Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK E Mail ‘Hack’

DBKP decided to let the weekend pass and commentary commence before addressing the extraordinarily development of the release via an unnamed “hacker” of hundreds of emails from CRU and over 300 documents, some of which amount to no more than pure political propaganda.

By that I mean they are intentionally designed propaganda pieces to be disseminated. The British government in order to panic citizens into acceptance of governmental environmental restrictions and taxes. The emails, by the foremost global warmists in Europe, and second only to the often-discredited James Hansen of NASA in media influence, reflect a less-than-scientific approach to the handling of data and the dissemination of the same through papers, graphs or press release. More about that later.

I was hesitant to subscribe to the “hacker” theory from the onset. The emails were simply too voluminous in extant and seem to be organized in a loose fashion. The sources were multiple, and topically centered which made an arbitrary grab unlikely. No intruder has been detected as yet.

I wondered about the Russian server initially selected to host the file. A wonderful red herring, but unnecessary given that there are multiple ways to pass on the information. Anthony Watts suggest that the information was accidentally released in the same fashion Steven McIntyre received a partial download of the Briffa climate proxy data.

Today we find out that a reported from the BBC received the emails on October 19, but did not read them and likely did not understand their importance. That leads me to believe that we have an inside leak. The person leaking the emails fully understands their import and has been looking for a person or organization to explain these emails to the public.

And there are some disturbing revelations.

First there is the petty need by Phil Jones, Tom Osborne, Michael Mann and others to attempt to destroy the reputation of anyone that disagrees with them. This ugly aspect permeates entire series of emails and is nefarious to the extreme. For example, an editor of a scientific journal is told it will be boycotted by submitters if it does not toe the AGW line.

In another instance, the importance of not allowing peer review of scientific submissions that diverge from the accepted orthodoxy of current global warming being due solely to man made CO2 emissions.

Secondly, the degree of information and insight into data that is in fact contrary to the acceptable line of Anthropogenic Global Warming is revealing. It appears many at CRU were confused by inaccurate data points, changing temperature measures, trend lines, and the lost of historical data. These inquirers were politely shown to the dunce room.

In other words, it is clear that some at CRU was attempting honest science in a hostile atmosphere. James Hansen in particular seems to have a mesmerizing effect–in spite of his history of histrionics and data manipulation–having been identified as deleting data as much as 16 times in global weather measuring, all to the effect of making the past cooler and the present disastrously warmer.

Thirdly, it is clear that CRU was determined to hide the Keith Briffa tree ring proxies that ill-advisedly served as a temperature model for the famous Hockey Stick graph depicted by Michael Mann. Briffa has been unable to explain his choice of tree rings. McIntyre has destroyed the graph by doing the simple calculation using all available Yamal tree samples.

Fourth, is the silly discussion of the use of the word “trick” to describe an adjustment to historical temperatures derived by proxies versus measurement. Simply put, tree ring proxies were used to measure temperatures prior to actual thermometer measure. In 1961 thermometer measures became available in the Yamal region. The tree ring estimates differed from real estimates from 1961 onwards.

Hmmmmm. So CRU seems to have changed the reported temperatures to make the historical record of tree ring measures coincide. Because a footnote was included in the paper identifying, in opaque terms, the adjustment, Michael Mann argues that this is not a deceit.

Gentlemen and complicit women, you had just proved that tree ring proxies were grossly suspect–something opined here at DBKP before. That was the paper: The divergence. Instead, CRU appears to have taken the tack that an adjustment to postulated data will trump real data.

Conclusion? AGW as a proven is a hoax. A pure grab for money and fame. CRU and The Weather Clown James Hansen should be dismissed from further scientific endeavor.

by Pat
image: Silicon Caribe
Source: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php