'Climategate' scientist considered suicide following e-mail row
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... l-row.html

Oh now we are expected to go on a guilt trip about the very real manipulation of climate data with this 'revelation'.I can tell you this is I'm makin steady progress through the leaked emails etc and all i can say is wow and you owe it to yourself to invest a little time in doing the exact same thing,if you have the documents and emails that is.

Great work drjones as usual

Quote ;

Professor Phil Jones said that he thought about killing himself “several times”, but had pulled through with the support of his family and the love of his five-year-old granddaughter.
He has lost more than a stone in weight and is on beta-blockers to help him in the day and takes sleeping pills at night.
The professor, who appeared to call on colleagues to destroy scientific data, is still receiving death threats from around the world more than two months after the scandal first unfolded.
He said that he has been shocked by the scale of the reaction, but admits that he misjudged the situation and regrets the way he handled Freedom of Information requests for data on climatic research.
“I regret that I did not deal with them in the right way,” he said in an interview with The Sunday Times.
Prof Jones has stood down as director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, which has been accused of suppressing data after its e-mails were hacked and posted online by climate-change sceptics.
He admitted that he had “a David Kelly moment” following the global backlash against him, in reference to the scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a BBC report that alleged the government had “sexed up” evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.
“I did think about it, yes,” he said. “About suicide.
“I thought about it several times, but I think I’ve got past that stage now.”

This Hypocritical Lying piece of Shit Had a "David Kelly moment "

David Kelly had the Morality to do the right thing and conveniently died .

Their names should not be together in the same sentence .

if somebody can provide the best "QUOTES" from these emails , i can do a short video with the texts .. it will be great ...

scientists suck!

Thanks guys,great idea Pindz.I'm tellin you as honestly as i can,when i read these leaked documents it's truly unbeliveable as how much they don't know about Earth climate,alot of the emails reek of 'more funding'..'more money'....so not good.I'll see what i can do Pindz.
I'm not promising anything though.It's all time consuming all this.

Ok here's one.. John Daly to many recipients.
'It would appear the solar cycle does indeed effect temperature' (No shit Sherlock)

This was even after they had tried to disprove a link and they ran in through various 'models' stating that the solar cycle did not effect global temperature,after running the data through mathematica John Daly had clear irrefutable evidence that the solar cycle definetely influences Earth climate.

From Gary Funkhouser to k.briffa
'I really wish i could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,but i swear i pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that'

From Fred Pearce to k.briffa
'We got alot of static from within the IPCC,from people who wanted to water down or delete some of those caveats.We had to work very hard to keep tham all in.'

There is so much of this stuff,so much uncertainty amogst the emails it's really quite embarassing to read that it seems they cannot have an irrefutable consensus,the reason being after having read lots of the emails etc is that the IPCC seems to have made the decision about co2 even before the investigation into it really began,the scientists,many of em we should be greatful for in the mails were then harassed and pressured due to additional funding required etc.Like i say you really owe it to yourself to read as much of these as you can and sit back in amazement that it seems man's effect on the climate is either nil or very very minimal and something we should definetely NOT be concerend about in the least.

This is from todays independant, apparently all climate change skeptics are funded by big oil companies through thinktanks

Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers
Sun, 07 Feb 2010

An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts claimed last night.

The attack against scientists supportive of the idea of man-made climate change has grown in ferocity since the leak of thousands of documents on the subject from the University of East Anglia (UEA) on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit last December.

Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.

Many of these critics have broadcast material from the leaked UEA emails to undermine climate change predictions and to highlight errors in claims that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Last week climate sceptic bloggers broadcast stories casting doubts on scientific data predicting dramatic loss of the Amazon rainforest. All three stories, picked up by mainstream media, questioned the credibility of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and queried the way it does its work. A new attack on climate science, already dubbed "Seagate" by sceptics, relating to claims that more than half the Netherlands is in danger of being submerged under rising sea levels, is likely to be at the centre of the newest skirmish in coming weeks.

The controversies have shaken the IPCC, whose chair, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was last week subjected to a series of personal attacks on his reputation and lifestyle.

A poll this weekend confirmed that public confidence in the climate change consensus has been shaken: one in four Britons - 25 per cent - now says they do not believe in global warming; previously this figure stood at 15 per cent.

Professor Bob Watson, chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and former chair of the IPCC, said yesterday that the backlash is the result of a campaign:"It does appear that there's a concerted effort by a number of sceptics to undermine the credibility of the evidence behind human-induced climate change." He added:"I am sure there are some sceptics who may well be funded by the private sector to try and cast uncertainty."

A complicated web of relationships revolves around a number of right-wing think-tanks around the world that dispute the threats of climate change.

ExxonMobil is a key player behind the scenes, having donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years to climate change sceptics.

The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs), received more than US$100,000 in 2008 from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company's reports.

Atlas has supported more than 30 other foreign think-tanks that espouse climate change scepticism, and co-sponsored a meeting of the world's leading climate sceptics in New York last March. Called "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?", it was organised by the Heartland Institute - a group that described the event as "the world's largest-ever gathering of global warming sceptics." The organisation is another right-wing think-tank to have benefited from funding given by ExxonMobil in recent years.

A large British contingent was present at the event, with speakers including Dr Benny Peiser, from Lord Lawson's climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF); the botanist David Bellamy; Julian Morris and Kendra Okonski from the London-based International Policy Network; the weather forecaster Piers Corbyn; Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher; and Professor David Henderson, a member of GWPF's advisory council.

It emerged last night that speakers at the event also included two prominent climate bloggers who associate with Paul Dennis, a 54-year-old climate researcher at the University of East Anglia who has been questioned by police investigating the theft of climate data.

In a posting on the blog of the climate sceptic Andrew Montford last Friday, Mr Dennis insisted:"I did not leak any files, data, emails or any other material. I have no idea how the files were released or who was behind it."

But he confirmed that he had been in email contact with Stephen McIntyre, who runs climateaudit.org- a site that was one of the first to receive an anonymous link to the original leaked data from UEA.

Mr Dennis said he emailed Mr McIntyre to alert him to a "departmental email saying that emails and files were hacked" and that "police had copies of my email correspondence with Steve McIntyre and Jeff Id [a pseudonym for the climate sceptic Patrick Condon]... They said it was because I had sent the emails that they were interviewing me."

The UEA researcher also has connections with another prominent sceptic, Anthony Watts, with whom he has also posted and who spoke alongside Mr McIntyre. Mr Dennis was not available for comment last night

Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said:"A lot of the climate sceptic arguments are being made by people with demonstrable right-wing ideology which is based on opposition to any environmental regulation of the market, and they are clearly being given money that allows them to disseminate their views more widely than would be the case if they didn't have oil company funding."

But Dr Richard North, a climate change sceptic and blogger, rejected claims of a conspiracy as "laughable" and denied having any links to vested interests."Anybody who knows me knows I'm a loner. Nobody tells me what to do or dictates my agenda."

In a statement, ExxonMobil said:"We have the same concerns as people everywhere - and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

It added:"Over the past several years, we discontinued contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."

Here are some highlights i just pulled from the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file. It seems to be a series of notes written by a programmer who was charged with sorting out the CRU databases & climate models, he's mostly trying to re-create published datasets from the original data by the look of it, and strangely not having much success!...

5. Currently trying to convert .glo files to .grim files so that we can
compare with previous output. However the progam suite headed by
globulk.f90 is not playing nicely....

6. Temporarily abandoned 5., getting closer but there's always another
problem to be evaded. Instead, will try using rawtogrim.f90 to convert
straight to GRIM. This will include non-land cells but for comparison
purposes that shouldn't be a big problem... [edit] noo, that's not gonna
work either, it asks for a 'template grim filepath', no idea what it wants
(as usual) and a serach for files with 'grim' or 'template' in them does
not bear useful fruit. As per usual. Giving up on this approach altogether.

8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which
did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy - naming
two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location
to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!

19. Here is a little puzzle. If the latest precipitation database file
contained a fatal data error (see 17. above), then surely it has been
altered since Tim last used it to produce the precipitation grids? But
if that's the case, why is it dated so early?


So.. we don't have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But
what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look,
there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And
that's useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann
directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference
is that one directory is apparently 'monthly' and the other 'annual' - yet
both contain monthly files.

AGREED APPROACH for cloud (5 Oct 06).

For 1901 to 1995 - stay with published data. No clear way to replicate
process as undocumented.

First problem: there is no program to convert sun percentage to
cloud percentage. I can do sun percentage to cloud oktas or sun hours
to cloud percentage! So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.


I find that they are broadly similar, except the normals lines (which
both start with '6190') are very different. I was expecting that maybe
the latter contained 94-00 normals, what I wasn't expecting was that
thet are in % x10 not %! Unbelievable - even here the conventions have
not been followed. It's botch after botch after botch.

indeed !

Here's a quote on exxonmobile's own website..



No suprise to see the CFR on that list, although what exactly they've got to do with climate change i dont know ?

I bet the amount they've paid out to pro-AGW 'research' far outweighs any cash they may have splashed out on scientists who failed to read from the song-sheet, and didn't read the small-print in their funding contracts, stating the desired outcome of their research.