An inconvenient truth.... or lie?

Dr. Don Easterbrook (http://tinyurl.com/yav3omyl) recently pointed out such practices were routinely violated at the CRU. See here (Geologist ‘appalled’ at NYT’s Krugman: ‘Legitimate scientists do not doctor data…hijack peer-review…send fraudulent data to UN that is used to perpetuate greatest hoax in the history of science’ | Climate Depot) and here (Tom Nelson)Easterbrook points out that legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data. All of these unprofessional practices were revealed in the disclosed email and documents.The CRU email fallout during the week of Nov. 23, spread rapidly. Many of these findings have been listed at ecotretas (Rolo Compressor de Verdades Inconvenientes) as well as at Climate Depot (Climate Depot | A project of CFACT).Listed at ecotretas (Rolo Compressor de Verdades Inconvenientes) are the following categories of CRU transgressions: Using the wrong data and practices, fixing the data, deleting the data, wrong-doing, hiding information, peer-review interference, and questionable financial practices. These are not the habits and practices of scientific and engineering professionals.The release of the CRU emails and documents indicates a massive global warming scandal had been operating at the CRU and elsewhere for nearly 2 decades. The purpose of all the scandal was apparently to give a scientific patina to global warming and the presumptive cause of it all, CO2 emitted from the developed nations (code word for the United States).The purpose of the IPCC and the CRU was never to determine a better understanding of how our climate works. It was never to identify all of the forces at work affecting the climate, their magnitudes, their signs-positive or negative, their interactions and their variations, all of which drive our climate, which in turn would make the developed nations the source of all damages done in the 3rd world, which in turn would make the case for restitution to these nations for many trillions of dollars.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that the people involved with this CRU scandal are very big, powerful, and influential people from the CRU and the US. They provide scientific cover for some of the largest and most costly attacks on the United States. The concept of limiting CO2 emissions from American sources is a ruse in light of the fact that the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is causing global warming remains unproven. There is absolutely no need for either carbon taxes or cap and trade legislation.

Taz writes:Please don't make me chase you around, Buz.

Taz writes:Give us quotes directly from these emails that you think are damning evidence of this supposed massive fraud and we can discuss from there. All you've done so far is post links to opinions. Again, anybody can have an opinion on anything. My opinion is that christians are necessarily liars. This doesn't mean that quoting me will actually prove that christians are in fact liars.

Wall Street Journal writes: The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
.........
.Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications."This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine."The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said.Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "tempted to beat" up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday...... Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" .........John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."

ZenMonkey writes:Fine, Buz. Now please go look up the emails themselves, not what someone else is saying about them. There is a difference. What do the emails themselves say, and in what context?
Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to view the video I linked to at Message 23.

Peg writes:Our activity does have an effect on the atmosphere, that was adequately discovered when the areosole cans, containing CFC's, we produced caused a gaping hole in the Ozone layer over australia
i think we can be fairly certain that our activity can and does affect the atmosphere

Taz writes:Ah, but I never accused christians of being liars. I merely used it as an analogy to help you understand where I have a problem with in this issue. You're just pointing to other people who talk about the emails and say "see? it's a massive fraud, he says so..." By this same logic, I can simply say christians are liars and then other people could prove that christians are liars by pointing to my opinion. See the parallel?

Meldinoor writes:Unless the journalists also happen to be scientists, why should we trust their knowledge on the subject over that of knowledgable experts? And why does the possible fraud of a small number of scientists necessarily mean that the entire scientific community is fraudulent?Do you really expect the media tabloids to be objective on this issue?Don't you find it a little odd that out of over a thousand e-mails and documents, only a few have been presented as evidence of fraud? And usually out of context.

Meldinoor writes:I have also noticed how Christians in general, and especially Creationists tend to be the most skeptical (read pseudo-skeptical) of Global Warming. Anyone know why this is?

Meldinoor writes:If conservatives decide to rely on media and conservative spin, rather than data and fact they are more gullible than I thought.

DevilsAdvocate writes:Anyone who listens to this self-indulgent, egotistical, uneducated idiot and bafoon needs to have his head examined. Just my personal opinion. I know, I know this is off-topic

Peg writes:the science of the CFC disaster is well and trully established fact. A ban was made of producing CFCs' in the 80's and over the past 2 decades the hole has slowly been closing up.the problem with the CFC's was that when the particles were reaching the upper atmosphere, they disintergrated the ozone gas... the effects over australia has been widespread skin cancer...the highest rates of skin cancer in the world i believe...and the sun is extremely harsh. 10 minutes in the summer sun and you'll burn. Those effects are real and we feel it every day.So, if one polutant can cause the ozone to be depleated, then surely we need to look at other polutants that we are using and not simply deny that they are going to do any damage.

USGS writes: The primary role of volcanic sulfur aerosols in causing short-term changes in the world's climate following some eruptions, instead of volcanic ash, was hypothesized by scientists in the early 1980's. They based their hypothesis on the effects of several explosive eruptions in Indonesia and the world's largest historical effusive eruption in Iceland.Clearly, these examples suggested that the explosivity of an eruption and the amount of ash injected into the stratosphere are not the main factors in causing a change in Earth's climate. Instead, scientists concluded that it must be the amount of sulfur in the erupting magma.The eruption of El Chichon, Mexico, in 1982 conclusively demonstrated this idea was correct. The explosive eruption injected at least 8 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere, and it was followed by a measureable cooling of parts of the Earth's surface and a warming of the upper atmosphere.Ozone depletion promoted by volcanic sulfur aerosols.
The sulfate aerosols also promote complex chemical reactions on their surfaces that alter chlorine and nitrogen chemical species in the stratosphere. This effect, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, generates chlorine monoxide (ClO), which destroys ozone (O3).

Huntard writes:Now now, they are only the mails of 1 research facility. The other research facilities that are also confirming it are also part of the conspiracy?

Rahvin writes:There has been much referral to blogs, and commentary, and videos, but so far no actual quotes from the emails, no analysis from a qualified independent climatologist on the actual meaning of the emails (as opposed to what silly journalists and talk-show hosts think they mean), and no addressing the fact that climate research has been carried out at countless Universities around the globe as opposed to these results coming from only one corrupt group of frauds.