Depends on which side WE is on!! ;>)

I think those like yourself, Steve, Jeff Id, and many others certainly are entitled to say you were right!!

Thank you for the link to the Mirror Site!!

Suggestion - Rewrite all the papers that used suspicious temperature data from CRU.

Trends are emerging already:
1 The greater importance of the illegality of the hacking compared to any misfeance revealed.
2 The associated guilt of the anti-AGW commentators who are running the defamatory story; we see this issue raised at McIntyre's blog by a typically aggressive AGW supporter called ali baba.
3 The content of the e-mails are innocuous anyway
4 If the contents are misconstrued its because they have been interfered with
5 If the msm does not latch onto this the only way it will have legs is if is converted to a legal proceeding. In England the best legal option would seem to be contravention of FOI obligations. A simple legal context is always preferable to any wider 'public policy' based generality related to misrepresentation of scientific evidence, although the possible interference with peer reviewed process may have some potential; see SM and the Santer comment;

http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/uk-whi...

Police would investigate deletions, and if so, charge him. There is plenty for this to keep festering. Its cut the legs out from the major alarmist talking points. Every time they say there are no publications, point to emails of collusion in the JGR. Everytime they say sceptics are in denial, point to doubts in the minds of the main players. Just the science.

One can see it is pointless trying to publish in any AGU journal anything the slightest bit anti-AGW (McLean got lucky?) as it will be actively opposed, whatever the merit. Even valid theoretical objections will be rejected when they do not show a substantive change in the result, just stack the review panel and get the right editors who know what to say. CR and E&E - way to go.

Cohenite,

I would suggest dropping the term HACK from this event, at least until it is determined that this is what it is.

Based on the apparent SELECTION of material, my guess is that this was an insider who would be more appropriately characterised as a WHISTLEBLOWER!!!

I've started searching these files in anger and I seem to have found an interesting conversation reported by Trenberth.

No one else seems to have mentioned it so here goes:

FOIA/mail/0990718506.txt:

Trenberth in context of discussing why Lindzen's Iris paper is wrong reveals --

"3) Finally, I refer you to chapter 7 of IPCC which is a more balanced assessment. Lindzen was a coauthor of that with me and others. Lindzen wrote 7.2.1 and the same figure 1 in the BAMS article was included as 7.1 in chapter 7 along with similar ones from models, showing that these things are fully simulated in good models, although better with higher resolution. Anyway, his arguments were fully considered in chapter 7 and you can read it to see the result. The whole of 7.2.1, including 7.2.1.1. 7.2.1.2 and 7.2.1.3 was put together originally by Lindzen, Pierrehumbert and Le Treut, but basically the final version was rewritten by me to provide better balance. Pierrehumbert is an agnostic of sorts: disbelieves everything including models but seems to have faith in simple theories. Le Treut was
sound on the modeling. I did not change the substance of what they prepared, I did reshape it and polish and it ended up in a form they accepted.

Note at the end it clearly states: "the balance of evidence favours a positive clear sky water vapour feedback of
the magnitude comparable to that found in the simulations."

That's an interesting relevation, I think: Pierrehumbert doesn't believe in the models either!

I've started searching these files in anger and I seem to have found an interesting conversation reported by Trenberth.

No one else seems to have mentioned it so here goes:

FOIA/mail/0990718506.txt:

Trenberth in context of discussing why Lindzen's Iris paper is wrong reveals --

"3) Finally, I refer you to chapter 7 of IPCC which is a more balanced assessment. Lindzen was a coauthor of that with me and others. Lindzen wrote 7.2.1 and the same figure 1 in the BAMS article was included as 7.1 in chapter 7 along with similar ones from models, showing that these things are fully simulated in good models, although better with higher resolution. Anyway, his arguments were fully considered in chapter 7 and you can read it to see the result. The whole of 7.2.1, including 7.2.1.1. 7.2.1.2 and 7.2.1.3 was put together originally by Lindzen, Pierrehumbert and Le Treut, but basically the final version was rewritten by me to provide better balance. Pierrehumbert is an agnostic of sorts: disbelieves everything including models but seems to have faith in simple theories. Le Treut was
sound on the modeling. I did not change the substance of what they prepared, I did reshape it and polish and it ended up in a form they accepted.

Note at the end it clearly states: "the balance of evidence favours a positive clear sky water vapour feedback of
the magnitude comparable to that found in the simulations."

That's an interesting relevation, I think: Pierrehumbert doesn't believe in the models either!

Hi Guys

Like you, I have been pouring over this CRU stuff. A very interesting archive!

Following up on Alex's point re Pierrehumbert's attitude to GCMs it is also clear that this year even Kevin Trenberth himself has been getting rather worried about the models/reality. In some ways this seems to be a reprise of Jones' own paranoia back in 2004 about the Kalnay and Cai paper. I note that Evgenia Kalnay is still publishing heavily on what appear to be, in effect, statistical tests of the faithfulness of GCMs to observed non-equilibrium effects..

It is interesting to note that even Trenberth himself now seem to be having doubts about the key issues of evaporation, clouds and albedo in the models. For those interested in this albedo/non-equilibrium thermodynamic effects stuff it is worthwhile revisiting Glassman's 'IPCC's Fatal Errors' on Rocket Scientist's Journal. Pity Glassman is a prickly loner - he is pretty smart IMHO and would make a great contributor to Niche Modeling.

On a lighter note, there is no doubt the revelations and ramifications of this CRU stuff is exacerbating a already widespread pre-Copenhagen angst amongst the Left 'warmerati'.

In the last few days I 'made the mistake' of quoting just a few of these CRU emails to illustrate certain points in blog threads of the Aussie online journal 'New Matilda'. This afternoon I had the honour of being 'phoned by its editor. She advised me in a dissembling and obnoxiously anal manner that I was henceforth banned from the journal. Given that the few sceptics (usual range extreme to mild) still persevering with blogging in Matilda had been struggling along under her 'moderation' in recent weeks, I informed her I was more than happy to 'high tail it outta there' (;-).

Used to be quoting evidence was only grounds for being idnored, so now its grounds for being banned?

Yes.

At least from Down Under the catastrophist AGW movement appears to be working itself up into a 'Copenhagen Frenzy'. Their desperation for the 'new world order' is getting almost palpable.

I sure hope it burns itself out post-Copenhagen, otherwise 2010 could turn into a really nasty year.

By the way, I totally agree, as an IT professional/sysadmin. It must be an ex-employee, or an insider. Only such a person would know that the material was there in the first place, to justify and assess the risks involved in pulling off the hack. There's too much risk to break into a system only to find that potentially there's nothing much interesting to find... My guess, for what it's worth.

Scientific Doomsday Mania
by
Amitakh Stanford
22nd November 2009

There is a doomsday message that is swiftly gaining global acceptance. The new wave is clothed in acceptable clichés and has won over the support of many of the respected scientific communities.

Unlike most other doomsday messages, this one is supposedly based upon scientific evidence. The scientific “doomsdayers” wear masks and pretend that they are predicting calamities based on hard evidence. This lulls the unsuspecting public into absolute belief and acceptance of the doomsdayers’ ravings.

If the same message were given in a spiritual setting, the adherents would probably be encouraged to turn to God in preparation for the final days. Generally, scientists have sneered at and mocked spiritual predictions regarding the end times, and the same scientists have convinced the general public to do likewise. Further, governments of the world use their police powers to suppress, restrict, or even eliminate these spiritual-based groups. Scientists have now one-upped the spiritual believers by supporting their dire predictions of calamity with supposed scientific evidence. Using their scientific clout, they have now convinced most of the world leaders to meet in Copenhagen. The stated agenda of the gathering is to halt global warming with a unified and urgent approach.

People may remember that there have been similar gatherings to solve the global economic crisis. In those meetings, every leader attending was told to boost their economies by stimulus spending. By and large, the world leaders have dutifully followed those dictates. One might ask: Is the global recession over due to this unified approach – or is it deepening? Many thinking economists have finally realized the latter to be the case.

David, this fits with what you said earlier concerning stacking the review panel to prevent dissenting research:

http://www.heartland.org/full/26365/Galileo_Sil...

Note the date is Nov 13, prior to the Climategate revelation. Does anyone doubt there was collusion to prevent Soon et al from proceeding? The air wreaks with the stench of AGW thuggery.

THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION
We have been given a powerful tool in the form of GlimateGate.
It now has a name and has the potential to get a life of its own.
So if the mains stream media is not going to report on this then let us use the social Facebook and emails to spread the news.
Send the following two YouTube videos to two people that you know and ask them to send it onto at least 2 others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

If you have a Facebook page post the two links.

Will

I am coming around to the thinking that scientists can't be trusted with the numbers. That the work should be in the hands of engineers or professional modelers (if such a thing exists) who are willing to stake their (or their firms) professional reputation on their workmanship. Professionals who will document their work with something more substantial than strings of heavily footnoted scientific papers, and who will make realistic, honest estimates of uncertainties and inaccuracies. The thing that the IPCC report and the Technical Support Document of the EPA lacks is the name of professionals staking their personal reputation on the workmanship of the product. You can tell by the behaviors revealed in the emails that these are not people with much at stake personally. They all think they have secure jobs and are free to let juvenile mentality rule their behavior and attitudes because they have the protection of a university or a government agency.

I agree. The standards portrayed in the emails are much lower than
accepted professional standards in my experience.