View Full Version : ClimateScientists Vindicated On E-Mail Hoopla

Gayle in MD
03-31-2010, 04:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LONDON — The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming – two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."

The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit. The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals. One that attracted particular media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of man-made climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated – or even made up altogether.</span>The lawmakers said they decided to investigate due to "the serious implications for U.K. science."

Phil Willis, the committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling." <span style='font-size: 20pt'>But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond "a blunt refusal to share data," adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.</span>
In a briefing to journalists ahead of the report's release, Willis said the controversy would ultimately help buttress the case for global warming by forcing the University of East Anglia – and other research institutions – to stop hoarding their data.

"The winner in the end will be climate science itself," he said.
winner on Wednesday was Jones, who stepped down temporarily as chief of the climate research unit about a week after the e-mail scandal broke. The committee expressed sympathy with Jones, whom Willis said had been made a scapegoat for larger problems within the climate science community.

"The focus on Professor Jones and the CRU has been largely misplaced," the report said.

But the lawmakers did criticize the way Jones and his colleagues handled freedom of information requests, saying scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics.

Lawmakers stressed that their report – which was written after only a single day of oral testimony – did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending.

Willis said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain's next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month's time.

"Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this," he said, before adding jokingly: "We had to get something out before we were sent packing."

One of the two pending inquiries is being headed by former civil servant Muir Russell, who is looking into whether scientists, including Jones, fudged data or manipulated the peer review process. It also is examining the extent to which university followed applicable freedom of information laws. That report is due to report sometime this spring.

Geologist Ernest Oxburgh is leading a parallel investigation into the integrity of the science itself, one staffed by academics including Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Huw Davies, a former president of the International Association of Meteorology & Atmospheric Science.

The committee said that climate scientists had to be much more open in future – for example by publishing all their data, including raw data and the software programs used to interpret them, to the Internet. Willis said there was far too much money at stake not to be completely transparent.

"Governments across the world are spending trillions of pounds, or trillions of dollars, on mitigating climate change. The science has got to be irreproachable," he said.



uh oh... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
03-31-2010, 04:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chinese hackers linked to 'Warmergate' climate change leaked emails controversy
By Jason Lewis and Simon Parry
Last updated at 6:42 PM on 27th December 2009
Comments (44) Add to My Stories The investigation into the so-called Warmergate emails - the leaked data from the University of East Anglia’s climate change department - took a new twist last night when The Mail on Sunday tracked the stolen messages to a suspect computer which provides internet access to China.

The address used to post the emails is also on an international ‘black list’ which highlights suspicious behaviour on the internet.

The revelation comes after the Russian security service, the FSB – the former KGB – authorised the release of confidential information that allowed us to retrace the route taken by the email traffic.

computer company in Siberia was ultimately used to post the controversial messages - which cast doubt on the reliability of scientists’ global warming claims - on the internet.

The revelation led to claims that the Russians were behind the release of the information.

But, anxious to distance themselves from the leak, the FSB revealed how the data had been sent to Siberia from a computer in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The evidence passed to The Mail on Sunday now raises questions about whether Chinese hackers, backed by the communist regime, are the source of the emails.

Supported by their government and its security and intelligence services, Chinese hackers have been at the centre of huge number of ‘cyber attacks’ in recent years, including attempted computer ‘break-ins’ at the House of Commons and Whitehall departments, including the Foreign Office.

Earlier this year, MI5 chief Jonathan Evans warned 300 British businesses that they were under Chinese cyber-attack. The People’s Liberation Army is reputed to hold an annual competition to recruit the country’s best hackers.

Last week, The Mail on Sunday traced the stolen climate change emails to a so-called Open Access server run by Malaysian telecoms giant Telekom Malaysia Berhad.

The Malay government owns more than a third of the company and it supplies internet access to nearby China.

Last night, the company confirmed the leaked emails passed through Kuala Lumpur using its open relay mail server that can be accessed and used to forward mail by internet users without the need for a password.

Company spokesman Saiful Azmi Matmor said: ‘We cannot divulge any confidential information about our customer accounts. However, we are aware of the international stories about the leaked emails and our technicians are looking into this matter now that you have drawn it to our attention.’

A source within the company said: ‘Because this is an open relay mail server, the emails could have been sent through it from anywhere in the world. It is just as likely to
be someone outside Malaysia as someone within the country.’

The internet address used to post the messages is linked to several others used by the Chinese -- one is a Chinese environmental institute, the Research Institute of Forest Ecology and Environment Protection, based near Beijing.

Several professors from this institute are regulars at climate change conferences where they have shared a platform with the University of East Anglia experts.
After our enquiries in Malaysia began, the suspect computer links to China were suddenly cut.

Scotland Yard and Norfolk Police are leading the investigation into the email theft at the University of East Anglia.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew...l#ixzz0jkammQwK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html#ixzz0jkammQwK)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew...l#ixzz0jkagID3g (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html#ixzz0jkagID3g)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew...l#ixzz0jkaS7wEo (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html#ixzz0jkaS7wEo)

03-31-2010, 05:30 AM
Gayle -- thanx for that -- reading the emails etc this woz all obvious. madMac.

03-31-2010, 06:32 AM
It sounds just a wee bit to convenient to me.

Man made Global Warming is nothing more than a bunch of hot air.

The earths natural cycles are far more powerful than anything we could ever do.

03-31-2010, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">uh oh... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>uh oh is right. Where is your freaking link?

eg8r &lt;~~~tired of the hypocrisy

03-31-2010, 07:19 AM
Link sausage???

03-31-2010, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">uh oh... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>uh oh is right. Where is your freaking link?

eg8r &lt;~~~tired of the hypocrisy </div></div>

I use Firefox Modzilla. All I have to do is outline a word or words and click search. All I did was I searched for <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the first line</span>, ie, 'The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked'

and I got this,

so easy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/climategate-investigation_n_519644.html)

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It is different</span> when you quote something and forget to provide a link, its usually easy to find.

When you make an unsupported statement like, "Obama is a certified Witch Doctor", its more important to provide a link to what is basically an opinion, not a fact.

Got it? No?

Lets try baby steps.

Q, "it says in the Bible 'Thou shall not kill".

Is that not very easy to check out?

Eg, Steve, LWW, etc etc, "It says in the Bible that Capitalism is good."

Now I want a link. I shouldn't have to go through the whole friggin Bible to prove you wrong.


Didn't think so.

Q.....no manners.

03-31-2010, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use Firefox Modzilla. All I have to do is outline a word or words and click search. All I did was I searched for the first line, ie, 'The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked' </div></div>Good job. You see the issue is that when gayle chastises people for not adding links it is NOT because her "expertise" in googling turned up zero results. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with her having two different standards for people.


03-31-2010, 01:16 PM
I think there are more investigations to follow this limited one. I was surprised that science could have been so totally corrupted by huge government funds but I should have not been so surprised after reflecting a bit.

Now, I am cynical about a government investigation that clears the group they have funded. It does seem like a conflict of interest. I'll wait until there are analysis from folks I respect before I accept this report at face value.

Some critics have already spoken up:


03-31-2010, 01:47 PM
So, they have discovered the original data and can certify that not a single data point has been changed. This is news to NASA.

All the Emails were just word games and had no direction nor consequence.

I should buy some water wings to stay afloat in Ohio.

You must pass me what you are using or your contact. Seems it is pretty good stuff.

In the meantime, I suggest you balance your input and purchase or borrow a copy of the National Standard with Big Al, Kiddies Pal on the cover.


03-31-2010, 01:52 PM
Gee, is anyone else feeling the additional warmth of the heating of the planet like we are down here? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Anyone notice the re-editing of the stuff on Global Warming to Global Change over the past few months?

03-31-2010, 02:16 PM
My heating bills have gone down considerably...although to save a few bucks, I have the temp set at 63, which sometimes causes the A/C to come on...you just can't win.
With the current threat level here set to orange, my timing could not have been better as I decided to change party allegiances a few weeks back. I am now a Republican.