El CRU (Climate Research Unit) de la Universidad de East Anglia, HACKEADO...

la única salida, medio digna, es que todos los datos y modelos usados en los informes sean públicos.

Hombre, por falta de datos y código que no sea. Sólo hace falta echarle ganas.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

saludos

London’s Sunday Telegraph reports that the University of East Anglia has decided that its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) must open all its data files to public inspection as soon as possible. It is not known how much of the raw temperature data have been destroyed. The university’s decision sweeps aside years of obstruction, obfuscation, and prevarication by the CRU’s director, Professor Phil Jones. Leaked emails from Jones give conflicting accounts of what he has done with the raw data upon which the CRU’s global temperature record is based.

Releasing the CRU’s data files is a big breakthrough in the scandal and begins the process of bringing climate science into line with other scientific disciplines. It is standard practice in most scientific research to make data and methodologies available to other scientists in order that they can be checked and conclusions confirmed or questioned. In much climate science, secrecy has been the norm and many scientists have in effect demanded that their conclusions be accepted without any way to scrutinize their research. Thus the nations of the world have been embarking on policies that could cost trillions of dollars based on little more than assurances that “we’re experts and you can trust us.”

As Christopher Booker writes in his column in the Sunday Telegraph, further radical steps are needed to clear up this enormous scandal. Unfortunately, it appears that the British scientific and political establishment are already closing ranks and preparing a whitewash. Replying to demands from Lord Lawson and others for an independent investigation, it was rumored on Friday that there is talk of appointing Martin, Lord Rees to head the investigation. Lord Rees is president of the Royal Society, astronomer royal, master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cambridge.  He is also, as Booker describes the Royal Society, “a shameless propagandist” for global warming alarmism. Let’s hope he’s too busy to take on another job.

The Latest on Climategate: University Will Release CRU Data

Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row

CRU Tossed Raw Data: Global Warming Science Is Dead

Update: Click through here for video on potential prosecutions for fraud as a result of what these alleged scientists have done.

There are not enough words to describe what was done here by the so-called leading authorities behind the entire Global Warming idea. As TigerHawk puts it:

    So, basically we are being asked to restructure the entire economy of the planet on the say-so of a few "scientists" whose work cannot be verified or even reconstructed. Is there any intellectually honest person who thinks that is a good idea?

Given that they adjusted the raw data to draw their conclusions and have tossed that raw data, added to the email generated concerns, there is no way these people can be trusted to even try and re-construct the source data by reversing any alleged equations used. They have behaved unethically, incompetently, potentially criminally, and more.

That information was subject to Freedom of Information Request. Any notion that there is reliable science driving the Global Warming debate needs to be discarded. And it is the very people pushing it who have destroyed every reason to believe in the alleged science along with them at this point. They are not worthy of trust at this point due to their own actions.

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The very foundation of science is that it be reproducible. These unprofessional hacks have made re-production of their work to validate their conclusions impossible. It can not legitimately be called science at all at this point. It's rubbish, precisely what their raw data became. What a scientific and political nightmare these irresponsible people have created for the world. They ought never be permitted to work anywhere in the field of science again.

CRU Tossed Raw Data: Global Warming Science Is Dead

video (inglés) Climategate - CRU Source Code Explained

When the CRU Email Search Engine...
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php
...was introduced last week, I searched for “watts”, since I’m a regular contributor of guest posts at WUWT, to see if any of them had received an honorable mention. Alas! One had. It was “A look at the Thompson et al paper – hi tech wiggle matching and removal of natural variables. The version at my website with larger graphics is here:
“Thompson et al (2009) - High-Tech Wiggle Matching Helps Illustrate El Nino-Induced Step Changes.”

That post got mentioned in two emails.
...

I’m Honored, I Think

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

Climate change data dumped

uff, la que hay liada con la destrucción de datos,.... 

también están liados en Nueva Zelanda con el NIWA...

Summary: To the fraud revelations about the  the CRU, the IPCC-supplier of forged predictions of climatic doomsday, now comes  a similar scandal from New Zealand - started by a former employee at the CRU. NIWA, owned by NZ´s government,  has also forged a non-existent warming over NZ.  But worse still: East Anglia University´s  CRU is supported by UK government departments, the DEFRA, which has issued a guidance on how to include i.a. applied psychology to manipulate people to not only accept what politicians / "scientists" know is a climate lie, but also to change people's lives accordingly. For that purpose, DEFRA published "The Rules of the Game" alongside with Futerra, which has as its declared goal  world revolution on behalf of the multinational corporations. These rules are outlined. I.a. they want to thaw people frozen in  their old positions, change them during their sensitive periods, and then  refreeze them, when they have been converted to the desired attitudes. They are discussing whether shock technique or softer forms of manipulation work better. They let "credible" people and media disseminate the climate lie, for those people are most believed by the public! An email from from a CRU staff member goes: "Futerra's 'rules of the game' is a good intro to what climate change communicators should be working towards in terms of best practice."  This member deals with "Societal attitudinal and behavioural engagement with climate change" - a peculiar job in a "scientific" group. This is ideology - not science. We are dealing here with conspiracy practice between the British government and the IPCC climate suppliers of forged material for the New World Order global policy, the biggest lie in science, perhaps in world history, the pretext for the UN's parody: The Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, which has world government as its real theme. The Government of New Zealand has an ETS interest in "global warming." A press release from "Earth Government" was found

Deceitful CRU Works For Corporate World Revolution - Supported by the UK´s and New Zealand´s Governments

Irónico
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN.pdf

Por cierto. Nadie ha puesto el comentario de Nature --ya sé, revistas del régimen  --

"Desde Nature se sugiere que el nombre del fichero que se ha publicado “FOIA.zip” apunta a la petición de datos sin procesar que lleva realizando periódicamente, desde 2002, el canadiense Steve McIntyre, editor del blog Climate Audit, especializado en métodos estadísticos usados en climatología al director del CRU, Phil Jones, amparado en el UK Freedom of Information Act, una ley británica el acceso público a la información pagada con dinero público. Sin embargo, McIntyre afirma que él no tiene nada que ver y que no tiene ni idea de quien es el responsable del suceso. Resulta curioso que entre el 24 de julio y el 29 de julio de 2009, el CRU haya rebidido 58 peticiones de McIntyre y otras personas afiliadas a Climate Audit. Nature ya se hizo eco de esta petición en Olive Heffernan, “Climate data spat intensifies. Growing demands for access to information swamp scientist,” News, Nature 460: 787, Published online 12 August 2009. La razón oficial para denegar el acceso a estos datos es que han sido recopilados de diversas fuentes distribuidas por todo el mundo (más de 150 instituciones diferentes) y que el CRU sólo tiene permiso para publicar la versión “procesada” de dichos datos. El permiso para ver los datos “limpios” deben darlo todas las instituciones involucradas en su obtención, algo que no es fácil de lograr."

Reproduzco de aquí
http://francisthemulenews.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/nature-opina-que-la-noticia-del-siglo-sera-olvidada-en-poco-tiempo/

puesto que el de nature ya no es accesible.

Y otra cosa respecto a Zorita. Esto es lo que contesta Gavin Schmidt
"Unfortunately, this episode is being seen as an opportunity by some to imbue their personal and professional conflicts with particular researchers with a greater importance than they have. I am not going to comment on the history of tension between certain people, nor doubt the sincerity of people's clearly deeply held views. But talk of blacklisting scientists from assessment bodies is, at best, foolish. These panels require a full spectrum of the community to take part in order to constructively come up with language that all can accept. Excluding people because they have criticised your work in the past (and vice versa) is not the way to go. Lindzen took part in the 2001 IPCC and the NAS 2002, John Christy was on the CCSP panel on tropsohperic trends - excluding them because of a history of disagreements or perceived personal failings would have been a mistake. The same goes for the scientists mentioned in the above link - especially since one of them at least has no apparent connection to any of the issues raised by these emails. This is not a topic for further discussion. Sorry."

saludos

Si, claro, estaban preparando estos datos para enviárselos a McIntyre

y  Gavin Schmidt, aunque moderado, está muy al corriente de los "affairs"
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt

¿Hay alguien más al que esto no le sorprenda?...

 

Se pueden buscar mensajes mios, ya hace muuuuucho, en este foro insinuando que lo que ha salido a la luz se podía estar haciendo.

Es pura lógica, cuando se empezarón a revatir ciertos argumentos, se sacarón a la luz fallos tan gordos, que era impensable que reputados cientificos los cometieran, con lo que ya dije en su momento, o era manipulación o incompetencia. Ninguna de las dos opciones es buena 

Esos comentarios hicieron que algunos se me tiraran al cuello. Pues mira tu por donde, 

La logica y la razón siempre salen victoriosas

El porque de todo esto? Yo sigo con mi sospecha de donde sale el CO2? Sigan las migitas.

Y el porque del hackeo ahora?

Pues como ya empieza a estar claro que todo esto es un cumulo de conspiraciones y ardides, no estaría de más pensar, que esto cuesta mucho dinero y ahora los estados no andan precisamente sobrados.........curiosas conincidencias, muy curiosas

Tal y como se las gastan los del CG de esta le caen 20 años de prision al McIntyre y un nuevo premio Nobel pa el Super "Mann".
Ya tengo ganas de que pase un año a ver que sucedio con todo esto.

El "climategate" sigue su marcha, pese a que los principales acusados han desaparecido, y a que Google intentó evitar que su sistema automático de completado de dirección funcionara con esta palabra.

Mientras tanto, hasta los más acérrimos de los sostenedores del calentamiento global antropogénico están mostrando preocupación y dudas. Por ejemplo, George Monbiot, un denotado activista del Guardian inglés, pide en su blog la renuncia de Phil Jones, el director del CRU.

Otro activista, Tom Yulsman del Center for Environmental Journalism, dice estar de acuerdo con Monbiot y pide un examen independiente de lo acontecido.

Pero tal vez lo más importante provenga de un connotado científico, el español Eduardo Zorita, un paleoclimatólogo que formó parte del último informe del IPCC, y que ahora dice en su página web: ¿Por qué creo que Michael Mann, Phil Jones y Stefan Rahmstorf debieran ser prohibidos en el proceso IPCC? En pocas palabras: porque las evaluaciones científicas en las cuales puedan formar parte ya no son más creíbles.. Y lo peor es que, pobre hombre, piensa que esta posición ética le traerá problemas, y que quizás algunos de sus trabajos no puedan ver la luz pública en las revistas especializadas.

Otro científico del IPCC, Vincent Gray, declara que hace poco descubrió que la evidencia de fraude había estado a la vista desde hace años..

Tampoco deja de ser interesante que el ingeniero de ferrocarriles Rajandra Pachauri. presidente del IPCC (¡qué tendrá que ver una cosa con la otra... en fin), el mismo que dijera que "los escépticos deben irse del planeta", ahora declare en su blog que "necesitan tiempo y espacio para dedicarse al problema más grande del desarrollo insostenible, del cual el cambio climático es, en el mejor de los casos, apenas un síntoma". ¿Será acaso que estará preparando otra cantinela para seguir disfrutando alegremente de los impuestos que pagamos?

Jajaja con el Pachauri. No te preocupes por él que si se entera de que las temperatura globales de los últimos 10 años no marcan tendencia, en vez del CO2 decidirá atacar al SO2 para evitar el Congelamiento Global. Estos no se caen de la poltrona así como así.

 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece


 

 

Roger Pielke también lo comenta, además dice que la CRU está preparando los datos para hacerlos públicos,

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/cru-on-global-temperture-data.html


de todas maneras, a pesar de esto, mientras Navier-Stokes no tenga solución....