Sensitive Documents Lifted from Hadley Climate Center

[Tamas]

Yeah well who would not like cleaner energy sources, it's not like I am not in shock and awe over the fact that people actually manage to live in Budapest everytime I go there and smell around.

But the religious craze over global warming has a very real danger of causing overregulation, which in turn causes economical slowdown, which in turn results in tech research slowdown, which is of course in turn helps the current energy sources stick around for longer. All the while the non-christian non-guilt-oriented major players catching up to the first world.

And no, regulation does not help the research of cleaner energy. Just that together with the religious zeal, it helps the selling of otherwise totally uncompetitive energy sources like solar collectors and the like. Give me my nuclear power plants, and give me cold fusion.

[Tamas]

Oh there are so many beautiful emails indicting the leadership of the church of global warming:

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

There's evidence of widespread fraud, discussions of how to circumvent FOIA requests in order to hide said fraud, discussions on how to surpress dissent as well as casual fantasies of wishing violence on dissenrters.  In short, the leadeship of the global warming church are a bunch of unethical and deranged crooks.

I assume there's clear evidence that none of these emails have been altered what so ever. We can trust unnamed Russian hackers to be above aboard in this respect, correct?

Yeah I mean surely fabricating/editing 3000 e-mails then having the original and supposed source of them confirm said letters is easy work which totally worth the slight upheveal it will cause.

[DontSayBanana]

These are vague enough that people are going to read into them what they will.  They talk about "hide the decline," but decline to ever mention a decline of what exactly.  Tamas' source is not actually the WSJ, but one of its blogs, and in quoting, he left out a pretty telling strikeout:

an Australian a Kiwi publication

These people weren't even sure of who "confirmed" the material?

How many news outlets pushed initial coverage of the "balloon boy"?  Sure, I heard it on the news, so it must be true.

Knowing the typical method of "confirmation," I'm not buying it.  All the reporting I've seen is on blogs, and how many of them actually have Dr. Jones' phone number?  If you go to the CRU's website, it's got a huge banner saying that the site is still running from a cache on an emergency   server, so some of the information is out of date.  If the server was that badly crashed, how would they have gotten an email response from Dr. Jones?

[garbon]

These are vague enough that people are going to read into them what they will.  They talk about "hide the decline," but decline to ever mention a decline of what exactly. 

I take it that reading comprehension is not a skill taught in NJ.

[Fate]

Yeah I mean surely fabricating/editing 3000 e-mails then having the original and supposed source of them confirm said letters is easy work which totally worth the slight upheveal it will cause.

I'm surprised at how much faith you put in unidentified Russian hackers. These sure sound like stand up guys. Think I can trust them with my credit card information?

I'm sure the Russians have no vested interest in spreading misinformation about Global Warming. It's not like their economy is dependent on natural gas and petroleum exports. No way, no how.

[DontSayBanana]

I take it that reading comprehension is not a skill taught in NJ.

Cut the shit; what I'm saying is there's so much jargon I couldn't make heads or tails of those emails without taking them to a climatologist.  For all I know, they're correcting data to make a model calculable.  The blog Tamas quotes already put a correction in because they screwed up on the origin of the source, and with the unit's website down, I don't think it's possible that Joe Blogger could have gotten a non-fabricated confirmation from the unit itself.

[Admiral Yi]

Not exactly a smoking gun, but the Handley folks have got some splainin to do.

[garbon]

Cut the shit; what I'm saying is there's so much jargon I couldn't make heads or tails of those emails without taking them to a climatologist.  For all I know, they're correcting data to make a model calculable.  The blog Tamas quotes already put a correction in because they screwed up on the origin of the source, and with the unit's website down, I don't think it's possible that Joe Blogger could have gotten a non-fabricated confirmation from the unit itself.

Of course in the absence of other evidence, contextual clues like "hide" and "trick" don't really make the writer seem pleasant.

[Tonitrus]

Fuck the planet.

Time enough for the Earth, in the grave.

[DontSayBanana]

Of course in the absence of other evidence, contextual clues like "hide" and "trick" don't really make the writer seem pleasant.

Not necessarily.  I focused on that "hide the decline" because "decline" could also be a synonym for "deterioration;" it could even be that the author of that email was sugarcoating his results to avoid causing alarm.  There's just not enough contextual evidence for the layman to be sure either way of what the email is talking about.

[Jaron]

Whenever you end up on Hans' side, you need to stop and re evaluate your position. Think about it, Tamas. Has Hans EVER been right?

[grumbler]

lol here is another good one, where apparently one of them bullshits around to avoid publishing data which they gathered and obviously did not prove their point, but around the end he does sort of admits this:

lol you really do buy into the explanations, don't you?

What this scientist does is say that, until he publishes his work, he is not going to publish the data that supports it.  This is a stance so outrageous that prety much every scientist in the world does it (the conspiracy is, indeed, that vast).

Why not publish the raw data in advance of getting the research published?  Because then one can be scooped by someone unscrupulous who doesn't give a shit about peers reviews and the like.

This isn't to say that there are not some interesting (and probably damning) things in the emails.  It is just to say that one needs to evaluate each piece of info on its own, and not read it in the way that supports a pre-determined conclusion (which is, after all, what you are accusing these guys of doing, right?)  If the info can be explained without necessitating a vast world-wide conspiracy, then the explanation without the conspiracy is the likeliest to be true.

[Pat]

Over 3000 e-mails and those are supposed to be the most damning? I don't think they much at all about anything, and even if they did have poor methodology it's just one place.

[grumbler]

Oh there are so many beautiful emails indicting the leadership of the church of global warming:

(snip)
There's evidence of widespread fraud, discussions of how to circumvent FOIA requests in order to hide said fraud, discussions on how to surpress dissent as well as casual fantasies of wishing violence on dissenrters.  In short, the leadeship of the global warming church are a bunch of unethical and deranged crooks.

Er, no, that is evidence of nothing of the sort.

That doesn't mean that "the leadeship [sic] of the global warming church" are not "a bunch of unethical and deranged crooks," of course.  The could even be a bunch of Dick Cheneys for all I know.  It just means that there is no evidence here of them being even normally unethical, let alone Dick-level-unethical.

[grumbler]

Not exactly a smoking gun, but the Handley folks have got some splainin to do.

Or the WSJ blogger does.  This smells of bullshit; "officials at Hadley, a leading global-warming research center, have apparently confirmed to an Australian a Kiwi publication that the documents are genuine" just reeks of "USS Make Shit Up."  That statement is less credible than a Hansmeister statistic.