Global Warming hoax exposed by hackers? Several emails examined.

In a most stunning and abrupt discovery we learn that several days ago hackers invaded Hadley University of East Anglia and made off with a handful of documents and emails.  The director of the Climate Research Unit confirms that the emails are indeed genuine and now the search has begun.  Files have been dispersed like wildfire through the Internet and are at the mercy of every skeptic who has fought against the hoax known to us as Global Warming.  I am currently examining the emails myself and some of the information appears to be tremendously incriminating and could be the final nail in the coffin.  While I do not personally endorse the hackers nor do I find their methods admirable nor do we appreciate the invasion of Green fascists into our homes and lives.  Cap and Trade was poised to devastate our economy despite the already mounting piles of evidence suggesting that global warming is a fraud just like the people pushing it.  Hopefully this discovery will finally bury this piece of horrible legislation away for good and we can just get on with our lives.

Here are some emails that I have begun examining, all emphasis are mine. 

An e-mail discussing practices.

I think that my > experience with audits and engineering studies is more substantial than > Bradley's and this is an extraordinarily silly thing for him to > say. After the fact, one of the key mis-steps in the Bre-X fraud was > the engineering report in which ore reserves were calculated using false > data supplied to the consulting engineers by Bre-X, without any > verification being carried out by the engineers.

IPCC is always a favorite target of mine and not because they share the Nobel prize with Gore, but because they have been wrong over and over.  They are nothing more than a politicial body and hopefully they will be exposed for who they are

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.

There are many emails about Wei-Chyung Wang and him falsifying data as a basis for his research papers.  He is only important insofar as he is a professor and the recepient of a lot of money in order to study greenhouse gases.  His fraud however is widely available.  The paper is written by one, Phil Jones, whose name is only important in establishing the veracity of these emails.

Many emails also must be written carefully and taken in context, but the following blurbs do appear to be dubious.

To be realistic, the fresh-water flux used should ideally be the observed flux - I agree that a diagnosed field hides model errors. Its similar to the flux correction or no flux correction dilemna of coupled models - do you want a realistic state with unrealistic processes, or a possibly unrealistic state with realistic processes. Either way, the response of the model to perturbations cannot be guaranteed to be realistic. The best current way is to do both. Then, with luck, the real world will lie between the two answers obtained.

Some scientists raising concern over averaging.

> 8. I repeat my concern re too much spatial aggregation of results if it > hides important regional differences, as these are very important for > questions of intragenerational equity. I think the paper should > specifically warn against this. Averaging is notorious as a way of > hiding important differences.

Without understanding the full details, the following email is dist

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

This following email is sent from a rather respected individual in the community and what he is saying is rather shocking.

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

 Another email is a series of questions about data gone "missing".

After nearly a year and over 25 emails, Crowley said in mid-October that he has misplaced the original data and could only find transformed and smoothed versions. This makes proper data checking impossible, but I'm planning to do what I can with what he sent. Do I need to comment on my attitude to the original data being "misplaced"?

This is just the beginning folks.