iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climategate Row: Thousands Of Emails From University Of East Anglia Exposed

Global Warming

First Posted: 22/11/11 17:46 Updated: 22/11/11 17:49   PA

Amazing
 Inspiring
 Funny
 Scary
 Hot
 Crazy
 Important
 Weird

Thousands more emails from the university at the centre of the "climategate" row over global warming science two years ago appear to have been posted online.

Hacked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were leaked online in 2009 before crunch UN talks in Copenhagen, which aimed - but ultimately failed - to secure a strong new global deal on tackling climate change.

Climate change sceptics claimed the emails showed scientists manipulating data to support a theory of man-made global warming, but a series of reviews later cleared researchers at the unit of any scientific impropriety.

However, the university was criticised for its failure to be sufficiently open and respond properly to freedom of information requests on its climate data.

The apparent new release of 5,000 emails from UEA comes in the run-up to the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa, where it is hoped progress can be made towards agreeing a new deal to tackle emissions and maintaining the existing Kyoto climate treaty.

The release appears to show emails from a number of people including Professor Phil Jones, of CRU, and Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University in the US.

A statement from the University of East Anglia said:

While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems.

If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks.

This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.

As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported. They, the University and the wider research community have stood by the science throughout, and continue to do so.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Thousands more emails from the university at the centre of the "climategate" row over global warming science two years ago appear to have been posted online. Hacked emails from the University of Ea...
Thousands more emails from the university at the centre of the "climategate" row over global warming science two years ago appear to have been posted online. Hacked emails from the University of Ea...
Related News On Huffington Post:
 

Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:
Professor Sir Gordon Conway Professor Sir Gordon Conway: Victim and Culprit: Why COP 17 Can't Ignore Agriculture Simon Retallack Simon Retallack: Durban Climate Conference: The Only Way is (Bottom) Up Adrian Ramsay Adrian Ramsay: Durban Should Be a Wake Up Call For the World Dr Keith Allott Dr Keith Allott: Durban Climate Conference - Crunch Time On Climate Change Shawn Lawrence Otto Shawn Lawrence Otto: Climate Scientist Wins A Round for America David Roberts David Roberts: What We Have and Haven't Learned From 'Climategate' Kelly Rigg Kelly Rigg: Skepticgate: Revealing Climate Denialists for What They Are Brendan DeMelle Brendan DeMelle: Penn State Completely Exonerates Climate Scientist Michael Mann On Bogus Climategate Accusations James Hoggan James Hoggan: Lies Concocted By Climate Deniers Likely To Stick Around Despite Corrections Mike Sandler Mike Sandler: Climate Deniers are Polluting the Blogosphere James Hoggan James Hoggan: The Smoking Guns and Blue Dress Moments of Climategate The Yes Men The Yes Men: The Best Pranks of 2010 Sahil Kapur Sahil Kapur: ClimateGate Exposes Paranoia of Conspiracy Theorists Richard Graves Richard Graves: Climate-Gate Is Watergate Redux Anuradha Vittachi Anuradha Vittachi: Climategate Hacker Scores Own Goal David Hone David Hone: Can Global Emissions Really Be Reduced?

Filed by Felicity A Morse  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 154
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
oobuc5
12 Fans
19:14 on 08/04/2012
American deep ice ice drill uncovers the fact that the sun has at least 2 cycles one minimus and one maximus the short cycle = 11 years, the long one hundreds if not thousands of years . if you were the government you might take the advantage and declare planet warming ,or later alter it to something climate change or global warming ,back in 1967 the Americans launched deep sea transmitter Buoys into all of the worlds seas to check temperature changes ,it still goes on today ,and so planet warming or whatever you want to call it launched all of the emission equipment we have on our cars and industry how much was this industry worth in profit for the mfg,s and the taxes for governments ,take a wild guess ,was all of this discussed by the governments back then you bet they did along with peak oil

call it what you like but its cyclic and if its cyclic the government will tax it to the hilt ! .
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
60 Fans
18:32 on 30/11/2011
"We had an interesting debate on this at the Tyndall Advisory Board last week, and the consensus was very much in line with your views, except for the journalist present (Roger Horobin), who wanted something more pro-active. I am more sympathetic to his view than most of you, I think, but the question is what more would be useful, effective, and not too burdensome ? So far I don't think I have identified anything, but I do think that the sort of web-page mentioned above would be a start, and so I am copying this to Asher Minns, for him to consider and discuss with John & Mike at Tyndall Central." - John Sepherd, a Tyndall Centre advisory board member, writing to RealClimate's Stefan Rahmstorf in climategate e-mail 2974

What is a journalist for the BBC doing influencing policy at a board meeting of a British scientific body?

And why is a BBC journalist involved in discussions encouraging a activist web-site, RealClimate, which is run by employees of agencies of the U.S. Federal Government?

So is the "journalist" a journalist, or an activist himself?
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
maxwells
281 Fans
22:01 on 30/11/2011
Are James Delingpole, Christopher Monckton, or David Rose journalists or AGW denier activists? Hmm? And why was Monckton, who has no scientific training whatsoever, called by the Republicans as their sole "expert witness" on global warming? eh?
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:13 on 01/12/2011
"What is a journalist for the BBC doing influencin­g policy at a board meeting of a British scientific body?"

Why can't an expert in media and the environment offer advice about the media and the environment? RealClimate shares the journalists' goal of informing the public about separating fact from fiction.

Deniers are just upset because they only have lies to tell.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Keith E
Earth Warrior
250 Fans
17:20 on 29/11/2011
I'm amazed at how stupid some science deniers appear. Its like you're trying to paddle a sinking boat. I at least hope your getting paid.
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:16 on 01/12/2011
"I at least hope your getting paid."

After the Berkeley study blew up in their faces, I don't see the Koch brothers and others wasting more money on ineffective denial.
Permalink  |
Junksciencecutecritters
22 Fans
05:45 on 29/11/2011
Climategate was not the work of a hacker, but an insider blowing the whistle on scientific fraud.

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/why-climategate-was-not-a-computer-hack/
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:18 on 01/12/2011
"Climategat­e was not the work of a hacker..."

*yawn* We've been through this many times. The only fraud and crime was the people who hacked the university computers to steal personal communications.
Permalink  |
Junksciencecutecritters
22 Fans
04:00 on 02/12/2011
Hacker, Whistleblower...Tomato, Tomatoe. Let's just be thankful this abominable fraud has been exposed.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ronkw
Molon labe
828 Fans
23:43 on 28/11/2011
So, despite having no confidence in any of the models the IPCC was using in its reports, this scientist was ready to support the IPCC findings to the hilt. And why didn’t he believe the models? Easy: They were designed to tell the big lie. For example, when confronted with the problem that if all the data were included, the warming disappeared, Phil Jones turned to a novel method: He used only “[time] periods that showed warming.”
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:20 on 01/12/2011
The IPCC doesn't have models, they use the existing science. In what study did Jones use only the warming? Show us the conspiracy.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ronkw
Molon labe
828 Fans
23:41 on 28/11/2011
In another note to Phil Jones, this same scientist complained: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:23 on 01/12/2011
"We need to communicat­e the uncertaint­y and be honest.”

What's your problem with Jones' demand that they communicate honestly about tropical tropospheric temperatures?
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ronkw
Molon labe
828 Fans
23:40 on 28/11/2011
" limited opportunity to look ..."

imagine that.
Well, others have had an opportunity and it ain't good for da warmers.
More corruption of "the science"
sorry dood. It's over and done.

"Unfortunately, from the very beginning, the core group at the heart of Climategate had no interest in “scientific truth.” As one states: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.” In other words, let’s decide on a conclusion and then use only evidence that proves that point, discarding everything else.
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:32 on 01/12/2011
"As one states: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.” In other words, let’s decide on a conclusion and then use only evidence that proves that point, discarding everything else."

You've misread that. The author of the email is saying that related, but not contributing facts need not be discussed. What are they discussing? Get back to us if you find that it lacks discussion of relevant facts.
Permalink  |
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
502 Fans
06:19 on 28/11/2011
National Academy of Sciences (2010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. 

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf
Permalink  |
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
502 Fans
04:51 on 28/11/2011
"Skeptic" Bob Carter Commits De Facto Global Warming Fraud

Orkneygal smears, but she won't debate.

Dear Orkneygal,

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Robert M "Bob" Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?* 

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?

Also:

You have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with Bob Carter's "skeptical" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC), if any?

Please finally answer these questions instead of continuing to run away from them - thank you.

[ Que: continued silence from "truth seeker" Orkneygal with respect to Bob Carter's de facto global warming fraud and her relationship to Bob Carter's global warming "skeptic" organization the NZCSC. ]

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
60 Fans
04:05 on 28/11/2011
If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones's infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to "hide the decline," deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists' preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?

This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research. -J. Delingpole in the wsj.
Permalink  |
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
502 Fans
06:15 on 28/11/2011
Oh look,

Richard2 copy-and-pastes again from conservative OpEd columnist, non-scientist, and serial science denier James Delingpole.

How much primary "research" does James Delingpole do with respect to climate science, as opposed to relying upon the "interpretations" of others for his "reporting"?

By his own admission, none:

"It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time; I haven't got the scientific expertise... I am an interpreter of interpretations."

-- James Delingpole

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wmuhKzYp4s

Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ronkw
Molon labe
828 Fans
23:49 on 28/11/2011
It's a socialists hoax.
Like everything they do.
Cheat, lie, deceive and steal.
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:34 on 01/12/2011
"It's a socialists hoax. Like everything they do. Cheat, lie, deceive and steal."

Who are "they," how do you know they've done something wrong and what effect did it have? If you don't have the names of people involved and details about what they did, how do you know that it happened?

In short, I'm calling you a liar.
Permalink  |
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
1205 Fans
01:30 on 28/11/2011
It is increasingly clear that the 'climategate' emails were hacked, and are being released, from oil-rich Russia, specifically Siberia. Russia, for whom the cold war never ended, has recently suggested that our 'missile-defence' rockets poised on Russia's border is 'a new Cuban-missile crisis'. Full-disclosure: I agree with Russia on that one. But we should never forget that our traditional nemesis on Nuclear Armageddon is no ordinary combatant.

So, what are we to say about the many climate deniers, now doing the Kremlins bidding by touting yet another release of STOLEN personal correspondence of East-Anglia climate scientists? Will not our disavowal of climate change support Russia's claim to HALF of all Arctic oil resources? (Resources that weren't even available until climate change melted the ice that exempted them from exploitation).

By supporting the 'Climate-Gate' email releases, our denier community have indicated that NOTHING is more important than fighting climate change. Not even the support of the Russian conglomerate that, for over 60 years, has wanted the United States dead and buried. We should all be asking: by this support of Russia, does the denier-contingent want the U.S. dead and buried? Is the support of Big Oil THAT important to them? To me, thats not even a question. The answer is that obvious.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ronkw
Molon labe
828 Fans
23:51 on 28/11/2011
you're sounding desperate...grabing at straws.
There has been NO science....it's been rigged and staged.
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:36 on 01/12/2011
"There has been NO science...­.it's been rigged and staged."

Show us. Give us an example of something that lacks science, was rigged, and staged.
Permalink  |
This comment has been removed.
Permalink  |Show replies(1)
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
250 Fans
21:46 on 27/11/2011
Oh Ork.

The whistle blowers are still sitting on 220,000 unreleased emails.

What are they hiding?
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
60 Fans
18:33 on 29/11/2011
Why doesn't East Anglia just release all the e-mails themselves? Why wait for the whistle blowers? What is there to hide in any e-mails written by adults on their employers' computers at publically funded institutions? Why are these adults afraid to have the public review what they said in their e-mails at publically funded institutions?
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:40 on 01/12/2011
"Why are these adults afraid to have the public review what they said in their e-mails at publically funded institutio­ns?"

Because they are personal communications protected by ancient British law. Also, the only people who want them are scoundrels who can't attack the science, so they target the scientist.

You haven't found anything in the first two batches, why do you expect to find something in the rest?
Permalink  |
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
502 Fans
17:34 on 27/11/2011
Dear Orkneygal,

If -- as you would have HuffPo readers believe -- the leakers of these emails were "whistleblowers" from within the climate science community, then why did they hold these emails back for two years before releasing them?

In other words, if these hackers really viewed releasing these emails as a battle for truth, then why didn't they release everything at once in order to get it all reviewed and sorted out?

Please answer the question, Orkneygal, instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

-------------------------------------------
Additional note: If the hackers leaking these emails instead intended them to be used as fodder in a protracted distracting PR battle then holding some of them back and releasing them two years later makes sense - it serves to keep the PR distraction going.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
60 Fans
01:55 on 27/11/2011
Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.

The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade. - David Rose, The Daily Mail

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music--game-shows.html#ixzz1ermZNd1C
Permalink  |
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
651 Fans
16:43 on 01/12/2011
Of course journalists speak with scientists. They want what they say to be correct representation of the science. BBC doesn't broadcast denial because it is objectively false.
Permalink  |
 
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)