View Full Version : Global Warming hacked/leaked emails.. Here they are

Chester Copperpot
12-01-2009, 03:04 PM


12-01-2009, 03:22 PM


In my opinion, it's examination of the code that's more important. Any chance that will be put up?

12-01-2009, 03:31 PM
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't."

Found on this page half way down:


12-01-2009, 03:38 PM
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't."

Found on this page half way down:

[/URL][URL]http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1053&filename=1255530325.txt (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1053&filename=1255530325.txt)

yes we can account for the lack of warming. Its called thermal equilibrium. The system is in balance and the entropy :: energy gradient ratio is near 1. Even if we did see a spike in temps, that balance is quickly restored because the mass of the heat conductors that make up the system the atmosphere is a part of are nearing infinitely in relation to the mass of the atmosphere.

It won't be called global warming when "it" happens. It will be global vaporization or global plasmatization.

12-01-2009, 04:30 PM
ClimateGate: heads begin to roll

December 01, 2009
Britain's University of East Anglia announced today that its director of the prestigious Climate Research Unit is "stepping down" while an investigation is conducted into his research and publications on climate change. Phil Jones, who was at the heart of the emails released last week that shook the scientific world and cast doubt about the validity of the data that supports the idea that the earth is warming, was unavailable for immediate comment.

Meanwhile, Penn State University in the United States announced yesterday (11-29-09) that it is launching an investigation into Phil Jones, another principal in the hacked email scandal, should be further investigated for his role in distorting climate change data. "I'm very happy they're doing it," Mann said. University officials would not give an expected date for a decision, saying that it could take "quite some time."

Mann said his work had been reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and that they found nothing in his work that was in any way inappropriate.


12-01-2009, 08:28 PM
From Mon, 20 Dec 2004:

It is obviously possible to use 1980-2000 though it would require some
data-processing work. The main objection is that anomalies (of
temperature) would appear to be reduced relative to previous
publications and readers/policymakers could become confused.

From later that day:

I don't want to change this until 1981-2010 is complete ... If we go to a more recent one the anomalies will seem less warm - I know this makes no sense scientifically, but it gives the skeptics something to go on about!

12-01-2009, 08:53 PM

12-01-2009, 08:55 PM
From Oct 27, 2009:

Thanks--we know that. The point is simply that if we want to talk about about a
meaningful "2009" anomaly, every additional month that is available from which to
calculate an annual mean makes the number more credible. We already have this for
GISTEMP, but have been awaiting HadCRU to be able to do a more decisive update of the status of the disingenuous "globe is cooling" contrarian talking point,
p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He's not as predictable as we'd like

12-01-2009, 08:57 PM
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> thanks Tom,
>>>> I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
>>>> together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
>>>> prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
>>>> mike

>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.