Global warming scientists E mail hacked. 23rd 11th 09.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/the-biggest-scandal...

A major story is breaking in climate science, after hackers posted a 61 megabyte data file on a Russian server that appears to be confidential emails and climate data hacked from the UK Met Office.

The data raises major questions about the role of scientists in what appears to be a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the public:
Those involved allegedly include: James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Michael Mann, famous for Mann's "Hockey Stick"; Gavin Schmidt, NASA climate modeler, and; Stephen Schneider, Stanford professor and Al Gore confidant.

A statement released Friday by the website RealClimate has confirmed that e-mail servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich, England, were hacked recently with contents illegally made available over the Internet.

Although the authenticity of all these e-mail messages has yet to be proven, what's currently available points to a coordinated attempt to manipulate climate data by those directly involved in advancing the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

New Zealand's Investigate magazine reported Friday that it has verified these e-mail messages are indeed real:

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Global
• Warming.
• Climate
• Change
• .Global
• warming
• scientists
• mail
• hacked.

[imbrd]

lets just point out howard's last statement here saying "there are so many models that are coming out now"- that is the point, THEY ARE MODELS- meaning computer programs- and the very first thing about dealing w/ programs is if the programs are bad or data entered is bad, then the data produced or functions are bad. JUNK IN ==> JUNK OUT

[benflo96]

(if you have a 100 doctors telling you one thing and 5 of them telling you something else, you kinda go with the masses are saying here)......ahmmmm peer pressure in a macro scale! hahahha XD yes the earth is warming up! but are we really the ones responsible???hahah

[durbinpoison775]

He called the 30,000 scientists who disagree with global warming holdouts. I think some people are only out to make money off fake threats and lies.

[JonThm]

Plants convert all the available carbon dioxide from the air into new life on earth. No weather effect possible.

[Nightversionn]

Impacts / evidence of climate change series:

.

Record warm nighttime temperatures: A closer look

.

What made this month unusual wasn't only the hot days, but rather the hot nights: Even though repeat heat waves brought sizzling hot days, overnight temperatures broke far more records, and this is exactly what climate models predict.

.

Climate Central

3 August 2011

[uknowispeaksense]

@gunsandbullhorns okay. how about you write to the authors and tell them their methodology is flawed and let me know their response? By suggesting that their methodology is wrong and given that it has not been retracted from its journal or even had a correction printed, you are suggesting that all those scientists out there who are a lot more educated than you or I, and have read it, are also wrong. Wow. Funny that you should mention Galileo. I suggest you google "Google Galileo".

[gunsandbullhorns]

@uknowispeaksense

Alright. You're argument is an appeal to authority — not Science. If that's you're standard of Scientific Reasoning, then I shouldn't even waste my time talking to you. By such reasoning, Galileo might have been wrong back in the day.

I'm trying to appeal to your basic sense of Logic and your understanding of Science. I'm not disputing the data, nor am I talking about analysis. This is a methodological dispute. Drop me a line after you learn the difference.

[uknowispeaksense]

@gunsandbullhorns Tell you what. How about you gather some data and analyse it in the manner that you see fit, write yourself a paper and submit it for publication to a respectable journal. Put me down as a contact and when you get published, send me a copy. Better yet, I'll subscribe to your channel so that you can find me easily. I'll be waiting with baited breath.

[gunsandbullhorns]

[continued...]

HYPOTHESIS: A + B = C

Let's pretend that you gather the data on A, B & C. ...and it turns out that A = 3; B = 4; C = 8

So what do you do? Do you alter the values to suit your hypothesis, or do you alter your hypothesis?

If you're certain that B = 4, and C = 8, then the thing to do is discard «A» and find something else other than «A».

This is at the basic—logical—foundation of Scientific Reasoning, upon which Scientific Method is justified.

[gunsandbullhorns]

@uknowispeaksense

Damnit! I am appealing to YOUR logic and YOUR understanding of the Scientific deduction. Obviously, I disagree with Science®. That's why I'm having this debate with you — I maintain that changing the proxy data in the way that they did was scientifically unsound. REGARDLESS of whether or not it's common practice for them in CERTAIN CONTEXTS, I say it is NOT proper scientific method.

You think I derived my conclusion from a website?!!! Is THAT how you think Method is justified?

[uknowispeaksense]

@uknowispeaksense cont.. the fact that you don't seem to get it demonstrates that you have no idea how the publication of scientific manuscripts or even science in general actually works. I am dying to know which website you are accessing that is suggesting there is something wrong with how they presented Briffa's data?