ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

I didn't say the university as a whole gets no funding from the government.

The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia was originally funded by private donors, including British Petroleum and Dutch Royal Shell. It may also be getting funding from the UK government now, as part of the university's budget; I don't know. But the notion that it's some kind of cash cow, cranking out fraudulent research in return for scads of government money to help keep a bankrupt university afloat, is ridiculous on the face of it.

I can't find anything online about East Anglia going bankrupt, anyway. Tell me: how does a university go bankrupt, and stay bankrupt for 10 years, if it's government funded?

And again: what does any of that have to do with the fact that eight separate major investigations concluded there was no misconduct and no fraud at the East Anglia CRU? Nothing.

 

It means the treasury has to keep sending it money outside of its budget to pay the bills, they were not alone.
google London Metropolitan University, it was made from 2 bankrupt unis
London Guildhall University and the University of North London

And again: what does any of that have to do with the fact that eight separate major investigations concluded there was no misconduct and no fraud at the East Anglia CRU?

The result of the investigations was that even though they hid data etc etc, the 3rd parties agreed that it didnt change the overall result of their outcomes, therefore they were off the hook.
They had for example peer reviewed papers by people that had no access to the raw data. That was proven by Freedom of Information requests on that data which was eventually made public.

Thats a whole jump from they did nothing wrong.

There's plenty out there if you remove the blinkers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/...ults-of-latest-foia-ruling-and-investigation/
just to remind the readers....
http://publicintelligence.net/climatic-research-unit/
Quote"
The private emails include a number of disturbing messages that included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change skeptics, unflattering comments about skeptics, how to keep scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature, and attempts to coerce other scientists into supporting initiatives relating to climate change. Direct quotes from these emails include the following statements:

“The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. 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 !”9
“Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science – when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.”10
“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. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is”11
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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.12"

 

Salon | Phoenix may not survive climate change

 

Global Research | Spinning Out Of Control: Governments, Banks and Energy Companies “Fuelling Climate Change”

 

Christian Science Monitor | Dust, fans, and climate change

 

Phoenix was always hot and too dry. That is what building in the desert will get you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona

It is believed that between 1300 and 1450, periods of drought and severe floods led to the Hohokam civilization's abandonment of the area.[4] Local Akimel O'odham settlements, thought to be the descendants of the formerly urbanized Hohokam, concentrated on the Gila River. Some family groups did continue to live near the Salt River, but no large villages existed. Yavapai also had settlements in the area. Later, Maricopa peoples fleeing enemy tribes, came from the lower Gila River near its confluence with the Colorado River, and settled alongside, as well as deer and Mexican wolves, often lived in the Salt River Valley when water supplies and temperatures allowed.

 

The Economist | California wants to lead America to a greener future

 

There is something in the water there, for sure.

 

What happens to the weather when the magnetic poles swap?
Is it quick or slow?

 

Did anyone live to tell?

 

wow
are you saying all the climate data was made up because no-one took notes?

 

Was someone assigned to take notes?

 

This is the worst the hackers could come up with, after going through thousands of emails stretching over years? That isn't misconduct. It's scientists being petty, sometimes uncooperative, and generally proving they're humans instead of robots.

The last thing, about Mike's "trick"? It's hardly a smoking gun that proves dishonesty and fraud. It's obvious to any neutral observer that by Mike's trick the guy meant Mike's clever way of dealing with a problem.

A long time ago, someone showed me a trick for making gravy without lumps: you mix the flour with a little bit of cold water, before adding it to the fats in the pan.

I also know a trick someone taught me for adjusting doors in their jambs, where you stick a large crescent wrench over the top hinge while the door is closed, and tweeting it a little one way or another.

 

would a uni lie to get money...
The government has starved them for cash so they are fighting for survival
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/411204.article

 

New Zealand is having a once in 70 years drought..and I remember the last time. Billion`s lost to the dairy industries. IMF bail-out in the future?.