.uk.gl3 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28271
for <m.kelly@uea.ac.uk>; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:44:44 +0100
Message-Id: <200010101344.OAA28271@bb.uk.gl3>
Received: from dial01.uk.gl3 by mail3.uk.gl3 with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1460.
id T466PKG6; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:39:40 +0100
From: "paul horsman" <paul.horsman@uk.greenpeace.org>
To: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: climate negotiations/wto etc.
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Status: O

Hi Mick,

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular
thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?

All the best,

Paul


---------------
Paul V. Horsman
Oil Campaigner
Greenpeace International Climate Campaign
Greenpeace,
Canonbury Villas
London N1 2PN
Tel: +44 171 865 8286
Fax: +44 171 865 8201
Mob: +44 7801 212990
Just read this from the d/l of their documents - look at the phrase "globalisation agenda" in the first paragraph.
Documentations and Inputs from Professor Zhaomei Zeng on the selection of the 84 (42‐pairs of
urban‐rural) stations used in the 1990 GRL and 1990 Nature papers
Prepared by
Wei‐Chyung Wang, SUNY‐Albany
(2/22/2008)

Background: Because the station history for 49 out of the 84 (42‐pairs of urban‐rural) stations used in
the 1990 GRL and 1990 Nature papers were not included in the 1991 DOE data report, charge of “fabrication and/or misrepresentation” was raised about the statement of “few, if any, changes…In location” made in the two papers. In 14 February 2008, the Inquiry Committee expressed need for “documentations and inputs from the Respondent’s coauthor……necessary to allow for any clear determination” on the charge.

Actions: After receiving the Inquiry Committee report on 18 February 2008, I immediately communicated with Professor Zhaomei Zeng (the co‐author of both 1990 GRL paper and 1991 DOE data report), who made the statement. Currently, although retired from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP)/Chinese Academy of Sciences, she continues conducting research at IAP. Inputs: Professor Zeng sent me a description (in Chinese) of the criteria for station selection with a Table marked with the status of station moves for each station of the 84‐stations. Her input is attached below as an Appendix. Key points are noted here:
• Out of the 4,000 stations, 60‐ and 205‐ station networks were selected based on the “station
history” considering the following factors: data length; number of site moves; data gaps; spatial
representation, etc. While the station history was included in the 1991 DOE report for the 60‐
station network, they were not included in the 205‐station network (published in 1993 DOE
report which Professor Zeng is also a co‐author) due partly to its not being a requirement under
the US‐China agreement, and partly to the huge effort coupled with inadequate resources
(manpower and hardware) to digitize them.
• The 84‐stations are a subset of the 60‐ and 205‐stations datasets with 35‐stations from the 60‐
station dataset, and 49‐stations from the 205‐station dataset. Note that while the station
history of the 35‐stations was used by Professor Zeng in compiling the number of station moves
in the Table included in the Appendix, the 49‐stations (most rural stations) are based on her
recollection (together with checking against the present‐day station location), simply because
the original station history manuscripts (archived at IAP) and her detailed notes were no longer
available due to several office moves over the almost 19‐years time span.
• Below is a summary using Professor Zeng’s inputs for easy apprehension:
# of Station moves
(1954‐83)
# of Stations
(total 35‐stations)
# of stations
(total 49‐stations)
No 8 17
1 15 13
2 8 11
3 3 0
4 1 0
No longer remember ‐‐‐ 8
Conclusions: From the inputs provided by Professor Zeng, it is quite clear that she (1) had access to
the station history when compiling the 60‐ and 205‐stations datasets, and (2) used the criteria of “few, if
any, changes in…location” to select the 84‐stations used in the 1990 GRL and 1990 Nature papers. The
charge of “fabrication and/or misrepresentation” is false.
Other Relevant Notes:
On 18 February 2008, Professor Jones (Lead author of the 1990 Nature paper) sent me a manuscript,
“Urbanization effects in large‐scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China” which was
recently submitted to J. Geophysical Research for publication. In the paper, The most relevant finding is
that comparing the 42‐rural station data used in the 1990 GRL and Nature papers with those adjusted
for homogeneity of a 728‐station network yield very much the same results, implying that the station
moves, if any, really did not matter when a representative set of stations (here 42‐stations) was used.


From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: Gil Compo <compo@colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data - One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009

Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean.
This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases.
Cheers
Phil
Gil,
These will do for my purpose. I won't pass them on. I am looking forward to the draft
paper. As you're fully aware you're going to have to go some ways to figuring out what's
causing the differences.
You will have to go down the sub-sampling, but I don't think it is going to make much
difference. The agreement between CRU and GISS is amazing good, as already know. You ought
to include the NCDC dataset as well.
[1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html the ERSST3b dataset.
In the lower two plots there appear to be two types of differences, clearer in the
NH20-70 land domain.
The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a single year (like a year in the last 1960s, 1967
or 1968) and then when it differs for about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps coming
back. For individual years there are a couple of years in the first decade of the 20th
century (the 1900s).
The longer periods are those you've noticed - the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also
something up with the period 1955-65 and the 1970s. The 1920s seems to get back then go off
again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best thing to try and isolate some of the reasons
would be maps for decades or individual years. For the 1920s I'd expect the differences to
be coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I think the 1890s might be just down to
sparser coverage. The 1890s is the only period where the difference brings your pink line
back towards the long-term zero. All the others have the pink line more extreme than the
HadCRUT3/GISS average.
Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned this to him. He suggested maps of data input
during these times. He also suggested looking at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey
spread is sort of this, but this is a different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you
might have?
One final thing - don't worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we'll be
changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also
a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low - all 3 lines. This may
be down to SST issues.
Once again thanks for these! Hoping you'll send me a Christmas Present of the draft!
Cheers
Phil
At 20:45 09/11/2009,
clear evidence of suppressing thr facts to suit their agenda..carbon tax!
From: Phil Jones

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm Hackers target leading climate research unit
The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.
E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.
A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.
An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.
"We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated.

Funny how there's very little interest in self-sustained, de-central and renewable solutions, it has to be something that is BIG & promotes Global Bureaucracy. There has to be a meter and profits and taxes.

What the hacked emails above show is cooking of the data, an attempt to diffuse opposition and receiving payment from the IPCC. It is diabolical to co-opt the publics cry for "Let's clean up the pollution" with a massive tax-plan, cap and trade scam. And Al Gore and Big Energy is to make billions, with a system as corrupt as Enron's Energy Futures was. It's revolting.

Just found the link on Infowars to all the info and emails here....

http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009
This is totally legit...Huge smoking gun..
How can they spin this?!!
I really hope this will break and people will wake up in time to one of the biggest scams played on the world.

click on link, lots of pics:

http://globalwarmingcon.blogspot.com/
"Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases, CO2 is 3.618% and man made CO2 is even more miniscule, only 0.117%. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are so diffuse that is impossible for CO2 to cause global warming. Repeat: CO2 can NOT cause warming."

CO2 can NOT cause warming!

Water vapor is near 100% of the global warming gases. The earth is a water planet, it has lots and lots of water, so much water its blue from space.
CO2 is a trace gas, it can NOT cause global warming, the entire scam is a hoax of catastrophic proportions because the evil ones want to shut down man's energy production as a way to kill humans.

Al Gore should be prosecuted under RICO, ALL HIS ASSETS SEIZED under the law for promoting and getting rich (he's personally made like a billion dollars on this carbon trading scam) on this fraud.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2474-gore-cancels-copenhagen-speech-in-aftermath-of-climate-gate Gore cancels Copenhagen speech in aftermath of Climate-gate
Written by James Heiser Friday, 04 December 2009 15:17
For years, former Vice President Al Gore has foisted his environmental jeremiads on the world, traveling by private jet to calling upon the industrialized world to repent of its polluting ways. Now, as the nations of the world gather in Copenhagen to discuss addressing the climate change which Gore had proclaimed was threatening the Earth with near-certain doom, the man who only weeks ago was appealing to the “collective will” of mankind may be absenting himself from the proceedings.
Gore had been scheduled speak at an event in Copenhagen on December 16, but now press reports and the event organizers report that he will not be appearing.

According to a story at WashingtonTimes.com:
As described in The Washington Times' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multimedia public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book, "Our Choice," included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."
Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that "great annoyance" was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Mr. Gore's program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders.
"We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We had a huge expectation for the event. . . . We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation," said Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, in a statement posted by the company.
In point of fact, the $1,209 VIP event was scheduled to precede a speech by Mr. Gore, which, according to the event website, had ticket costs ranging from approximately $39 to $299. It is not hard, therefore, to imagine the frustration expressed by Lisbeth Knudsen.

While it is not hard to estimate the small fortune that Gore and Berlingske Media will not be making on account of the cancellation, the far more interesting question is: “Why did Gore cancel?” According to a FOXNews.com report:
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.
Gore has spent years promoting a theory which has come under greater public scrutiny in the last few weeks than it has faced in years. With scandals erupting over “Climate-gate” and with data allegedly being destroyed or misplaced, the outcome of the conference is no longer as certain as it seemed just a few weeks ago. The sudden silence of the climate change theory’s most prominent promoter is just the latest piece in the puzzle

Article from 'pajamas media'; http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscoun...pjm-exclusive/

November 23, 2009 - by Christopher Monckton

This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.

Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.

What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.

No, they’re not. They’re criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute. But I won’t be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.

At our expense, and at the expense of the truth.

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a British politician, business consultant, and policy advisor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'
Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit show how the world's weightiest climate data has been distorted, says Christopher Booker
Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". On this astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" – the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see.
To appreciate its significance, as I observed last week, it is first necessary to understand that the people these incriminating documents relate to are not just any group of scientists. Professor Philip Jones of the CRU, his colleague Dr Keith Briffa, the US computer modeller Dr Michael Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, and several more make up a tightly-knit group who have been right at the centre of the last two reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On their account, as we shall see at this week's Copenhagen conference, the world faces by far the largest bill proposed by any group of politicians in history, amounting to many trillions of dollars.
It is therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods by which these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they have been working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmer today than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has been necessary to eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 years ago was, for entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-called Medieval Warm Period).
The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the IPCC and the global warming lobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced "hockey stick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A wholly unrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in the western USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there was no Medieval Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures had soared to unprecedented levels.
Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the "hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007, which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms.
At the forefront of those who found suspicious the graphs based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia was McIntyre himself, not least because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had been after.
This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in the world".
But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the "hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted – without explanation – with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up.
A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all. (For further details see the science blog Watts Up With That.)
In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy.
Little of this extraordinary story been reported by the BBC or most of our mass-media, so possessed by groupthink that they are unable to see the mountain of evidence now staring them in the face. Not for nothing was Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful suit of clothes. But today there are a great many more than just one little boy ready to point out that this particular Emperor is wearing nothing at all.
I will only add two footnotes to this real-life new version of the old story. One is that, as we can see from the CRU's website, the largest single source of funding for all its projects has been the European Union, which at Copenhagen will be more insistent than anyone that the world should sign up to what amounts to the most costly economic suicide note in history.
The other is that the ugly, drum-like concrete building at the University of East Anglia which houses the CRU is named after its founder, the late Hubert Lamb, the doyen of historical climate experts. It was Professor Lamb whose most famous contribution to climatology was his documenting and naming of what he called the Medieval Warm Epoch, that glaring contradiction of modern global warming theory which his successors have devoted untold efforts to demolishing. If only they had looked at the evidence of those Siberian trees in the spirit of true science, they might have told us that all their efforts to show otherwise were in vain, and that their very much more distinguished predecessor was right after all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574552533758682774.html Settled Science?
Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming "consensus."
By JAMES TARANTO
"Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach," the New York Times reports. "They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic." But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.
The files--which can be downloaded here--surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, "reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies":
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. . . .
Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said.
This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate--to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?
It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press's contention that global warmism is settled science--a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument," the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that "few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate," and that "nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal." (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC's conclusions.)
The press's view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a "consensus" based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one.

http://sophrosyne.radical.r30.net/wordpress/?p=3034
Using ClimateGate to Reason with ManBearPig –
Many of the loudest advocates for ClimateGate have questionable agendas. Ideologues like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc are banging their drums, so you can bet that something is amiss. “Progressive” media outlets including Media Matters, Crooks and Liars, Common Dreams, The Nation, Huffington Post and Democracy Now! have taken strong editorial stances against the ‘climate skeptics’; but then the BBC has finally started digging, the Washington Post and Revolutionary Politics went for the jugular, and the Wall Street Journal has been vicious in its analyses. Surprisingly, even the Canadian Broadcasting Centre got in on the act, declaring “you wouldn’t accept that [kind of science] at a grade 9 science fair.” Meanwhile, Climate Depot has been utterly beside itself with the added publicity. It’s run by Mike Morano, who gets flagged by Source Watch for questionable allegiances. He’s been burning up the airwaves trying to capitalize on his 15 minutes. IceCap.us has also been very critical; but again, conflicts of interest are the rule of the day.
Hoping to shore up waning public support for global warming theory, an “esteemed” group of scientists published a scare-piece titled “The Copenhagen Diagnosis”. Aside from the usual scaremongering and assurances of global apocalypse, digging deeper yielded:
I’m sure it will come as a shock that the two groups largely overlap. The “small group of scientists” up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn’t it? – (Pajamas Media)
All this adds up for one, big, steaming pile of confusion and ambiguity. With that in mind, here’s a very reasoned approach to the whole matter
Now let’s muddy the waters again:
The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.
J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″. The authors deny the claims.
Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and “a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology”. – (BBC)
Insofar as implications of ClimateGate, so far they’ve been random and half-hearted. The UN has promised an investigation into the leak of the emails (can’t have them investigating anything substantive, can we?):
“A civil servant who is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe which also has direct ties to the IPCC has been handed the job of whitewashing the investigation into the University of East Anglia, while absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science.” – (Propaganda Matrix)
Phil Jones, one of the chief research poobahs at CRU, is “temporarily” stepping down while they investigate what happened under his watch. Penn State University has announced its own investigation of Michael Mann – the chief architect behind the ‘hockey stick’ CO2 graph made infamous in Al Gore’s propaganda flick, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Meanwhile, it appears NASA may be hiding some skeletons in its closet too…
Aside from that, it’s pretty much SSDD. If you find all this confusing, welcome to the world of … well, welcome to reality.

http://williamdstephenson.com/sen-inhofe-discusses-climategate-%e2%80%9cthe-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science%e2%80%9d.html Sen. Inhofe Discusses Climategate, “The Greatest Scandal in Modern Science”
Author: Todd Thurman
12/08/09
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), ranking Member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), spoke to bloggers at The Heritage Foundation’s weekly Bloggers Briefing today and focused his remarks on the controversial “Climategate” scandal — the series of leaked e-mails that have blown holes through the theory of man-made global warming.
As Sen. Inhofe sat down to speak, he opined that he was just in the Senate trying to convince Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to investigate the subject of the e-mails, instead of the people who uncovered the e-mails. Sen. Inhofe was the leader of the global warming opposition ten years ago when he chaired the EPW Committee; when a blogger asked him what he thought about the emergent news that the science was flawed, the Senator quipped, “Redemption.”
Senator Inhofe is not alone in his views on “Climategate.” The UK Telegraph called it the “greatest scandal in modern science,” and the UK MET is reevaluating over 160 years of climate data because “public opinion of man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.” Sen. Inhofe seemed confident that neither climate bills would pass the Senate, but feared the Obama Administration would circumvent the legislative process and use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force regulation through the Clean Air Act. Sen. Inhofe fired back by releasing a YouTube video saying that the EPA finding that CO2 is a pollutant was based on faulty science.
Now, the United Nations is in the middle of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, where “the science is settled.” However, as we have stated, the science is far from settled. Now, the world has learned that the basis of the science that climate change was founded on could be proven faulty. This has not stopped the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change from creating a treaty that will be costly to the US economy and not have any real impact on the environment. And it’s a treaty that would infringe on our national sovereignty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUzpEACnBnQ Gore Claims Climategate Emails Are Ten Years Old and Taken Out of Context (Pt. 1)

http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=1066&keyword= this is a handy site for all the documents regarding climategate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jvR05e1KYY Saudi Arabia Calls for an Independent Investigation into Climategate
Russia Today
December 9, 2009
Saudi Arabia called for an independent investigation into Climategate Monday, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations beginning in Copenhagen. We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the climategate scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations, the Saudi Arabian negotiator said.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/al-gore-cant-tell-time-thinks-most-recent-climategate-email-is-more-than-10-years-old/ Al Gore can’t tell time – thinks most recent Climategate email is more than 10 years old
Al Gore apparently has no command of the most basic details of anything related to Earth and climate. His last idiotic gaff in the media was that the temperature of the Earth 2 kilometers or so down was millions of degrees! Apparently, Slate editors who look equally like dufuses for printing this dreck didn’t notice his latest one either. Maybe all those trips around the world in the private jet have damaged his ability to tell the time and date? Too many trip across the International Dateline perhaps?
Here’s an interview question put to him from Slate:
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus. But the noise machine built by the climate deniers often seizes on what they can blow out of proportion, so they’ve thought this is a bigger deal than it is.
But wait there’s more…
Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.
A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.
These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.
Earth to Al, Earth to Al, come in Al.
Despite the fact that some of the 10 year old emails discussed important issues like the 2001 IPCC report and what made it into it…the most recent emails in Climategate were from November 2009. Last month, this year, earth time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4 Lord Christopher Monckton recently spoke at an event put on by the Minnesota Free Market Institute, he SHREDDED the whole "Global Warming" theory, he was great! But it was his closing statement that shocked me.

The Stroke Of A Pen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAV7NHZcEcY Brilliant video form Piers Corbyn on the state of the global warming industry...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021508/finally-bbc-asks-are-we-maybe-a-bit-biased-on-climate-change/ Finally BBC asks: are we maybe a bit biased on 'climate change'?
Last updated: January 6th, 2010
The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster’s handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.
Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.
Knowing what we do about the BBC, I’m sure the review’s considered conclusion after a careful ignoring of all the relevant facts will be that the Pope most certainly isn’t Catholic, and that in no wise are bears guilty of sub-arboreal defecation. But just in case the BBC is interested in having a full-on, Caliban-style bit of self-examination in the glass, the excellent website Biased BBC has an abundance of useful leads.
For example, there’s this from a recent edition of the children’s news programme Newsround, explaining – just in case kids got any funny ideas to the contrary – that the current snow showers are nothing to celebrate but are in fact yet another sure sign of man’s evil. (Mysteriously the BBC has already deleted this programme from its iPlayer files, so I can’t give you a link).
Sonali: Now this cold snap has been going on since before Christmas so you probably won’t be surprised to hear that last month was the coldest December we’ve had in 14 years. But we’re always hearing about global warming so what’s going on? Well BBC weatherman Simon King has popped into the studio to help clear up any confusion. Hi there Simon.
Simon: Hello.
Sonali: So why are we seeing this snow when the planet’s heating up?
Simon: Well the snow we’re seeing at the moment is actually a very rare event. Normally we’d expect to see much milder conditions, but if we look at the whole of 2009 and average the UK temperature, 2009 was actually the fourteenth warmest year on record, so things are signalling to be warming up.
Sonali: And do you think, then, it would have been even colder at the moment?
Simon: Well decades ago the river Thames used to freeze, we used to have snow and ice every week causing all sorts of disruption, so things in the future we could start to see more extreme weather like this. It won’t happen every year unfortunately but we could see more colder winters and much hotter summers, so lots of heavy showers, flooding possibly in the United Kingdom and other severe weather across the globe.
Sonali: Really? Everywhere, everyone is going to see extreme weather?
Simon: Absolutely. Well, the globe is warming up. If we look at the whole of the globe and average all of the temperatures there, we can actually say that 2009 was the fifth warmest year on record so the signals are certainly there that our planet is warming up.
Sonali: Thank you very much for coming in Simon. And speaking of that extreme weather, over on the other side of the world Australia has been sweltering through its hottest decade since records began. Now part of the country is recovering from another natural disaster – powerful rainstorms.
The BBC Trust might also want to consider this fascinating story about a place called Cherrapunji in north-east India, which miraculously changed in the course of a series of bulletins from being a humdrum (and all-too-common) victim of deforestation into yet another moving, ethnic poster child for the AGW disaster. All thanks to a bit of spin, conducted under the careful guidance of the BBC’s in house Environmental Correctness Commissars.
Still it’s not all grim. Hats off to Andrew Neil and The Daily Politics Show for fighting a singlehanded rearguard action against BBC’s eco-fascist tyranny. Here he is viciously (and most heartwarmingly) skewering John Hirst the head of one of Britain’s leading taxpayer-funded climate-fear-promotion organisations – the Met Office. (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs; oh yes, and also, to beloved Plato Says who did tell me yesterday to look out for it…)

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past......this is a ten year old article Monday, 20 March 2000
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.
Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".
Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.
Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.
"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.
The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".
Not any more, it seems.
What's hilarious is that several people have found the article and have made their comments about it, making it probably one of the most embarrassing articles ever made on that news site

here are a few of the reply's Sunday, 27 December 2009 at 09:53 pm
Hello? Charles Onians in 2000? Don't ask me to explain but I'm posting this back to you via a time warp from December 2009. Yes, the future! You probably won't believe me and will think I'm mad or joking, but get this. Britain is suffering its second extremely cold winter in a row - we have enough snow, ice, frost and freezing fog to cobble dogs with (whatever that means.) Far from being "a very rare and exciting event", snowfall has become a major hazard in this country twice this past year - and we haven't even got to February 2010 yet. Also (again you will probably think I'm joking) but the CRU has just become a liability to climate science - leaked e-mails and files have revealed a web of deceit and manipulation that threatens to undermine the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming itself. I urge you to pull this article immediately, as it will become a laughing stock in years to come. Charles? Hello? Hello? ... Rats, I'm probably too late.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Well Charlie, you were a silly boy then weren't you?! will you and your fellow orthodoxy-regurgitators hang your heads in shame in an attempt to retain a modicum of self-respect and credibility....? or will you continue to take a leaf out of al gore's leaflet... aptly embellished with substantive rigorous CRU climate science....
I'm not going to hold my breath......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242202/Could-30-years-global-COOLING.html Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?
11th January 2010

Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.
The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.
Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed. The predictions are based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
They are the work of respected climate scientists and not those routinely dismissed by environmentalists as 'global warming deniers'.
Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.

If true, the research challenges the science behind climate change theories, and calls into question the political measures to halt global warming.
According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.
It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production.

And now oceanic cycles have switched to a 'cold mode', where data shows that the amount of Arctic summer sea ice has increased by more than a quarter since 2007.
The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
He and his colleagues predicted the cooling trend in a 2008 paper, and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva in September.
Working at the prestigious Leibniz Institute in Kiel University in Germany, he has developed methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft under the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
For Europe, the crucial factor is the temperature in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. He said such ocean cycles - known as multi-decadal oscillations or MDOs - could account for up to half of the rise in global warming in recent years.
Professor Latif said: 'A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles - as much as 50 per cent.
'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. All this may well last two decades or longer.
'The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.'
Many meteorologists have blamed the current freeze on 'Arctic oscillation' - a weather pattern in which areas of high pressure have pushed the warming jetstream away from Britain. They have insisted this temporary change will have no effect on long-term warming patterns.
But another expert, Professor Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, said MDOs will continue to determine global temperatures.
He said: 'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather, and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st centuries. We have such a change now.'