« | »

Post Your Favorite CRU Email/Docs Here

As we have previously mentioned, some enterprising people at ‘An Elegant Chaos’ have put together a search engine for the Climate Research Unit (CRU) files. You can also just browse the emails at that site:

(Click on image to go to search engine)

You can also download a .zip compacted file of the entire CRU stash of emails and documents from S&L’s server by clicking here. (However, be aware that it is quite a large 63.29 MB file, so it may take some time to download.)

Should you come across any items of interest, please feel free post them as a comment to this thread.

Please include the email or document name. And please keep your posts brief and try to make them as clear as possible.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, November 22nd, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “Post Your Favorite CRU Email/Docs Here”

  1. proreason says:

    Second one I looked at. magicc.tomike


    Please find new magicc. This is the version we should use in the GUI and also for redoing the runs.
    There are more sea level parameters in Magmod.cfg and a table for these for the different AOGCMs is in file called sealevel_params.doc.

    NB I have not updated the piece of code that has to do with mid year/end year values and your .dis files. Please could you do what is necessary for that. If you don’t know what I’m talking about I’ll come and show you.

    For the results for the TAR we just ignore the sea level.

    Nothing like searching for magic in a scientifice endeavor. Ignoring things seems to help.

    Wapro actually has an article out now about the “controversy”.

    The hoax has hit the msm. They are already in Plan B. Plan A: ignore the problem. Plan B: cover-up the problem. Plan C: intimidate the people who caused the problem. Plan D: ruin the lives of the people who cause the problem while lieing that there is no problem.

  2. retire05 says:

    They also seem to have no qualms about doctoring the data provided to the IPCC in order to push their agenda.

    But will this story (clearly the Watergate of the Global Warming crowd) get the attention it should? After all, the press is basically in league with the devil and the devil is alive and well at CRU.

    How much money has been spent on bogus scientific data that shows the earth has a fever? How many taxpayer dollars have been designated for a hoax?

    This is absolutely disgusting and worthy of being listed right up there with the greatest hoaxes of the 20/21st centuries.

    Where are tort lawyers when you need them? I want to sue Al Gore.

  3. sheehanjihad says:

    Q: What’s the only difference between Bernie Madoff and Al Gore?

    A: Bernie Madoff was prosecuted and imprisoned for scamming people out of billions……

    • Al Gore, and these SOBs are costing this nation more than $billions.. its our freedom..

      Frankly, a blanket party is in order for every one of those liars.

    • proreason says:

      This crime is inestimably worse than Madoff’s crime.

      We know how the criminal political class plan to use the hoax, and what they plan to do essentially is to RESTRICT THE GROWTH OF THE HUMAN RACE. As a side benefit, they will confiscate hundreds of trillions of wealth from us and secure their power for generations.

      You can’t really compare it to any known crime in history. It’s unimaginably worse.

      There isn’t a penalty great enough for the ones who perpetrated it.

  4. Georgfelis says:

    When the name of the “hacker” is finally released, we need to nominate him for a Nobel prize in economics, because his actions may well wind up saving the world economy trillions of dollars over the next decade…

  5. larocket83 says:

    Email 876437553

    Shows their desperation for showing support. Ignore credibility, focus on raw numbers:

    “Mike, Rob,

    I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
    possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
    numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
    signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
    without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
    different story.

    Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
    them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those

  6. nuthingbettertodo says:

    Under Documents

    RulesOfTheGame (Adobe pdf)

    Many of the oft-repeated communications methods and messages
    of sustainable development have been dismissed by mainstream
    communicators, behaviour change experts and psychologists.
    Before we go into what works, our principles make a ‘clean sweep’
    of what doesn’t:
    1. Challenging habits of climate change communication
    Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human
    survival instincts
    Recent surveys show that people without children may care more
    about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human
    survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of
    little use for a change in climate measured in years.
    Don’t create fear without agency
    Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’

  7. nuthingbettertodo says:

    documents – jones-foiathoughts

    Options appear to be:

    1. Send them the data
    2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
    3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

  8. nuthingbettertodo says:


    From: David_Robinson [mailto:darobin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
    >Sent: 19 October 2009 22:45
    >To: newsdesk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    >Subject: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
    >I draw your attention to the growing international climate
    >change scandal that is engulfing the CRU and dragging the
    >reputation of it, and Norfolk, through the mud.
    >After several weeks of open criticism of the use of a
    >particular, alledgedly flawed, CRU dataset there has been no
    >attempted rebuttle by the CRU. Latest information suggests
    >that dozens of ‘peer reviewed’ scientific papers that relied
    >on the same dataset are now ‘similarly flawed’ and should be
    >withdrawn. This, unfortunately, draws into question a
    >fundamental part of the IPCC conclusion – namely, whether the
    >recent global warming is in fact abnormal and hence
    >attributable to man.
    >I think the continued silence by the CRU on this subject
    >profoundly worrying given the importance of the topic.
    >Any light you can shed on this whole sorry story would be
    >greatly in the public interest, especially given the
    >Copenhagen summit fast approaching.
    >David Robinson

  9. Well now, this is interesting. It looks like the Climategate emails revealed the enlistment of Wikipedia (an administrator) in an attempt to rewrite history as well as science.

    According to Conservapedia, the total number of climate articles about Global warming that were rewritten: 5,428.

    Total number of Wikipedia contributors who were banned by this administrator for their criticism of the global warming orthodoxy: 2,000.

    Source: http://conservapedia.com/Climategate#Wikipedia

« Front Page | To Top
« | »