# I Pit the Hadley CRU and the jerks that hacked their emails. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 20, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347 "2009-11-20T22:40:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/81 "2009-11-22T08:39:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Nor am I. Nor am I sure why you think some action of yours is of central importance to these unseemly goings-on. The article gives considerable attention to this Climate Audit site, but its all about some fellow named McIntyre (mentioned previously, IIRC) > > And lastly, you seem to have declared these people guilty. You launch a preemptive strike on people who are going to claim something like “boys will be boys”. Other than you, who has found them guilty? > > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, extravagant claims get no discount. As far as I know, I filed the first FOIA request to CRU, back in 2006. Does that make me of “central importance”? I don’t think so. I think the actions of Phil Jones and Michael Mann and the rest are what is of central importance. All it does is make me a participant in the story, rather than just an outside observer like you… although knowing you, you probably believe I’m just making up my involvement. Are they “guilty”? Their emails say so. Are the emails real? Not one of the scientists involved have claimed that any of the emails were false. Nor has anyone from EAU claimed they were false. Instead, they have explained (or tried to explain) what they meant. The outside people whose emails were quoted in the CRU emails have verified that their emails are real. According to the timestamps, they were taken from CRU no earlier than the day before they were posted on the web. And I know that it fits with my experience with CRU. So yes, I do think that Phil Jones did convince the FOIA people to ignore FOIA requests from people associated with Climate Audit, including my own FOIA request. I do think that Phil Jones asked Michael Mann and the others to delete the emails that Holland had asked for. As to whether I am making a “preemptive strike” against people who have tried to minimize this (which I have described as people saying “boys being boys, and thats how scientists act, and that there’s nothing there”), consider these from upthread: > [@](#): > > In both cases we see a small group of self-proclaimed independent thinkers pretending to have discovered the truth about an alleged major organizational cover-up, and using unsubstantiated legends, isolated facts cherry-picked out of context, and a lot of sensationalist rhetoric to make it sound like they’ve got something. or this: > [@](#): > > This is exactly the sort of thing that climate “skeptic” activists\* do: they comb through the output of actual scientists, with all the disagreements, caveats, gray areas, disputes and contradictions that it entails, and selectively present isolated statements out of context to promote a carefully engineered image of what the scientists are saying. I am pointing out that this is not just cherry picking disagreements and caveats, it’s not just scientists with all their warts, it’s not just selective presentation, it’s not just boys will be boys, it’s not "out of context. It is an attack on the foundation of science, which is transparency. It clearly shows that a number of very eminent and very influential scientists are trying to hide their data and to delete what they have said. You might laugh and sneer and try to minimize that … I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/82 "2009-11-22T08:42:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Offered without comment, none being necessary. Not sure what your point is with that quotation. Explanation? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/83 "2009-11-22T08:51:20Z")
I don’t have to minimize it, I’m simply not seeing this as of any earth-shattering importance, though I’ve no doubt if I were a denizen of this Climate Audit bunch, I very well might. Does the entire edifice of AGW research teeter and fall, even if your worst insinuations are true? Or is this all little more than a nasty academic spat between partisans? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/84 "2009-11-22T08:52:31Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Not sure what your point is with that quotation. Explanation? Answer to **Blake**. Not about you. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/85 "2009-11-22T09:07:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I don’t have to minimize it, I’m simply not seeing this as of any earth-shattering importance, though I’ve no doubt if I were a denizen of this Climate Audit bunch, I very well might. > > Does the entire edifice of AGW research teeter and fall, even if your worst insinuations are true? Or is this all little more than a nasty academic spat between partisans? The problem, IMO, is that this is the response that is given every time such material comes to light. When the Mann debacle came to light we got the same repsonse: single individual, doesn’t change the overall picture. When the NASA temperature measurement error came to light, same response: single individual, doesn’t change the overall picture. And do on and on. The point being that the all these single individual events adds up to one big picture. I guess the question I have to ask of you is: what evidence could be presented that would cause the edifice to teeter? It seems that no matter what happens, or what evidence is presented that the science is shonky you’re just gong to keep saying that it’s a collection of individuals. How many individuals have to be shown to be invalidly manipulating or hiding data before you would concede that the edifice is shaky? 10? 20? 200? All of them. That;s the real question. When a site like Climate Audit lists so many examples I really have to ask what evidence would lead you to question your trust in the edifice? > [@](#): > > Answer to Blake. Not about you. Then I’ll give the same reply: Not sure what your point is with that quotation. Explanation? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/86 "2009-11-22T09:11:41Z")
Oh, hell, I said the article mentioned McIntyre prominently, you called bullshit, I showed you where. Whats the prob, Bob? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/87 "2009-11-22T09:19:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, hell, I said the article mentioned McIntyre prominently… No you didn’t, you said it was **all** about McIntyre. Not that it mentioned him prominently, but it was \*all \*about him. And you did that in attempt to demonstrate that **intention** ’s involvement with Climate Audit was irrelevant. And that is bullshit. The issue as stated extends to all CA contributors who made FOI requests. Which includes intention. That’s the prob, Bob. If you want to go around constructing arguments that hinge on absolutes like “all”, then don’t take umbrage at me calling you on it ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/88 "2009-11-22T09:26:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I don’t have to minimize it, I’m simply not seeing this as of any earth-shattering importance, though I’ve no doubt if I were a denizen of this Climate Audit bunch, I very well might. > > Does the entire edifice of AGW research teeter and fall, even if your worst insinuations are true? Or is this all little more than a nasty academic spat between partisans? “Academic spat”? We have evidence of criminal acts, we have evidence of people destroying evidence, we have evidence of people avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests, and you think this is an “academic spat”? If Exxon were doing this, you’d be frothing at the mouth, and so would I. Man, you are a piece of work. Does it make the “entire edifice of AGW research teeter and fall”? I didn’t say it would, and I doubt it very much. But on the other hand, since they are concealing the data, we don’t know, do we? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/89 "2009-11-22T09:28:37Z")
Oh, for heavens sake! You mean to tell me you’ve never heard the expression “all about” as in “I’m all about the Benjamins” or I’m all about this or that? Yeah, I said “all”, but clearly my discussion of the article reveas that I know its not “all” about this guy. Fer crying in the beer, you that desperate to score a point? Been a while, has it? Gonna have to start wearing spats around here, ankle biting gets any worse! ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/90 "2009-11-22T09:30:27Z")
luci, if you want to go around constructing arguments that hinge on absolutes like “all”, then don’t take umbrage at me calling you on it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/91 "2009-11-22T09:46:03Z")
> [@intention](#): > > “Academic spat”? We have evidence of criminal acts, we have evidence of people destroying evidence, we have evidence of people avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests, and you think this is an “academic spat”?.. I love this particular form of weasel-talk, where you repreat precisely the same thing in different words as if talking about different acts. Goodness, “criminal acts”? You think Rumpole of the Bailey might be able to get them off with less than ten years, hard labor? For these heinous crimes? Drama, much? > [@](#): > > …If Exxon were doing this, you’d be frothing at the mouth, and so would I. Man, you are a piece of work… Bite me. > [@](#): > > …Does it make the “entire edifice of AGW research teeter and fall”? I didn’t say it would, and I doubt it very much. But on the other hand, since they are concealing the data, we don’t know, do we? Another splendid example of weasel think! “Of course it doesn’t, but we don’t know for sure, so it very well may!” If the case for AGW depends exclusively on data and work at Hadley, there is some threat. Even if it depends primarily upon it, it might be possible. But if they present only some of the many, many data points, then no, it isn’t possible. It appears more to be a desperate effort to demand respectability for a set of opinions quickly going the way of Piltdown Man. If Koch had entirely faked his germ theory research, germ theory would still be the fact, nonetheless, he simply would not be honored for it. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/92 "2009-11-22T09:51:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Nor am I. Nor am I sure why you think some action of yours is of central importance to these unseemly goings-on. The article gives considerable attention to this Climate Audit site, but its all about some fellow named McIntyre (mentioned previously, IIRC). **elucidator** , read what you wrote. As **Blake** stated, you clearly cited the article and said “it’s all about … McIntyre” for one reason only, which was to prove that my involvement was meaningless. Now you attack **Blake** and proclaim your innocence. Which is your usual method, state something, then when you are called on it, deny it and attack the person who called you on it. Do you think I’m making all this up? Do you think the emails reveal nothing? Puerile. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/93 "2009-11-22T10:00:20Z")
By the way, have you found the time to read Kimstu’s post in the GD thread? Rather cogent, full of cites, figured you’d be right on that. Oddly, you’re here, and not there. Real good one, brought to you all the evidence you claim to demand, and you go poof! gone. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/94 "2009-11-22T10:11:23Z")
> [@intention](#): > > **elucidator** , read what you wrote. As **Blake** stated, you clearly cited the article and said “it’s all about … McIntyre” for one reason only, which was to prove that my involvement was meaningless. Now you attack **Blake** and proclaim your innocence. Which is your usual method, state something, then when you are called on it, deny it and attack the person who called you on it. Do you think I’m making all this up? Do you think the emails reveal nothing? Puerile. One half point, to be fairly acknowledged. In my own mind, this McIntyre became exaggerated, I knew I’d heard of him before, but my mind itched and couldn’t scratch, so I unthinkingly exaggerated his importance in the article, when clearly its another fellow altogether. Now, of course, I remember, he was mentioned prominiently in some of **GIGO** ’s posts. Just before **Kimstu** gave you what you claimed to need, and you hit the silk. Bailed out. Scarpered. Brave, brave, brave Sir Robin… ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/95 "2009-11-22T11:00:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I love this particular form of weasel-talk, where you repreat precisely the same thing in different words as if talking about different acts. Goodness, “criminal acts”? You think Rumpole of the Bailey might be able to get them off with less than ten years, hard labor? For these heinous crimes? Drama, much? Well, let’s see, we have evidence of them destroying emails, that’s one act. We have evidence of them colluding with their FOIA officer to trash my FOIA request, along with every other request from people associated with Climate Audit, including Steve McIntyre, David Holland, and a host of others. Those denials of FOIA requests are each individual acts. As for the sentence, it likely wouldn’t be a lot. In the US it would get a suspended sentence or home detention, something like that. But that’s not the issue to me. The issues to me are the crime against science, and the demonstrated lack of integrity, and whatever is the real reason that these guys are scuttling like cockroaches when the light hits them. What is in the emails that they are so determined to hide? [QUOTE=elucidator] Bite me. [/quote] Reasoned discourse like that will convince a lot of people, I’m sure … [QUOTE=elucidator] Another splendid example of weasel think! “Of course it doesn’t, but we don’t know for sure, so it very well may!” If the case for AGW depends exclusively on data and work at Hadley, there is some threat. Even if it depends primarily upon it, it might be possible. But if they present only some of the many, many data points, then no, it isn’t possible. It appears more to be a desperate effort to demand respectability for a set of opinions quickly going the way of Piltdown Man. If Koch had entirely faked his germ theory research, germ theory would still be the fact, nonetheless, he simply would not be honored for it. [/QUOTE] I don’t have a clue who you are quoting when you say “Of course it doesn’t, but we don’t know for sure, so it very well may!”, but it’s not me. You do understand the function of quotation marks? So “I didn’t say it would, and I doubt it very much. But … we don’t know, do we?” is weasel think in your world. Interesting. I call it honesty. I don’t think it will topple the edifice, not with Al Gore spending $300 million to prop it up. Nor did I say it would. However, it would be very significant if large errors were found in the temperature data, when and if it is ever released. It would be very significant if we find out that the conclusion that the MWP was cooler than today was made fraudulently. The temperature record put together and maintained by Phil Jones is a very important temperature record. It is used in a large percentage of the studies of climate that reference temperature. Is it accurate? We don’t know. It’s hard to tell, in part because he keeps “adjusting” it. Is the question of its accuracy important? Since it is used in a host of scientific studies, yes, it is very important. That’s why I asked for the data at the start of this sordid story, because one of the most important temperature records on the planet has never been verified. And it is being maintained and “adjusted” by a team of men who are determined to defend and extend their point of view. They have made it clear that they will modify data to make their point. Is Chapter 6 of the IPCC Fourth Annual Report important? Extremely. It is the chapter that contains the widely reported claims that this is the warmest period in the last 1,300 years. The people in the hacked emails are the very people making those claims. The emails that they are destroying are emails about that Chapter. If that Chapter is shown to be wrong, if in fact it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period, the entire climate argument is altered significantly. That’s why they are trying to get rid of the MWP. Here’s Michael Mann from the one of the emails: > [@](#): > > Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that **it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”** , even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back The peer-reviewed paper by McIntyre and McKitrick in GRL, of course, called into question the idea that there was no MWP. Here’s how desperate the CRU folks are to discredit that paper: > [@](#): > > 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! Good plan. Don’t refute the claims in the paper published in the peer reviewed journal, just keep the paper out by any means, fair or foul. So you may not think any of this is important. I do. But more to the point, Phil Jones thinks it is extremely important, important enough to fraudulently change the dates on papers to get them into the IPCC report, important enough to deny opposing views their rightful place in the IPCC report, important enough to destroy emails they don’t want seen, important enough to risk destroying his reputation over … so yes, I think it is important. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/96 "2009-11-22T11:17:29Z")
> [@intention](#): > > But more to the point, Phil Jones thinks it is extremely important, important enough to fraudulently change the dates on papers to get them into the IPCC report, important enough to deny opposing views their rightful place in the IPCC report, important enough to destroy emails they don’t want seen, important enough to risk destroying his reputation over … so yes, I think it is important. I think this point really needs to be stressed. People don’t take these sorts of actions over issues they think are unimportant. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/97 "2009-11-22T15:22:03Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Didn’t say it did … but one has to wonder why they are running scared, deleting emails and denying access to their data. Because of DNFTT. That’s hardly mysterious. It’s like saying that the police should be happy being told they have to supply crooks with booklets on how crimes are investigated. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/98 "2009-11-22T16:22:50Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Because of DNFTT. That’s hardly mysterious. Yup, no one likes being plagued by morons who think they know how to do your job better than you do. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/99 "2009-11-22T16:57:56Z")
Well, yeah, that’s part of science, though, isn’t it? If you don’t like it, find another occupation. Further, _they_ weren’t being plagued: they had to convince the parent organization, the University of East Anglia, to deny the requests on their behalf. It’s not like they’d be inundated with requests they’d have to deal with. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/100 "2009-11-22T17:15:53Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Further, _they_ weren’t being plagued How can you _pretend_ to know this? You don’t know how many people were wasting the researche’s time with their input, requests, and ceaseless blathering about bullshit. Even **one** crank is pretty goddammed annoying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347.md?page=6)