Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Exaggeration and quotes out of context.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/



bullcrud - gavin is trying to do damage control - unfortunately (for him) it's akin to trying to weld together the Titanic just after it hit the iceberg.

I think he's starting to give up though - the following quote was pulled from Fiend's link - and is one of the comments, in which gavin replied.

Quote:

80. Has there been any explanation given for charge that there was a request for emails to be deleted to avoid an FOI request? All I’ve heard is that no emails were deleted, but the request itself is completely unethical and most likely illegal. Everything else I’ve seen seems to due to poor word choice and/or lack of context. The FOI avoidance would be a big blow to CRU, even if it doesn’t affect climate science.

[Response: In my opinion that email was very ill-advised. - gavin]



What are the other warmists saying? Ever heard of George Monbiot?
Quote:

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...mate-scientists


These are quotes taken out of context you say? Here's the whole bloody email where Jones told people to delete all emails related to the AR4 report - to get around a Freedom of Information Act request http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt
Care to explain how this could be taken out of context????

Quote:

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>



These guys have given science a black-eye. Applying "tricks" into order to "hide the decline". Ensuring certain papers don't get into AR4, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !". Deciding that journals who publish papers that they don't agree with should no longer be considered a legitimate peer-reviewed journal, and that they should "encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal". Oh yeah, this sounds like the scientific method that I was taught!!

This is nothing more than scientific fraud, and should be treated as such.

And let's be clear - the people implicated in this just aren't a "few" rogue scientists. These are THE people who have been developed long term climate records (1000 AD - present day). The very records that have "proven" that the current temperatures are well beyond what the globe has experienced over the past 1000 years.

Tell me - what happens if it turns out current temperatures are not out of line with historic variability??
It's a rhetorical question - don't bother answering.