On November 19th, 2009 documents and emails where published onto the internet from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) that revealed Global Warming as a hoax known as Climate Gate. Climate Gate exposed the “global warming hoax” and may be the reason for the re branding as “climate change”.
Wall Street Journal Reported:
“Some of the old emails from scientists made public apparently make references to things like “hiding the decline,” referring to global temperature series and different ways to slice and dice climate data”
This evidence also went on to exploit how head honcho climatologists, affiliated with the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, schemed to enter in fraudulent data in order to support global warming in a declining temperate era. These reports show how these scientists used their status in the science community to ridicule and prevent valid reports from appearing in peer-reviewed journals.
The London Telegraph exploited the documents as “Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? ”
These documents illustrated a manipulation of evidence:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
The scientists private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
“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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
A conspiracy to oust dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. They created a scientific climate in which anyone who brings evidence outside of AGW pre-approved global agenda are considered a conspiracy theorist or kook.
“This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
|From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxxDear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.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. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.Thanks for the comments, Ray.Cheers
According to Investigate magazine out of Australia, Dr. Phil Jones has now verified that these emails are real.
Not one scientist involved was fired or sentenced to prison for falsifying documents to prove global warming. Instead they have had their credibility reassured and restored by the local Anthropogenic Global Warming community (AGW).