Is it true the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit doesnt support Australian Govt position?

Not much details here in Australia, is there a web site that can be viewed?Is it true the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit doesnt support Australian Govt position?
I'm not sure of a website you can view in relation to your question, but I wouldn't believe anyone who says the ';Climategate'; emails are nothing to worry about. It's so serious that CRU director Phil Jones has been stood down pending an enquiry and may face criminal charges if it's discovered (as it's believed they will) that raw data was ';adjusted'; to reach a predetermined conclusion.





See this article from the UK Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/gerald…





Some of the many issues that have been discovered through the Climategate email saga is:


* Scientists are paid for government environmental grants only to reach conclusions suggesting climate change is real, very serious and caused predominately by man. If you come up with another theory, you don't get paid. Climate science has become a political issue, and no longer about valid scientific theories. The CRU received research grants of $20 million for their conclusions.


* The East Anglia University CRU deliberately ';bent and distorted'; scientific data before releasing it to many of the world's climate organisations - including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia. Organisations worldwide relied on accurate data from the CRU to come to their conclusions but accuracy was ignored for the political movements benefit.


* The CRU team tampered with the bureaucratic process of the UN and the IPCC to exclude ';inconvenient results'; based on political prejudice.


* The CRU Team re-defined the meaning of ';Peer reviewed'; science to ensure that only those scientists who agreed with their political position on climate change actually had their works published and presented to government leaders and the IPCC.


* They had emailed each other about using a ';trick'; to conceal a decline in paleoclimate temperatures. Email quote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”


* They expressed dismay that, contrary to all their predictions, temperatures remained relatively stable for the last 15 years, and even dropped slightly in the last 9 years. Their emails described the difference between their predictions and ';real life'; data was a travesty they couldn't explain which put their whole theory of ';the science is settled'; public statement into serious doubt.


* They interfered with the process of ';peer review'; by leaning on science journals to ensure only their friends would get papers and opinions published - and not the opinions of scientists with an opposing theory. They also mounted a campaign to have a journal's editor removed from his position because he was not prepared to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.


* The mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via an expensive website they had created.


* Contrary to the rules of open, verifiable science the CRU conspired to conceal and destory computer codes and data that was legitimately requested by an external researcher who had good reason to doubt their ';research'; was either honest or competent.








I have the personal belief that it would be a good idea to reduce pollution in the atmosphere if we can, but not because of some flawed, biased science based on taxing the population and installing an unelected and unaccountable global world government. It's amazing just how far this climate change scam has spread!Is it true the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit doesnt support Australian Govt position?
Well the UEA staff were saying privately that they can't understand the meterological data from Australia.





';I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!';





The lack of coherant data doesn't prevent the Australian Bureau of Meteorology from reporting one of the highest levels of global warming in the world.





That's ok, in climate change research garbage in = gospel out.
The conclusion that the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit reached was that global warming/climate change is a real phenomena and that while there is some natural flux in the climate what we are experiencing today is not natural, and is the result of man made pollutants.





You can safely ignore most of the controversy. It all boils down to some scientists in England writing some emails saying that some of the data about global trends poor and thus should be ignored as it would corrupt the overall data.
Who cares about a fraud, peer review wrecking fraud at that.