Hackers Expose Climate Change Hoaxers Lies and Conspiracy

November 23, 2009 (LPAC)—Hackers have broken into the computer system of Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — a central agency in the "global warming" hoax — and have posted on the Internet thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU has not verified the authenticity of the published documents, but has admitted their computers were broken into. The comprehensive nature of these internal documents from over many years makes the purloined messages credible, and extremely damaging on the eve of the December UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen.

The posted messages show manipulation and collusion in exaggerating global warming data, destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, and private admissions of flaws in the public claims of the global warming advocates.

The Climate Research Unit, at East Anglia University, has been engaged in propagating the World Wildlife Fund's fraud of global warming since Prince Philip and associates began the fraud in the 1970s in the service of global population reduction. The World Wildlife Fund finances the CRU, as do the Royal family's oil giants Shell and BP, and the British green fascist group, Greenpeace. The CRU played a central role in the "authoritative" Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.

One leaked e-mail, dated July 1999, says the World Wildlife Federation in Australia wants a particular section of a report on climate change "beefed up" because it is worried that section looks "conservative" when compared with the Australian government's science agency's data.

Here are some excerpts from some of the leaked e-mails:

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009

"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... Our observing system is inadequate"

"On Sun, 16 May 1999, [Dr.] Shrikant wrote:

"Friends,

"I'm enjoying the current debate about CO2 levels. I feel that we are using the GCM scenarios, and we MUST use exactly those CO2 levels for crop model runs, so all data is consistent. So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things. Now to use different data will be hard to explain.

"Dave S." replied:

"Subject: RE: CO2

"Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)

"I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines. You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios provided by the synthesis team...."

The Associated Press reports, "In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium.... Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had 'just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline [in global temperature],' according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine."

From: GIORGI FILIPPO

Subject: On "what to do?"

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 (MET DST)

"First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions).

I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results.

The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."