Finally some­one has blown the whis­tle on the hokum sci­ence, the lies, the bul­ly­ing and in fact the whole she­bang of the whole crooked smelly bag of shit that Global Warming/Climate Change is by releas­ing 1000’s of emails between Warmist scientists.

Peer Reviewed sci­en­tists should be more like smear reviewed. The liars are caught.

This is the end of Global Warm­ing lie, mark my words, the media is now pick­ing up what the blogs have been run­ning for days, and the emails are being prop­a­gated every­where. Copen­hagen is now dead in the water and so should our ETS based on the evi­dence of these emails.

As Andrew Bolt says;

We’re all strug­gling. What do we call this scandal?

It’s in fact a con­spir­acy of many of the world’s lead­ing global warm­ing sci­en­tists that involves mas­sag­ing data, dodg­ing scrutiny, hound­ing out scep­ti­cal edi­tors, fudg­ing fig­ures, the pos­si­bly crim­i­nal destruc­tion of data under FOI request, tax avoid­ance, gloat­ing over a sceptic’s death, char­ac­ter assas­si­na­tion of scep­tics. admis­sions of using “tricks” to “hide” incon­ve­nient trends, farm­ing grants, pri­vate admis­sions of grave doubts in their own pub­lic warm­ing warn­ings, close col­lu­sion with green groups, the joint con­coct­ing of the most alarmist announce­ments and much more.

The lies have finally been outed. From Wattsup­with­that;

The Inter­net is an amaz­ing place. Now there’s a web­site that has put all of the emails into a search­able data­base with a web engine interface.

The screen­cap below shows the engine at http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

I have no idea who put this together, but it does seem to work quite well. For exam­ple, typ­ing in the  key­word “moron” yields an inter­est­ing email.  So does typ­ing in the name of a promi­nent cli­mate “bulldog”.

Do a search for “salinger” and you get 29 results prov­ing that Jim Salinger is a mem­ber of the conspiracy.

Here is just one excerpt of how involved Jim Salinger was, cor­re­spond­ing with Michael Mann over a beat­ing up of a con­trar­ian view. If this series of emails shows any­thing it shows that the phrase “peer-reviewed” will now be held in com­plete contempt.

On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Jim et al,
Hav­ing now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things to bear in mind. The authors of the orig­i­nal will have a right of reply, so need to ensure that they don’t have any­thing to come back on. From doing the attached a year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is impor­tant to con­cen­trate only on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it won’t be dif­fi­cult to come up with a few, but it does need to be
just two or three.
The three aspects I would empha­size are
1. The first dif­fer­ence type fil­ter­ing. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series with a 12 month run­ning mean, then sub­tract the value in Jan 1980 from that in Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this removes any long-term trend. The run­ning mean also prob­a­bly dis­torts the phase, so this is pos­si­bly why they get dif­fer­ent lags from oth­ers. Using run­ning means also enhances the explained vari­ance. Per­haps we should repeat the exer­cise with­out the smooth­ing.
2. Fig­ure 4 and Fig­ure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a trend. Per­haps show the resid­ual after extract­ing the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first dif­fer­ence on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn’t explain
the cli­mate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their argu­ments in para 30 are all wrong.
A few minor points
– there are some neg­a­tive R*R val­ues just after equa­tion 3.
– I’m sure Tom Wigley wouldn’t have pro­posed El Nino events occur­ring after vol­ca­noes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn’t say what is pur­ported – in fact it seems to show clearly how the analy­sis should have been done.
– there is a paper by Ben San­ter (more recent) where he applies the same type of extrac­tion pro­ce­dure to mod­els. I’ll send this sep­a­rately as it is large. In case it is too large here is the ref­er­ence.
San­ter, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Dou­tri­aux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen,J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeck­ner, E., Sen­gupta, S. and Tay­lor K.E., 2001: Account­ing for the effects of vol­ca­noes and ENSO in com­par­isons of mod­eled and observed tem­per­a­ture trends. Jour­nal
of Geo­phys­i­cal Research 106, 2803328059.
Finally I’ve attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did some­thing sim­i­lar to what they did. I looked at resid­u­als from a Gauss­ian fil­ter, and I added the smoothed data back after­wards. I was work­ing at the annual timescale and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

Hi Jim,
Grant Fos­ter (‘Tamino’) did a nice job in a pre­vi­ous response (attached) we wrote to a sim­i­larly bad arti­cle by Schwartz which got a lot of play in con­trar­ian cir­cles. since he’s already done some of the ini­tial work in debunk­ing this, I sent him an email ask­ing hi if we was inter­ested in spear­head­ing a sim­i­lar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I’ve heard back from him, and we can dis­cuss pos­si­ble strat­egy for mov­ing this for­ward,
mike

On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:

Kia orana All from the Trop­i­cal South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like ‘A mid­sum­mer night’s dream!’. and Gavin Tamino’s bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Cli­mate, Mike. As Kevin is pre­oc­cu­pied, for the sci­en­tific record we need a rebut­tal some­where pulled together. Who wants to join in on the mul­ti­au­thored effort?? I am happy to coor­di­nate it. Return to ‘win­ter’ this evening after enjoy­ing a balmy south east trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim

Quot­ing Michael Mann [3]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:

folks, we’re going to go up w/ some­thing brief on Real­Cli­mate later today, mostly just link­ing to other use­ful decon­struc­tions of the paper already up on other sites,
mike

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:

I am tied up next week, but could frame some­thing up the fol­low­ing week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebut­tal from the same Depart­ment at Uni of Auck­land (which Glenn McGre­gor of IJC is direc­tor of)!
I haven’t had tne opor­tu­nity to down­load the text here in the Cook Islands, so this would give me the oppor­tu­nity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Jim

Quot­ing Kevin Tren­berth [4]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:

I am on vaca­tion today and don’t have the time. I have been on travel the past 4 weeks (includ­ing AR5 IPCC scop­ing mtg); the NCAR sum­mer Col­lo­quium is com­ing up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs’09 ple­nary paper to do.
Kevin a for­mal com­ment to JGR seems like a worth­while under­tak­ing here.
con­trar­i­ans will con­tinue to cite the paper regard­less of whether or not its been rebutted, but for the pur­pose of future sci­en­tific assess­ments, its impor­tant that this be for­mally rebutted in
the peer-reviewed lit­er­a­ture.
mike

On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:

Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an oppor­tu­nity to write a let­ter to JGR point­ing out the junk sci­ence in this??….if it is not rebutted, then all scep­tics will use this to jus­tify their posi­tion.
Jim

And that is just on of the 29 emails that Jim Salinger fea­tures in.

Cli­mate Depot has an con­stantly  updated round up of the spread of the news of the lies. The left­ist media like to say hacked, but it is clear that the extent of the emails obtained that this was no hack, this was a Deep Throat whistleblower.

Here are the lat­est links;

Fox News: Cli­mate Skep­tics See ‘Smok­ing Gun’ Evi­dence of Col­lu­sion Among Cli­ma­tol­o­gists and Manip­u­la­tion of Data’

Update: ‘CRU direc­tor admits emails seem to be gen­uine’ — Cli­matic Research Unit Hacked? ‘Warmist con­spir­acy exposed?’

‘The warmist con­spir­acy: The emails that most damn Phil Jones’

Update: CRU Emails – Search­able Data­base Set Up

NY Times: Hacked E-Mails Fuel Cli­mate Change Skep­tics — ‘Rev­e­la­tions are bound to inflame the pub­lic debate as nego­tia­tors pre­pare to ham­mer out an inter­na­tional cli­mate accord’

NPR: Cli­mate Skep­tics Pounce On E-Mails Hack­ers Got From U.K. Sci­en­tists’ Files

Media Tak­ing Notice: UK Tele­graph: ‘Cli­mate­gate’: ‘The final nail in the cof­fin of ‘Anthro­pogenic Global Warming’?

UK Guardian: Cli­mate skep­tics claim leaked emails are ’smok­ing gun’ evi­dence of col­lu­sion among scientists

Wash Post: Sci­en­tists’ e-mails derid­ing skep­tics of warm­ing become pub­lic – Reveals ‘bla­tant dis­plays of per­sonal pet­ti­ness, uneth­i­cal con­niv­ing, and twist­ing the sci­ence to sup­port their polit­i­cal position’

‘Cli­mate Pen­ta­gon Papers’

‘A scan­dal that is one of the great­est in mod­ern science’

RealClimate.org spins: ‘Post­ing pri­vate cor­re­spon­dence with­out per­mis­sion is unethical’

Cli­ma­tol­o­gist Roy Spencer on scan­dal: The ‘data has been manip­u­lated in order to get results that best suit pro-anthropogenic global warm­ing agenda of UN IPCC’

‘Hockey Stick’ Inven­tor Michael Mann: ‘As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plau­si­bly deni­able accusations’

Claim: Incon­ve­nient Release: UK’s Cli­matic Research Unit (CRU) has appar­ently been hacked – ‘hun­dreds of files released’ — If true, offers inside peek into cli­mate establishment

Michael Mann email: ‘def­i­nitely over­states any sin­gu­lar con­fi­dence I have in my own (Mann et al) series’

Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘con­tain’ the puta­tive Medieval Warm Period’

Aussie Daily Tele­graph: ‘If these sci­en­tists had the doubts they appear to have had con­cern­ing global warm­ing, they should have gone pub­lic with those doubts’

Rush Lim­baugh Praises Cli­mate Depot: ‘It’s a great place to keep up on the global warm­ing debate’ – ‘Morano’s prob­a­bly single-handedly, in a civil­ian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a bet­ter job of ring­ing the bells alarm­ing peo­ple of what’s going on here’

UK Tele­graph: Cli­mate­gate: How the MSM reported the great­est scan­dal in mod­ern science

Cli­mate Fear Pro­mot­ers Fret: ‘This is going to be polit­i­cally costly no mat­ter what’ – ‘No mat­ter how triv­ial the actual ‘in con­text’ rev­e­la­tions turn out to be, the pub­lic will remem­ber the ini­tial Denier spin’

UK Tele­graph: ‘For links to all the lat­est updates on this, I rec­om­mend Marc Morano’s invalu­able Cli­mate Depot site’

WSJ: Skep­tics ’see blood in the water’ — Files reveal sci­en­tists appar­ently mak­ing ref­er­ences to things like ‘hid­ing the decline’ in temps

Sci­en­tist changes graphs to elim­i­nate cool­ing? ‘I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the fil­tered curve’

Cli­mate Audit’s Steve McIn­trye: ‘Words Fail Me’

Skep­tics exiled: ‘We could go through offi­cial AGU chan­nels to get him ousted’

Physi­cist on alleged behav­ior of CRU sci­en­tists: ‘These peo­ple should be put in jail as soon as possible’

‘If they are real and not fake, this is absolute dyna­mite, and will destroy the cred­i­bil­ity of the alarmist cause’

There ‘are just so many small details that were just impos­si­ble to fake’

Claim: UN IPCC Lead Author Admits: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warm­ing at the moment’

‘If legit, this appar­ently dev­as­tat­ing series of rev­e­la­tions will be very hard for the media to ignore’

‘Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold’: Reveals sci­en­tists ‘being happy with the death of skeptics’

Claim: ‘Some­body with the name of Phil Jones says that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre’

May sully the rep­u­ta­tions of a num­ber of work­ing scientists’

This will go down in his­tory as the great­est fraud per­pe­trated on mankind by sci­en­tists and polti­cians ever.

Pop­u­lar­ity: 9% [?]