Climate skeptics obtain smoking gun?

Respected British climate research center (Hadley Climatic Research Centre) apparently have had their computers hacked early this week (initial reports posted on 2009-11-19). The perpetrator released over a thousand emails and other documents, many of which appear to imply falsification of data pertaining to—and at least the concept of intimidation/discrediting of skeptics of—the global warming theory. Many websites are following this story. The centre has admitted that the hacking occurred, implied that the documents are genuine, and invalidated current passwords. This one appears to be collating links:

This is far from a smoking gun

I believe. Notice the news outlets spinning it that way: The Wall Street Journal and the NY Times.

In each case, they offer only snapshots of what the emails actually say, and the evidence is far from damming. For example, some researchers referred to global warming deniers as "idiots." So what? We often call supporters of the opposing team "idiots," and it means nothing but contempt for the opposing view/team.

Here's an example from the Times article that shows this is much ado about nothing:

"In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”"

Are you Kidding?

Give us all a break! Did you do a thorough review of all the emails and data files? Doesn't sound like it and I bet it is very probable that you didn't. Don't try using such false logic as if anything the NY Times or The Wall Street Journal tries to spin this as "that's all folks, nothing to see here!" Are you kidding, the same corporate media structures that would obviously have a hand in the scam of man-made climate change; those same organizations that you are very critical of in regards to their coverage, inquiry, and skepticism about the events of 9/11 you now outright buy the spin the are putting on another large conspiracy. I've read your posts before, but you appear to have selective calls for thorough investigation, that or I would almost think you are a "believer" in the religion of man-made climate change and thus are defending your investment in with such non-sense by your comment. Please, don't use such knee-jerk comments on selective topics of inquiry, which only reveal your inherent bias to topics that also deserve the full vetting for truth!

It doesn't do us any good to mix climate change with 9/11

We have our hands quite full just staying on topic.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Some What

I partially disagree. The man-made climate change fraud (Cap and Trade) would help in some arguments about the skepticism on the sustainability of large conspiracies and the ability of all the participants to remain quite. This conspiracy would show that presumably hundreds if not thousands could willing participate in perpetuating a fraud with no conscience to "fess up."

apples and oranges

please provide your best links documenting that man-made climate change is a fraud.

If there's a smoking gun in these emails, I'm sure it will come out- however, I'm skeptical that it's there. So far, what's been quoted regards anomalies in what's a very complex field- however, the consensus is that climate change is real, and is linked to human activity. Current understanding of human-caused climate change is based on decades of findings by thousands of scientists in climatology and related sciences, in many different nations. Climate research is based mostly on open sources- in contrast to 9/11, most of the evidence is still classified or unaccessible to the public.

These emails also show scientists are human, and they feel the pressure of the propaganda war being waged by big money interests like the US Chamber of Commerce and Exxon-Mobil, and the opinion of the portion of the American public that insists they have a god-given right to rape and pillage Mother Earth, and there's no need to be concerned about the consequences for the rest of the human race and future generations. In contrast, there's no obvious (public) source of big money supporting 9/11 research.

Cap and trade is a half-measure, and the fact that Goldman Sachs and other investment banks are drooling over the opportunity to create a new market (that they will probably also rig) is disturbing. The 'elite' scum are taxing and borrowing for wars for oil and hegemony- and to bail themselves out of the economic meltdown they created. These are the same scum that are profiting from the Federal Reserve, globalism and corporatism which is increasing conflict and poverty. We could instead invest that money in improving efficiency, infrastructure, mass transit, renewable energy, sustainable practices, localism and community, and foreign relations based on mutual respect and fair trade.

I *don't* mix 9/11 with other issues

in public. But I have interests in other issues too, since they provide a more complete understanding of the situation.

The emails appear legitimate and look incriminating. Here's more info:

From one email: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline [the actual decline in the temperature data]." This statement appears to imply that both the email's author, and a previous Nature paper, 'fudged' the data.

FWIW, I consider myself an environmentalist, but the concern is that exaggerated (or even false) environmental issues can be used for global manipulation, as was the case with 9/11.