UPDATE: Response from CRU in interview with another website, see end of this post.
The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.
UPDATED: Original image was for Met Office – corrected This image source: www.cru.uea.ac.uk
I’m currently traveling and writing this from an airport, but here is what I know so far:
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents
The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.
It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.
I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.
Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments
I’ve redacted email addresses and direct phone numbers for the moment. The emails all have US public universities in the email addresses, making them public/FOIA actionable I believe.
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
Cheers
Phil
“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com)
“
Reported with great sadness
Timo H‰meranta
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Timo H‰meranta, LL.M.
Moderator, Climatesceptics
Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
01620 Vantaa
Finland, Member State of the European Union
Moderator: timohame@yxxxxx.xxx
Private: timo.hameranta@xxxxx.xx
Home page: [1]personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
Moderator of the discussion group “Sceptical Climate Science”
[2]groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
“To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
shows only a lack of imagination”. (Kari Enqvist)
“If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion.
What do you do, Sir” (John Maynard Keynes)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)xxxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxx.xx.xx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
References
1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
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. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley
Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not
without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.
My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.
I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this –
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate
change.
Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
then…
I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
it.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?
Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
Cheers, Peck
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) xxx-xxxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
–
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +xxxx
fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag.
Developing story – more later
UPDATE1: Steve McIntyre posted this on Climate Audit, I used a screen cap rtaher than direct link becuase CA is overloaded and slow at the moment.
UPDATE2: Response from CRU h/t to WUWT reader “Nev”
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html
The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
“Have you alerted police”
“Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”
Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.
“Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….
UPDATE3: McIntyre has posted an article by Jean S at climateaudit.org which is terribly overloaded. We have mirrored it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
Sponsored IT training links:
Improve 646-205 exam score up to 100% using 642-813 dumps and 642-902 mock test.
“It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag….”
… and into the box.
I think the hackers just gave them the perfect occasion to “purge” their system of other inconvenient data… “The hackers made lots of damage in our system and many important data files have been erased”… of course they will forget that there have backups, or maybe those are already “reused!?!
On another note, they do have a very nice building but it must be very expensive to heat in winter, and produce lots of CO2.
WOW! That’s all I can say right now
Be careful here. It is not unusual for files released by hackers to contain all kinds of nasty stuff, from viruses and worms to simple worthless junk. I’m not saying that it *is* bad, just tread carefully with this stuff.
Surely they were not dumb enough to actually leave this series of what looks like outright complicity to obscure laying around where the janitor could read it?
Finally. Finally. Finally.
“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.”
Awww, now that’s a shame.
Some people are going to be swallowing their tongues over this.
I agree with the sentiment expressed above about blanking e-mail addresses for safety’s sake.
Other than that all I can say is “Oooooohh!!!!! that’s an almightily HUGE bollock which has just been dropped!!”
The lid is coming off a rather nasty can of worms here. I wonder if Mr. Jones will be permitted to retain his publicly funded position if the rest of these revelations are as startling as the meagre few released above?
Anticipation mounts!
Shazzsam!!!
There is nothing more dangerous than leaking out temperature numbers to humans. \
There must have been thousands of hours invested in tweaking, adjusting and smoothing actual numbers to make them look better.
This is bigger than the story about the black Friday Walmart specials ad being release online 8 days early.
“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.”
Holy crap, if that’s what it sounds like there a smoking gun.
Smoking gun? More like a blazing armoury!
My, my, my. The emails may be more important than the data.
Huh?
“Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
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.”
Does this say what I think it says?
Where can I get the other 60 megs
Link please
BE CAREFUL!!!!! The validity of this needs to be very carefully checked before ANY claims are made.
This looks way over the top to me. There’s lots of mundane content that might be real, but the discussions of how to fake the data (“hide the decline”) are much less nuanced then one would expect considering all of their public postings. They have very elaborate ways of creating hockey sticks and they would use their elaborate terminology in their personal correspondence.
What decline?
Brent in Calgary
hmm.. strange.. it isn’t aprils fools day, is it? 😀
Roger Knights (13:37:07) :
“It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag….”
… and into the box.
And into the river maybe?
Probably still a crime to have hacked into CRU’s systems, however haven’t there been some judicial findings in the UK recently where the severity of the world’s climate change was used to justify the actions and the activist was released.
Maybe uncovering an alleged fraud of these proportions would come under the same category?
Well, as it apparently contains correspondence with people such as SteveM, it should be rather quickly known. But it looks like someone got a copy of someone’s mail spool. Who knows what might have been deleted.
“And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.”
Breathtaking.
I would tread very carefully…and view these with AT LEAST as much skepticism as the ‘normal’ stuff these authors publish.
If authentic…one only wonders who gets the tv/books rights for this stuff?
Has anyone thought of passing the links for this to some of the handful of MS journos who are skeptics? They might find it very interesting….
Also, is any of this stuff data that was stated to be no longer available? If that was (its from memory, I’m not sure) as a result of a FOI request in the UK, I believe lying about it is a criminal offence…
yep. if you want to keep something secret, never ever ever never ever write it down, say it over the phone, put it in an email, put it in a voicemail, text message or any other electronic format. this stuff just doesn’t go away (even if you delete it).
oops.
Eric (skeptic) (14:04:50) :
Keep in mind that email was from 1999. Things may be a lot more nuanced now b/c they’ve been forced in that direction, but back then they pretty much had free reign.
Beware Hitlers diary.
“Trick” might not be as damning as it seems. He might have used the word as an informal synonym for “technique,” in the same way that programmers will speak of “a neat hack,” meaning technique, not reprehensible kludge–although that’s what it sounds like to an outsider.
If the word “trick” can be found used as a synonym for technique in other e-mails, this defense could be made to look credible.
Still, on the surface, it does look like something in the vein of, “We’ve got to get rid of the MWP.”
PS: This is a plot-twist so fantastic it couldn’t have been used in Michael Crichton’s Fear. The truth is stranger than fiction.
Maybe the Met’s new sooper-dooper supercomputer has done a HAL on them.
One Slim Possiblity.
Question. Did this original data could have come from maybe a disgruntled individual to do with The Hadley Centre and sick of all the fraud and falsifications. To Cover His or Her tracks. Then dumped the data on a Russian hacker FTP. So to get the info out?
PPS: “Breaking” has another connotation.
Has anyone thought of passing the links for this to some of the handful of MS journos who are skeptics?
How about actually providing link. None of the sites or links i have gone to have the file.
I think Steve Mosher is playing a joke on us.
Link or it did not happen.
For some reason it appears that the link is being kept hidden and nobody is posting a link to a copy of the file. So we have to take some people’s word for what is going on and can’t independently verify what is being said. So … I am going to grab a couple of grains of salt until I can read it for myself.
@chillybean
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
*** start quote***
“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com)”
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
Cheers
Phil
*** end quote ***
[snip]
for Keith’s to hide the decline.
just remember we are assuming what this is referring to. We *could* be wrong, but I doubt it.
“Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:”
The relevant material starts at comment #101.
Easy does it folks, if some things sound too good to be true, they probably are…….
This doesn’t ring true to me. I absolutely don’t believe it. It’s entirely possible an archive was accessed, yes, but the subsequent correspondence could have been spiked before it was released. I don’t want to believe Scientists actually do things like this (above). I’m not a conspiracy theorist you see. I prefer the cock-up theory, as Steve McIntyre admirably demonstrates time after time.
The day started well with News.com.au pulling an online story about 6 degree temperature rises and methane exploding from the ocean, but this has made my day! I wonder if the dog will cough up all the missing homework?
WWOWWZZA! soon the CYA begins
“Opens popcorn.”
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
never mind Jean S provided a link at The Blackboard
aaah the whole AGW house of cards continues to collapse – and just in time for Copenhagen!
cockup and conspiracy are not mutually exclusive.
sceptics …
be exceedingly sceptical !
deniers…
deny it’s real – until you have the same level of proof you demand from the alarmists
get the forensics done
and then ……
Eric (skeptic) (14:04:50) :
quote
This looks way over the top to me. There’s lots of mundane content that might be real, but the discussions of how to fake the data (“hide the decline”) are much less nuanced then one would expect considering all of their public postings. /quote
I agree, it looks as though this “intelligence” has been “enhanced”. They would not “hide the decline”, they would “adjust the trend” – those in the know would understand which direction the adjustment would take. There would be no need to spell it out.
This has the smell of misinformation to me. It is all too convenient and laid-out on a plate.
Most cyber attacks are opportunistic and against soft targets. I doubt that CRU has gaping holes in their security systems, precisely because they fear the risk of attack from people wanting access their data. If the base information is real, then it would be a sophisticated attack. But for what purpose?
The leak/hack is convenient given the timing with Copenhagen. The real question is, “Who would gain by putting this in the public arena at this time?”
Freezedried (14:10:55) :
Beware Hitlers diary.
I have to second this note of caution. There’s information, misinformation, disinformation, misdis… well you get the idea.
We in the UK are well aware that the current government aren’t too fussy about how they spin and smear so just remember that (unless they find a particularly good reason for suspending democracy) there will be a general election next year and the ruling Labour Party are currently odds on to lose heavily.
This audience of all should be skeptical of this allegedly hacked data trove. It would not be beyond reason to speculate that folks could ‘bait’ the data with false emails, temperatures, whatever to make gullible AGW skeptics look like fools once the ‘prank’ is admitted. Proceed with caution and guarded enthusiasm.
This is certainly pretty massive. This crap is not good news for the probity and reputation of science more widely. Who can we trust now? All end up diminished.
Climateaudit is down again.
Imagine what Delingpole will make of it.
And EU has new president, determined to impose green tax on all his slaves to save world from climate change.
I was sleepy, but now I am totally fresh.
This smells like misinformation to me too. Please be skeptical, guys!
There is a link to the files by Jean S over at Lucia’s
Interesting to see how much Mr biased-as-heck BBC reporter Richard Black is under the thumb of a Mr Mann….
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
>>>> its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat
>>>> at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was
>>>> formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
>>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it
>>>> might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I
>>>> might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
This stuff could be earth shattering ! Or at least Climate Shattering. This news has to get out to FOX News, Glen Beck and the rest of talk radio to get it out to as much of the public as possible and as soon as possible.
We all know darned well that the TV news networks, ABC ,NBC, CBS and their cable affiliates will not even pick it up, let alone cover it.
If it is as bad as it could be, it might very well be the death blow to AGW !
If this hack has been enhanced, are we supposed to care? I think an inquiry is in order, and the net effect will be that someone has some big time explaining to do and necessary revelations to be made.
I believe “hide the decline” refers to the divergence “problem” with tree rings at the end of the 20th century.
Ok, I have looked at the file and it *looks* like something that was zipped up as part of an FOI request. Looks like a collection of various files and emails that were placed in a directory and zipped up. No telling where the file was found or who grabbed a copy if this file was sent off to someone else, say, a legal department or something, for review.
Lot of stuff in there and I am not going to open any word documents. Funny .jpg file in there, though and a lot of climate activist stuff.
If it looks too good to be true it probably is.
Let’s hope they don’t shut down the system so nothing can be got.
Your tax money at work:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2exn2ty.jpg
Anyone checked the ZIP for malicious hacker and cracker type files? 🙂 I’d like to unzip it but don’t know if I dare… 🙂
Maybe this is an attempt to shut down all of us sceptics with one swifth blow by virus. 🙂
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t?
As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we
actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our
original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly
deniable accusations,
m
p.s. any word on HadCRU Sep numbers yet???
On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin, Mike, Andy,
It has taken Keith longer than he would have liked, but it is up. There is a lot to
read and understand. It is structured for different levels. The link goes to the top
level. There is more detail below this and then there are the data below that.
You can either go to our main page
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ then click on the link
or directly here
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
I’ll let you make up you own minds! It seems to me as though McIntyre cherry picked for
effect.
There is an additional part that shows how many series from Ch 6 of AR4 used Yamal –
most didn’t! Also there is a sensitivity test of omitting it – which comes from the
Supplementary Info with Osborn and Briffa (2006). As expected omitting it makes very
little difference. To get to this follow the links from the above link.
McIntyre knows that the millennial temperature record is pretty robust, otherwise he
would produce his own series. Similarly the instrumental temperature is even more
robust, which he also knows.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [3]p.jones@xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: xxxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [4]mann@xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [5]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[6]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [7]p.jones@xxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [8]mann@xxxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [9]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[10]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
3. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
1256735067.txt
Obviously, Steve has yet to see these postings.
Fascinating, although I would say that unless we know the exact provenance of this file, it is totally possible that this has been salted with fakes.
CA seems to be down at the moment, at least in the UK.
Incredible.
This somewhat premature “Christmas Present”, still unwrapped, could turn out to be an atomic bombshell under the IPCC report and the Copenhagen Climate Treaty, if handled in a professional manner.
Next steps: Analysis of the data, conclusions, legal evaluation and strategy.
I wonder what the possibilities are to secure the computer data by an independent legal entity to ensure permanent loss of files due to a cover up.
I think Lord Monckton is the ideal person to make a fast plan.
He will know which strings to pull.
Speed is of the essence.
Has anyone done a “robust” sort of virus scan of the document to determine if it is safe to download and upzip it, or to open the files in it?
Well, the emails may be fake, but are they accurate?
i don’t think this is a “hack”; I suspect that this is an interim collection of documents, mail messages, and fortran code produced as part of responding to a FOIA request that leaked prematurely.
Well, there is that declineseries.pdf document that looks interesting. Looks to me like it shows little correlation between temperature (what I am guessing the red line is) and ring density or width. The second plot for each series seems to be a delta or difference between temperature and density/width and it if that is what it is, then it looks like a serious “divergence” problem.
But if it is true -and that needs verifying-what on earth are we all going to do with ourselves now?
Can I popose a renunion party to talk about the good old days scheduled for this day in five years time?
tonyb
Bolding mine.
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
The zip file at
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/
expands to 168 MB!
No way this is a hoax, no one would have the stamina to fabricate all this stuff!
“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”
…….Keith Briffa
…….Allegedly
The zip file in question expands to 4662 files of 157Mb. I’ve scanned them with 3 good commercial AV products which all found no suspicious files.
But to be on the safe side, I’m only looking at them under a non-admin account (XP)
There’s one helluva lot to wade through
“Anyone checked the ZIP for malicious hacker and cracker type files?”
I am opening only text and pdf documents directly from the zip file, I might unzip it on a linux box and go crazy with grep over the weekend.
Weyhey, paranoia reigns supreme! But like a bathroom turd, the facts always float to the top and bob around a bit… looking forward to more revelations re. the science that really matters. (Yep, still grumpy; but some of the earlier articles on this site momentarily cheered me up.)
Hmmmm… Well if someone “created” this stuff they took a lot of time in doing it. My guess is that it is most likely genuine. However it does not matter what peoples intents are. Data is what is important. 61 Megs can either contain a lot of information or none at all depending on what is in it. Personally lets stick with the facts. People say all kinds of inflammatory things to each other. Disregard those and lets keep working to real understanding of climate and science, just because they are biased does not make them wrong. What makes someone wrong is when data shows they are wrong. Worry about the data is what I say.
Like others have said – I’d be, well, you know…skeptical.
Yeah, I’ve got my copy too. If this is a stunt by some well-meaning skeptic, then I say hunt him down and throw the book at him. There needs to be two investigations… one on the provenance of this stuff, and one on the content.
This smacks of a “drag”, a device to create a scent trail to lure the hounds in the absence of a fox. Jolly good ride, but no kill at the end. Hope I’m wrong.
No way.
O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!
Apparently the truth is stronger than we thought…
Open science is the best science.
I have no idea what is going on here.
I note wiser and cooler heads, no pun intended, are treating it with caution.
But if it has a basis in fact, that is these are not forged documents, then there are quite a lot of questions to answer.
But then it always amazes me how careless people are in leaving written evidence about the place. The methods of communication may have changed but there are always people too lazy or too self important to understand how their scribblings might betray them.
Assuming anybody was bothered to collect, collate and interpret these these billet doux.
Kindest Regards
“Worry about the data is what I say.”
Great idea. The problem is, if the substance of these e-mails is correct, they’re talking about corrupting the data to prove their point. That’s way beyond merely letting off steam in an inflammatory e-mail. It’s out and out fraud.
‘”Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.”‘
lol.
What p’s me off is
RulesOfTheGame.pdf
Anthony, CA is crawling right now. Is it being slammed by people wanting to see more?
I’ve figured it out. It is a conspiracy to crash WUWT and CA and LUCIA. It seems the whole world is hitting these sites and even WordPress is struggling.
Devilish cunning.
@TonyB (15:12:51) :
But if it is true […] what on earth are we all going to do with ourselves now?
Can I popose a renunion party to talk about the good old days scheduled for this day in five years time?
Nah – we’ll all still be here dealing with the next hobgoblin 😉
unfortunately, it looks a bit too good to be true. If it is, perhaps it’s a preemptive strike to immunize themselves from any last minute real revalations or expose’ and perhaps as a tool to discredit high profile skeptics. It’s even possible that a lot of the data might possibly be real – then again…. It will be interesting to see the response from this and how they spin it.
Unfortunately, even if this turns out to be false, I no longer think that the implications about those invoved are unrealistic of what went on.
Holy Carp!
As an IT person, I can say, that to fake all that information not to mention keeping the email headers consistent, is near impossible for that volume of information. You would need some serious funding of manpower to do such a thing.
I’m going to parse through as much of it as I can.. Any keywords I should be looking for that anyone can suggest?
…walks like scam, smells like a scam and it’s even yelling “SCAM, SCAM, SCAM!!!….
Don’t miss the possibility that this file doesn’t need to be hoax or legit. It can be both. There could be a lot of the real thing in there, and seeded here and there some manufactured evidence meant to discredit. An ideologically motivated hacker (as this seems to be) smart enough to hack CRU is smart enough to do such a thing.
I’m not saying that’s what happened here, but one must not rule out the possibility.
I’m waiting for the response over at RC…
No wonder they “lost” the data!!!
It seems that Phil Jones reads WUWT – he notified Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann about a post seemingly hours after it was posted.
See mail #1237474374 for details.
He also makes a reference to the comments made at CA so I guess he also confirmed he reads Climate Audit too: “The responses are even worse than you get on CA.”
I find it hard to believe that someone would have had the spare time to forge those messages. There are too many names, titles, addresses and phone numbers presented in too many formats. Yeah, you could write a script to get some of it done but you would have to have carefully studied their correspondence to get it right. That part of the script would take quite a while to complete, and then one would have to spend a good bit of composing the actual content (mimicking each author’s style/voice), which would also be a tough task.
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
Deliberate manipulation to get the desired result????
Be VERY wary of hacks.
TIFF, JPEG, PDF, ZIP, MS Word and several other formats have been
cracked and are very good infection vectors.
If I had to pick through this stuff, I would run XP VMware, on a Mac.
On the Mac I would log in as a non-admin user. Then log into XP
under VMware as a non-admin. Run the whole thing on a removable
disk.
Open all PDFs on a non-Adobe PDF reader. Change all the TIFFs to JPEG
and JPEG to TIFF using something like GIMP. Open all Word files with
OpenOffice and save to .odt form.
Tomcity is an ISP company located in the city of Tomsk, Siberia, Russia. Here is the result of my lookup:
mnt-routes – TOMLINE-MNT
source – RIPE # Filtered
status – ASSIGNED PA
% Note – This output has been filtered.
nic-hdl – SK3784-RIPE
tech-c – ZMOD-RIPE
person – Sergey Kazakov
address – Tomsk, Russia
country – RU
mnt-by – TOMLINE-MNT
netname – TOMCITY-NET
origin – AS25446
route – 88.204.24.0/22
inetnum – 88.204.24.0 – 88.204.31.255
phone – +7 3822 228666
descr – TOMCITY-NET route object
fax-no – +7 3822 452121
e-mail – neiks@iao.ru
admin-c – ZMOD-RIPE
role – Tomline ISP Tech role
remarks: trouble – 12/5 phone number +7 3822 228666
Is this the watergate of climate science
“…..My guess is that it is most likely genuine……”
Maybe. Is it ALL genuine though? Or is it 99% genuine with a little salt added here and there?
Almost too good to be true.. but delicious reading. I wonder if the mainstream media will run with any of it. They have run headlines on a lot less than this in the past.
If this is real, this part looks particularly damning:
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.
For those who think the defence may be: “Fake!”. Who has the time to fake 60 MBytes of probably mind-numbing daily boring stuff – and tables of data that can be verified?
No, this is huge 🙂
We may find out whether the dog really did eat the data, or whether this whole global warming scam is a dog’s breakfast 🙂
I scanned the zip file with AVG and it reported no problems. It recursively scans the contents of the archive, including contained archives.
The emails are just plain text and would not be a risk.
Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?
Does the person who posted that file at the Russian FTP site have the courage to come forward and identify himself? You can identify yourself to Steve, Anthony, Jeff or Lucia simply by posting a comment with your real e-mail address and asking them to contact you. The rest of us will never know who you are and they will never reveal your identity. But the provenance of this material needs to be proved.
1255496484.txt
> The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
> and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the
> August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
> warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
>
> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are
> tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO.
> Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It
> surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to
> El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time
> since Sept 2007. see
> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
>
> Kevin
>
> Michael Mann wrote:
>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its
>> particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC
>> (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly
>> a weather person at the Met Office.
>>
>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might
>> be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might
>> ask Richard Black what’s up here?
>>
Hi rich, It’s mann, can you spin some BS for me, Sure no problem…
If it smells this bad it is worse than we ever imagined. I think this may be the tipping point right here, right now in this one .zip file.
Roger Knights (14:15:11) :
PS: This is a plot-twist so fantastic it couldn’t have been used in Michael Crichton’s Fear. The truth is stranger than fiction.
Roger, I have it on questionable authority that this is Michael working “en phantasmagora” to add what Sir Alfred Hitchcock describes as “a juicy piece of plot.” This might be worth hanging around for.
**********************************
From: Ben Santer
To: P.Jones
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700
Dear Phil,
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
**********************************
Oh dear. There was not a bigger leak since Britons and Polish cracked Enigma and Americans did the same with the Japanese Purple code.
Indeed, it is funny this comes out as Steve’s work is getting serious exposure.
Regardless of the content, damning or not, hacking is illegal.
It smells a bit fishy but if true, we should see some very interesting times ahead indeed.
Ray
‘On another note, they do have a very nice building but it must be very expensive to heat in winter, and produce lots of CO2.’
Why should it be expensive to heat? It’s a greenhouse, isn’t it?!!!!!
Well I’m not too sure this is something to be overjoyed about.
Somebody who has the capability to break in and get this stuff, also has the ability to surreptitiously change things too, including corrupting data.
It may sound like a lark to some; but it is potentially extremely destructive.
The proper way to address this sort of “data secrecy” issue, is to convince the owners/possessors of the information, that it is in the best interest of science for them to make the data available; and that to not do so without a very good reason, simply brands their published “output” as “suspect”.
Hackers are not heroes in my book; more like juvenile delinquents or worse; common vandals.
One of these days; somebody is going to get smart, and just shoot some of these computer vandals; well after reading them their Miranda rights anyway.
I would say you did the right thing here Anthony in expunging the e-mails etc. OK to be reporting what IS a news item; but no point in becoming an accessory after the fact.
Having had several years of computer design work erased irretrievably by an IT nincompoop who’se aproach to installing an unwanted upgrade to M$ Internet Explorer, was to simply reformat my entire C: hard drive; and then for good measure to also reformat my entire D: backup drive; while blowing up the motherboard in the process; I’m not at all amused by people who get their kicks crashing into someone else’s system with malice aforethought.
In my case, a single sheet of paper accidently printed out, and filed under some non-descript heading; enabled me to retrieve the important details of the final result of that three years of lost work; the result of which has so far resulted in the worldwide sales of now more than one billion of the product resulting from that research.
Concur re zip file, no virus. Also the grouping looks plausible.
I’d only just said over at CA a few hours ago, “It would be nice to use the Team objection as a reason to press for disclosure of CRU data, as Juraj V suggests.” oh heck… what a disclosure…
From: “Michael E. Mann”
……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….
1054757526.txt
I don’t inderstand all of it, but I do know what putative is:
–adjective
commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed
I hope this helps.
What an Inconvenient Truth. Nothing that was unsuspected, though… This is going to be an atomic bomb that the Russians launched against Global Warming…
Ecotretas
Someone who has the file, please post it to http://wikileaks.org/
Let us see if this leak evolves legs.
I hope some of our skeptic friends will carefully read this. If any of this shows items of interest, it needs to get to Breitbart or other still-independent media so that it can foced into the public square. The data needs to be carefully preserved.
And for our AGW true believer friends: do not bother with the argument that this should not be reviewed since it came from possibly disreputable means. Lefties have never hesitated to use information gotten from gray sources in their attempts to put info in the public square.
Let us stay focused on the information, and let the chips fall where they may.
AGW promoters have for years gotten away with secrecy, self-dealing, inflammatory hyperbole, personal attacks, and non-reproducible claims. If someone in Hadley finally got a belly full and has released a large amount of data that stinks up AGW dogma, too bad.
I don’t know, this seems very convenient. I actually believe that most of the content is real, but like other posters I wonder if there might be unflattering salted entries throughout. We musn’t forget that these archives, regardless whether they appear to have been bundled as part of some FOI request or not, were hacked. Hackers prove by their hacking that they are not honest, so what guarantee do we have that they did not salt a few juicy phrases here and there?
Whoever looks deeply into this should be very, very careful about any conclusions.
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
See attached note.
Comments?
Tom
Bulldust (15:52:36) : said
“Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?”
At 15:52:36, Bulldog
Tonyb
John Anderson (14:21:03) :
“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com)”
“Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news !”
Of all the bits I’ve read, that is the one (if true) that really turned my stomach…
I 100% concur w/previous posters advising CAUTION and SKEPTICISM.
Consider how perfectly timed the realease is with Copenhagen. Curious, no?
Could be a blackmail attempt that didnt’ stick, could be a gov’t entity w/an agenda, could be anything.
Before believing anything, apply the principles of good science to uncover facts. Then what you believe at least has a chance of being true.
I’m downloading now. Massive file. This will provide juice for years. The dog that ate the homework just vomitted.
Antonio San (16:02:59) :
“ndeed, it is funny this comes out as Steve’s work is getting serious exposure.
Regardless of the content, damning or not, hacking is illegal.”
I think in this case it may well come under “whistle-blower” protections. The mole needs to reveal himself to someone who will be able to vouch for authenticity.
O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!
Again, today, I was looking at a childs book that goes like this:
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I wonder why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she’ll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider
[mentally rewrote here] that squiggled the WorldWideWeb inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
I wonder why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she’ll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a bird
Well how absurd
To swallow a bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider…. etc
….she swallowed a cat to catch the bird… just fancy that, to swallow a cat
… she swallowed a dog to catch the cat… how very odd, to swallow a dog
…she swallowed a cow… I wonder how she swallowed a cow
…she swallowed a horse… she died of course.
George E. Smith,
I would normally agree with you, but this is nuclear, if true. The more people that have access to this “info” to examine it independantly, the better.
@ Frank Perdicaro (15:45:55) :
“Be VERY wary of hacks.
TIFF, JPEG, PDF, ZIP, MS Word and several other formats have been
cracked and are very good infection vectors. ”
ermm…with the exception of a possible macro in a Mickeysoft Word document the other file types are passive and not useable as carriers for malicious code.
Interesting…but remember the Godwin Grech saga!!
I suspect an insider got mad and leaked this. We don’t know if its been edited, though.
A good verification step would be to examine the emails that went to/from other institutions and put in a specific FOI request at those institutions for verification.
There are also numerous internal documents, data and source code that are bundled in this package.
Be cautiously skeptical for now. The truth will emerge.
George E. Smith (16:06:15) :
George, I’m half tempted to agree with you…. most hackers are vandals and should be dealt with summarily. If this information is really true, however, the hacker has just exposed a crime far more monstrous and consequential than his own. If the data is not true, then let’s you and I get together and track the miscreant down and administer a little IT justice….
A bit too many “revealing” statements for this skeptic to believe in that file right now.
Also, consider that if it turns out to be true, there’ll be plenty of time to digest it properly. If it turns out to be fake, anybody “falling for it” will destroy his or her reputation for centuries to come.
I say, leave the sediment reach the bottom on its own.
Just a brief review suggests to me that this is real. There is Fortran code, AWK stuff.
Yes, this is real. Historians will be digesting this 100 years from now.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
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. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Question: What is the WMO statement? What does WMO stand for?
Trick? Hide the decline?
[snip]
Re: Robert Wood of Canada (15:51:22) :
For those who think the defence may be: “Fake!”. Who has the time to fake 60 MBytes of probably mind-numbing daily boring stuff – and tables of data that can be verified?
—
You wouldn’t necessarily need to fake all 60MB, just add a few fake smoking guns and then any authentic data would potentially help mask it. For people that have the data, are all the emails to/from one recipient, and do they have the full email headers, ie message ID and mail path?
Get an old machine and use CD bootable Ubuntu on it. Ubuntu isn’t susceptible to most Windows viruses, but with Open Office will open Word files.
My post has got swallowed.
oakgeo,
To answer you in brief, bunk.
Leaking government docs is a long held tradition in muck raking and investigative journalism.
From the famous ‘Pentagon Papers’ during Vietnam, where documents acknowledged to have been stolen were determined by the US Supreme Court to still be in the public domain, to the current war on terror, where the NYT regularly leaked classified information of on going, lawful secret operations, busting into government files illicitly ahs been fine.
We actually do not know that Hadley ahs been in fact hacked.
They may very well be claiming they have been hacked what happened was a disgruntled, conscience driven employee simply down loaded his or her e-mail record and published it for the world to see.
‘Hacking’ is a very easy way to raise doubts about the information, as you demonstrate.
‘Hacking’ also gives hadley, and others, an excuse to purge files in the name of security.
Frankly, I bet that no hacking took place, in the classical sense. I bet this is an employee who is tired of the AGW promoters cynically and falsely creating power based on fear of the climate.
I suppose it means the sharp 1998 – 1999 decline from El Nino to La Nina (as it’s dated 11/99).
ummm, I thought the dog ate the data.
As Peter West and others are saying : “BE CAREFUL!!!!! The validity of this needs to be very carefully checked before ANY claims are made.” and the hackers could have “seeded here and there some manufactured evidence meant to discredit”
Resist the temptation. In the end it’s the actual climate and the actual science that matter, not what people have said.
…
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don’t know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit …
Richard (16:25:45) :
“What is the WMO statement?”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statement/wmostatement_en.html
“When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied:
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.””
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/24/uk-met-office-and-dr-phil-jones-pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain/
This may not be a hacker but an inside job. Some normal human being tire of science being used for political purposes. Very interesting.
I’ve run it through AVG as well and it comes up clean. Total files 9700 and zips within zips.
This is not to say that there isn’t something nasty lurking in there. AVG is good enough for my normal work but if someone really wants to [snip] us all up I’m sure they could find a way.
On the other hand the timing is so serendipitous that has to be suspicious in itself. Anyone with a couple of hours to spare could read Le Carre’s ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ and learn a bit about how to deflect attention from what you don’t actually want your opposite number to see. Conjurors are good at that as well.
And I’ll repeat what’s been said above: If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Be warned.
On the other hand, it would be nice ……
RC has gone strangely quiet, just like how the guns stopped as Luke began his attack run on the Death Star…
if real, this seems like it could be the Russians or the Chinese trying to derail Copenhagen. the timing seems too coincidental…
What I find amusing is that if the emails are genuine then the main players in this drama will be sitting in front of their computers unable to email each other to discuss it just in case it gets hacked again.
I guess the phone lines between the UK and USA will be busy tonight.
There is no doubt that at least part of the email corpus is “real”. For just one small example, there is 1182346299.txt which has a McIntyre email in that McIntyre posted online himself http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741 That same txt file contains a quoted email from Douglas J. Keenan which was matches an excerpt by Keenan in his Energy and Environment article (http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf)
The issue is whether the rest of that email and all the others are original and have not been altered in some way. When I google for small parts of phrases from the parts allegedly written by Jones, I come up empty. It doesn’t mean much, except that his public correspondence and phrasing seems to be quite different from his private messages.
I thought Shrodinger’s cat was invisible.
A whistleblows perhapos but at the end of the day, these people have not released data as per science process. So the emails of themselves appear credible in the face of previous actions.
But all data should be treated cautiously until checked. Even leaked emails.
I’m reposting the comment I made earlier, offering a possible extenuation of the “trick” e-mail, since several subsequent commenters haven’t taken it into consideration:
==========
“Trick” might not be as damning as it seems. He might have used the word as an informal synonym for “technique,” in the same way that programmers will speak of “a neat hack,” meaning technique, not reprehensible kludge–although that’s what it sounds like to an outsider.
If the word “trick” can be found used as a synonym for technique in other e-mails [please search for that word!], this defense could be made to look credible.
Still, on the surface, it does look like something in the vein of, “We’ve got to get rid of the MWP.”
This looks fake to me. This story should never have been posted here, until it was verified. This story damages the credibility of wattsupwiththat.com.
re: Richard (16:25:45) :
WMO is the World Meteorlogical Organization.
They have a list of their annual statements here:
http://tiny.cc/9Ows9
Whether or not any e-mails have been “modified” by even the addition of a comma can, and most likely will, now be uncovered by a discovery request in a civil suit (using US terminology). All senders and recipients cannot claim to have lost the e-mails now.
By the way, is anyone surprised at this – I mean the content ?? Obviously, its
“publication” is a bombshell of a surprise, but wasn’t it pretty obvious that the hokey stick, Steig and Briffa were just the errrmmm tip of the iceberg ??
I think it’s pretty amusing that anyone here would be taken in by this stuff. In fact it’s comical. Like breathing on an ant nest – someone has you all running around and falling over each other in your eagerness to trumpet evidence of ‘the Great Global Warming Fraud’.
Wise up folks. You’re doing yourselves a disservice. You can do better than this.
Emails 1256735067 through 1256760240 have some interesting comments about Yamel and Climate Audit. Seems to be some searching question being asked here!
—–Original Message—–
From: Keiller, Donald
Sent: 02 October 2009 10:34
To: ‘k.briffa@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ‘p.jones@xxxxxxx
Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly
since I hear that you are unwell.
However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much
discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a
number of key papers by you and co-workers.
As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate
starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole
scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of “teleconnection” by which certain trees respond to the
“Global Temperature Field”, rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature
in a linear manner.
Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use
inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find
difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.
As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do
not agree with the accepted science.
There is a saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers,
further detailed explanation is urgently required.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller.
Source – 1256760240.txt
—————————–
From: Phil Jones
To: “Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science)”
Subject: Yamal response from Keith
Date: Wed Oct 28 12:26:39 2009
John,
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
This went up last night about 5pm. There is a lot to read at various levels. If you get
time just the top level is necessary. There is also a bit from Tim Osborn showing that
Yamal was used in 3 of the 12 millennial reconstructions used in Ch 6.
Also McIntyre had the Yamal data in Feb 2004 – although he seems to have forgotten this.
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was
doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jonesxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Source: 1256747199.txt
————————–
Just some highlights…
FYI the IP address from the mail header a couple posts above is legitimate. A reverse lookup says it belongs to the server ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk, uea being of course the University of East Anglia.
Mike Jonas (16:33:15): “In the end it’s the actual climate and the actual science that matter”.
Agree, but if actual science now is partly based on tricks, then “what people have said” here has some validity. If one can nail this statements like this to the Hadley people the destruction of the climate bandwagon may occur somewhat earlier than otherwise… (If it’s true it’s criminal, isn’t it?)
Rereke Whakaaro (14:37:56) :
The real question is, “Who would gain by putting this in the public arena at this time?”
Exactly. How would Al Gore and Jim Hansen and fellow warmists profit from this?
Is it possible to run a grammar & spelling check to see if the emails are consistent for a particular author? For example, the use of the term “with-holding” supposedly written by Phil, as opposed to “withholding”.
Moderators, I suggest you redact phone numbers and email addys from posts as has been done with the original article. I’d also erase the direct ftp addy as well.
There’s likely to be big trouble with this.
No, no, no… it just cannot be true, our “favourite scientists” are talking about the recent cooling and how to “explain” this? Just take a look at the names involved, it is unbelievable, scarier than anything else in this topic:
From: Michael Mann
To: Kevin Trenberth
Cc: Tom Wigley , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
or here is Phil Jones about his urbanization paper which were published in 1990:
I have another paper just accepted in JGR coming out on Chinese temps
and urbanization. This will also likely cause a stir. I’ll send you a copy when
I get the proofs from AGU. Some of the paper relates to the 1990 paper
and the fraud allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang. Remind me on this in
a few weeks if you hear nothing.
Cheers
Phil
PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage – so wrong it is unbelievable that
Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I’d never
said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just
shows how up to date he is.
[2]http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151
At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Roger Knights (16:44:30) :
Stop wasting your time. “Trick” has a meaning, and it is widely understaood. You cannot undermine that.
I downloaded the zip file, unpacked it, browsed a bit. I opened a .pdf file entitled “RulesOfTheGame.pdf”. Very interesting document. Most compelling is that I broke open the metadata for this file. The file date stamp is Oct. 3, 2006, the metadata says it was created Oct 14, 2005 using QuarkExpress v.6.1 (released in 2004). All properties and metadata for this file definitely appear genuine to me.
Interesting that this document describes methods of convincing the public of the “crisis”.
Excerpt:
a new way of thinking
Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:
5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.
6. Use both peripheral and central processing Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.
7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.
8. Use transmitters and social learning People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.
9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.
Jabba,
No Capn that’s wrong, if you put a cat in a box it it is not invisible. Only unobserved. When you open the box the cat may be dead or alive, but if the latter it is likely to be bloody furious at being put the in box in the first place.
Which is why elf and shufti now require full protective equipment before opening the box.
Kindest Regards
I believe I can finally use the phrase: Fraudsters!
Skeptism comes naturally to this groupl
Get a FOI request in to verify if these are real….. That way, all will be revealed.
Brian (16:44:55) :
“This looks fake to me. This story should never have been posted here, until it was verified. This story damages the credibility of wattsupwiththat.com.”
You should never have been posted here, until it was verified. I’ve heard this “credibility” story more than once, and the site continues to gain popularity.
Another thought – it is possible that the perpetrator (hacker or insider) has not yet released everything. There could be more files yet to come …
ADVICE
DON’T CLICK ON ANY LINKS FROM THESE COMMENTS, PARTICULARLY
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/XXXcoming/free/XXXXXXX.zip
Okay, to anyone who thinks this is not real… wow… I have been going through it and if this is a fake it is a dang good fake because it has lots of information… I do not believe this to be a fake though what true use it is in the fight against climate alarmist and the current group of intellectuals who at times seem like they take what they do seriously while at the same time slamming anyone who disagrees with their analysis will soon be up to public scrutiny.
That being said it is the science that matters not the scientists. However I do believe this is another cause for opening up the books and letting people who are not in the inner circle have a look at what they are doing. One of the emails I read said that by not doing so it looks like they are hiding something, I actually agree with that, so stop it and make the data publicly available.
Here’s a quote from one of the emails:
“Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.”
I’m not providing the filename or sender’s name because I do not know if the documents are real or not. As others are saying, we need to be careful because these documents may be manufactured plants. However, if the one I quoted from is real, it provides possible evidence of felony tax evasion by “someone.”
I’ve had private email conversations with one person whose name and messages are to be found in the “mail” folder; so it happens that the person shows a certain form of dyslexia and the pattern of the mistypes this person makes are easily recognisable and consistent across this person’s writings. Isn’t much, but it is something. Also, some details referring to the person’s life are accurate as far as i can tell.
Here’s my take:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
While downloading the zip file, I noticed that Sergey has his Parental File listed.
In it are listings such as Warcraft and Bollywood. Didn’t pry any further, but seemed a little odd for a Russkie, or not.
Just downloading my copy as I write, for posterity if for nothing else. Putting on my tin foil hat here, I’d say if it turns out to be true, then it gets the politicians and the MSM off the hook as far as this AGW meme goes. Just posted this message over at RC:
It appears the Hadley CRU server has been hacked and 62MB of zipped files made available over the internet. Is this an elaborate hoax, or can anyone provide a comment/clarification? Thanks.
Unfortunately, it just got swallowed, no “Your comment is awaiting moderation” or anything
“tricks” was the least offensive bit I saw in those emails. Try googling “tips and tricks” and see all the results you get.
Someone this skilled to have hacked CRU would not have made up emails from whole cloth. It’d have been micro edits of some of the existing emails he stole. Not saying it happened, but if it did that would be what it was.
As people go through this stuff, please be on the look out for refrences to Fenton Communications. Fenton will be the link to Al Gore.
@Squidly (16:54:50) :
Thanks for posting that excerpt. I hadn’t got to that one yet. That is pure spin with more than a whiff of professional assistance.
Jabba,
The cracking of TIFF, JPEG is well documented. Buffer overruns
in carefully constructed images can execute arbitrary code in a
variety of common decompression libraries. PDF is a wicked
vector of destruction — I have personally written PDF files that will
delete all the contents of a hard disk. As early as 2000 the
security problems of PDF were openly discussed by Jim King, the
chief scientist at Adobe. There are currently several open ones.
Need to hide your return vector in PDF? Hide it as variation in
the kerning between a few letter pairs, and encode the result in
SIXBIT. That one is hard to spot.
It was just last year Microsoft patched another Enhanced Metafile
vector overrun bug in MS Word.
Do a quick search on “PDF exploit” or “TIFF vulnerability”
This one is huge.
Compare what Trenberth says here : http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2009/10/10/dr-william-gray-and-dr-kevin-trenberth-debate-global-warming/
…while exactly at the same moment he writing :
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
***The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.***
Lucy Skywalker (16:06:47) :Concur re zip file, no virus. Also the grouping looks plausible.
I’d only just said over at CA a few hours ago, “It would be nice to use the Team objection as a reason to press for disclosure of CRU data, as Juraj V suggests.” oh heck… what a disclosure…
Where the heck is this topic on CA? couldnt find it – has it been pulled?
Just to make sure everyone is reading from the same page, I downloaded the file from http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/ at 0100 UTC on 20091120 and ran the md5 hash creator on it. For those who would like to verify the authenticity of their download, here’s the hash:
#md5 FOI2009.zip
MD5 (FOI2009.zip) = da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4
A cursory glance through several of the files gives me the feel of authenticity, but YMMV.
OT: If this mess “Kevin and I will keep them out” turns out to be real, then maybe just maybe people will take PKI seriously.
The director of the CRU admits that everyone “in the know” realizes that Mann’s original 1998 Hockey Stick was faulty. So much for the National Academy of Sciences having vindicated it (with faint praise but still praise).
Mann only used the last century of 1000 years of data for selection of which proxy series to vastly emphasize and it spit out Bristlecone pines since they alone showed a massive change in that single century. Had they showed a downswing they still would have been selected and a reverse hockey stick would have resulted, as it results half of the time when you feed his algorithm random data.
The main thing I take home from these so far is how the scientists transform from laughing at pesky and persistent skeptics to having their whole lives revolve around each and every post on the ClimateAudit site! It shows very clearly that “deniers” are not considered crackpots worth ignoring at all even within the very core of academic scientists. They really are running around putting out each and every fire and altering each detail of their latest papers in appreciation that those details are exactly what will be scrutinized. They are tying themselves in knots over the skeptical community.
From: Phil Jones
To: Tim Osborn , “Tett, Simon”
Subject: Re: Bristlecones!
Date: Fri Jul 29 16:30:35 2005
Cc: Keith Briffa
Simon,
If you go to this web page [1]http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
You can click on a re-evaluation of MBH, which leads to a paper submitted to Climatic Change. This shows that MBH can be reproduced. The R-code to do this can be accessed and eventually the data – once the paper has been accepted.
IPCC will likely conclude that all MM arguments are wrong and have been answered in papers that have either come out or will soon. MBH is just one curve of many – more now than there were in 2001. MBH is still in the spaghetti of curves, and is not an outlier. If there are outliers it will be Esper et al. and another one.
Bristlecones are only crucial to the issue if you are MM. They misused them, by their PCA application. This is all well-known to those in the know.
I have reviewed the CC paper by Wahl and Ammann. It reproduces all the mistakes MM have made, so they know how and why their results have been achieved. I can send you the paper if you want, subject to the usual rules.
MBH have all responded to the same requests as IPCC got from the US Senate. Their responses are all posted at [2]http://www.realclimate.org/
The skeptics have shot themselves in the foot over this one.
Cheers
Phil
All the TOP people in this field are emailing each other discussing how they can continue to perpetuate the …
I can finally say out loud what my data analysis says must have been happening now.
Once I read every single document that is.
Glenn (16:50:50) :
Moderators, I suggest you redact phone numbers and email addys from posts as has been done with the original article. I’d also erase the direct ftp addy as well.
There’s likely to be big trouble with this.
That’s damned good advice. Please follow it and/or consult with an attorney. This is a very serious matter. PLEASE use caution!
magicfingers4 (17:05:23)
why not click on links?
Dom (17:14:30) : Where did that email come from? The hacked site? Whats the address of the site?
“The cracking of TIFF, JPEG is well documented.”
I have checked the files six ways to Sunday. They appear to be legitimate and clean so far.
Robert Wood of Canada (16:13:14) :
I’m downloading now. Massive file. This will provide juice for years. The dog that ate the homework just vomitted
——————————————————–
Errk!… I know, just dragging my fingers through it now, looking for chunks…;-)
For what it’s worth, IMHO this is from a mole within.
The hacking claim is a red (green) herring that attempts to minimise damage and aspires to get a positive by writing this off as a reactionary attack by evil-forces, financed by shatanic capitalism.
Somewhere, within that organisation, there lurks a person brave enough to spill the beans. Yup, laddie or lass, you crossed a line but History will treat you with much respect!
Dunno who you are but you are a Hero
STOP !!!
What if we are being PUNKED!!!! What if WUWT is the site that has been hacked and this is FAKE news?
Just asking….
JT
Be careful, don´t jump to conclusions, it could be a trick or forged.
however I am downloading now on a Linux Box.
I want to see it for myself.
Cheers.
My question: even if this is real stuff, -nobody here assumed the Team weren’t politically savvy people willing to advance their agenda by many means-, to which point this might be a way to legally attack and shut down blogs such as CA or WUWT and others ahead of Copenhagen?
As McIntyre commented: “Unbelievable.”
It seems that a small warmist clique has been brought out into the open.
I am sure they are going to feel the heat of being exposed.It is a pity it has to be exposed by an illegal activity to expose the overt hostility of honest science research.
I have long suspected that a few people were not being honest in what they do and write,now we have the evidence that they kept a lot of stuff under the rug.
“There’s likely to be big trouble with this.”
Maybe but not with anyone who has the file now. It is far too late. The URL is posted on at least a half-dozen sites and if the file is not in Bit Torrent by now, it probably will be in a few hours. The file is out in the wild and there is nothing that can be done to people getting a copy of it now.
This is an epic fail for CRUT. There is massive collateral damage with this. It describes how these “scientists” were coordinating to manipulate opinion and obtain funding, even Tamino’s identity is outed in those emails.
This is a earthquake in their world.
Folks, unless your mail is on your own mail server, do not ever assume that a deleted email is actually deleted. At work, EVERY email written by EVERY employee is saved in case it is needed by “discovery” in case of a lawsuit. If an employee deletes an email, it isn’t really deleted. A copy is saved for some number of years in case it is needed.
Joseph in Florida (16:34:52) :
…
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don’t know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
I wonder if this is the imfamous Tom P of CA fame?? Hmm
One day there will be another St Bartholomew as many people will have enough of the green guilt spewing… watch out!
I’m thinking that if this material turns out to be genuine, some of the folks in the emails may consider a long holiday in Cuba. No one will find them there, Al Gore has erased it from the map…
The interesting and potentially explosive news is if, as reported, the MBH code is now in the open. This would allow the allegations to be tested once and for all. It is also most unlikely that the old fortran could have been invisibly faked, so it is a potential test for the validity of the stuff. Does not of course show that it has not been selectively edited.
Hope this posting stays on for at least 3 or more days (or updates on same)
@ sunsettommy
The Pentagon Papers were stolen too.
This isn’t a trial. No one need worry about rules of evidence. Only science.
This is huge.
I don’t see the person who did this as a “hacker”, so much as a whistle blower.
The entire mail folder of this file has had its archive date artificially set to Jan 1, 2009 00:00:00. Several of the data file dates have also been artificially changed. There is a high probability that although the origin of the data is genuine, it has been doctored by someone. The file needs to be examined by experts before putting much stock into its authenticity.
no way this is for real. must wait and see.
Downloaded it and the dog wouldn’t touch it. Went after the squeaky toy instead.
@richard :
Got it here : http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
In in an email from thread from Michael Mann called “BBC U-turn on climate”
Dom (17:14:30) :
“From: Kevin Trenberth
[…]
***The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.***”
First hit on a search for “August BAMS 09 Supplement on 2008” returned:
“The supplement is well done, and contains liberal web-links to the original data sources. As usual, one may disagree with some chapters, findings or hypothesis. But it seems at a first glance, that “inconvenient” results are not silenced. For instance the chapter on SST correctly relates that the 2007/2008 SST was much cooler than during the 2002-2006; the corresponding figure showing the World Ocean heat content does not use dirty tricks to hide the practically unchanging SST from 2005 on. Interestingly the subpolar North Atlantic, Labrador and Irminger Seas are cooling down (which would explain the ongoing recovery of the Arctic sea ice extent). I really recommend to download this BAMS supplement.”
http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/bams-state-of-the-climate-2008/
The main page http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/ and article above written by “Francis Massen”, apparently a sceptic:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/
This is the internet and the entire file with all the names, phone numbers, addresses and content are out there now in multiple sites being downloaded, scrutinized and distributed.
By tomorrow a million people will have come across it while the media tries to catch up.
Anyone advising the removal of numbers etc is being rather silly.
Richard (17:17:44) :
Lucy Skywalker (16:06:47) :Concur re zip file, no virus. Also the grouping looks plausible.
I’d only just said over at CA a few hours ago, “It would be nice to use the Team objection as a reason to press for disclosure of CRU data, as Juraj V suggests.” oh heck… what a disclosure…
Where the heck is this topic on CA? couldnt find it – has it been pulled?
——————————————————-
The discussion is on the WSJ Europe topic, Richard.
“”” Robert Wood of Canada (16:18:05) :
George E. Smith,
I would normally agree with you, but this is nuclear, if true. The more people that have access to this “info” to examine it independantly, the better. “””
“”” Robert E. Phelan (16:23:57) :
George E. Smith (16:06:15) :
George, I’m half tempted to agree with you…. most hackers are vandals and should be dealt with summarily. If this information is really true, however, the hacker has just exposed a crime far more monstrous and consequential than his own. If the data is not true, then let’s you and I get together and track the miscreant down and administer a little IT justice…. “””
Well I certainly am not the arbiter of any other person’s sense of ethics; to each his own.
Does it occur to any here how chilling it is for open communications if one is always aware that some Knight in shining armor may take it upon himself to invade those conversations; and spread to the four winds; with no regard for what the consequences might be.
The leakers of “The Pentagon Papers” will get no medals from me; no matter what their crime may have uncovered.
There’s that old bar joke line:- Hey lady, would you sleep with me for a million dollars? Well sure; your place or mine ? Well would you sleep with me for ten dollars then ? Hey, what kind of a girl do you think I am anyway ?
Well we already established that; now we’re just haggling about the price.
Well if you can be had; for a price, who would want to take you into his confidence on anything, for any reason.
As to the Hadley information; release of it in this way is of little concern to me; because I simply never put much faith in it as Science anyway; same as I don’t think GISStemp is worth the paper it is printed on.
And as for the apparent (and I do mean apparent) subterfuge revealed in these released files; well perhaps it is hardly news.
As a steady reader of SCIENCE as well as Scientific American for now many years; I am quite convinced that the organised bodies behind some of these scientific organisations are willing to go to any ends to keep the taxpayer slush fund going in support of their members.
That does not mean every member of those organisations is a crook; I am sure many are dedicated researchers; maybe most of them; but it is quite apparent that the organisations have an agenda that is separate from the promotion of science.
Taxpayers, through their governments will always support science; it is silly to not do that. That is not the same as providing a permanent welfare slush fund for those who are quite happy to be supported on the backs of others.
And incidently, I feel the same way about corporate welfare recipients; who greedily grab for taxpayer grants to fund their pet dreams, that rational financial investors wouldn’t touch.
Bottom line is; nothing that is revealed in this hack job, serves to justify what these intruders have done; well with the disclaimer, that that is my opinion. You see I don’t have a price, for which I can be had; those that do can live with it.
Riiiiiiiiiight. Time to send in the “clean-up crew” (the cleaners as it were) eh Iscariot?
Or, should we call you ‘Baghdad Bob’, maybe ‘Comical Ali’ perhaps??
Do your more restrained compadres Joel Shore or Phil Clarke have a ‘take’ on all this too?
.
.
I’m sure that many of you have already figured this out, but if you sort the emails/.txts by name it puts them in chronological order. 0826209667 starts at Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:41:07 and 1258053464 ends it on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44.
I like when Mike Mann warns Phil Jones about what he forwards to Andy Revkin:
“p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like
”
I wonder what Andy will think when he finds out his buddy Mike doesn’t trust him!
Well I thought email 1255550975 was quite interesting:
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
>
> Tom Wigley wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
>> relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
>> ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
>>
>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
>>
>> These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
>>
>> Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of
>> warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
>> agree with this.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
>>> are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
>>> two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
>>> The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
>>> smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was
>>> about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
>>> canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
>>> weather).
>>>
>>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
>>> tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
>>> Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
>>>
>>> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>>>
>>> The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
>>> moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published
>>> in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
>>> more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
>>> inadequate.
>>>
>>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC
>>> are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with
>>> ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real
>>> PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the
>>> switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for
>>> first time since Sept 2007. see
>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
>>>
Ok downloaded, scanned, read a couple of emails. This is genuine as….. no doubt about it.
I’m thinking it’s authentic. I suppose someone associated with the Team could be playing an elaborate trick on skeptics and luke-warmers, but why invest all that effort and to what end? I suppose there could be a Merry Prankster among the dullards there, but I doubt it.
If it is authentic, I doubt you will find manufactured bogus material. Seems to me that the person(s?) doing this has a clear purpose and would not compromise the full product by altering documents for affect.
On the one hand (as Le Carre points out), topicality is always suspect. But on the other hand, topicality is a direct draw . . .
A long time ago, I adopted the assumption that every email I wrote was a permanent and public document. It is amazing what people will candidly confess on email.
I have the same md5 hash as W. Earl Allen (17:19:02), namely
da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 FOI2009.zip
Or comment in hallways, eh, Dr. Deming? (Har! Har!)
I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve been forwarding this link and a summary (Phil Jone’s email) to politicians, radio announcers and newpapers all lunchtime.
Hopefully something will get stirred up 🙂
“Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH landN of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”
“The latter two are real for 1999”
Well, at least the latter two for 1999 are real… that’s integrity, right?
I feel sorry for these guys, they were just trying to game the system, right?
Who can blame them for trying to profit from AGW, Gore and Soros are doing it, right? We are all being too hard on these guys, if their fake data gets us off evil oil won’t it all have been worthwhile? Besides, this is the last gasp for Global Socialism and these guys are doing their part to bring a collective paradise to planet earth… All in all, these few are heroes… (sarc off)
Mike Bryant…
*****************
Brian (16:44:55) :
This story damages the credibility of wattsupwiththat.com.
********************
People keep saying this, but it is BS. In the case where game-changing information is involved – shoot first, ask questions later. Right now it is more important to get it into the public. It will be parsed beyond belief later.
Has anyone told James Inhofe?
Steve S. (17:50:58) :
[…] Anyone advising the removal of numbers etc is being rather silly.
Unless that is your professional opinion as an attorney practicing in this area, I stand by the recommendation to redact names and numbers until such a professional opinion is obtained.
There are a lot of speculators out there like George Soros and GE and Al Gore that have a lot at stake betting that the world will go green on climate change. This has got to have caused huge historic earthquakes in their plans to benefit financially from the Cap and Trade schemes worldwide. This will most likely be the undoing of the AGW trade.
I cannot get onto Climate Audit. Very busy perhaps.
in reading the e-mails off of this comments section it seems to me that the text is too obvious. i.e (sarc) dear mike, i think we are exaggerating the warming too much with these bogus graphs so lets tone it down” sincerely, keith
I will be the happiest guy on this cooling planet if its real tho…
Furthernore, it is WUWT that is at risk by posting names and addresses, not the individual readers posting that info.
I downloaded a copy onto my Linux system. I don’t have time
or inclination to look too deeply. A couple things though.
The full set of .pdf files:
tux:FOIA> find . -name ‘*.pdf’ -print
./documents/080222_ZMZeng_Inputs.pdf
./documents/SOAP/SOAP-proposal-briffa-osborn.pdf
./documents/idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf
./documents/Extreme2100.pdf
./documents/osborn-tree3/declineseries.pdf
./documents/osborn-tree6/summer_modes/briffafig_page1.pdf
./documents/osborn-tree6/summer_modes/briffafig_page2.pdf
./documents/communicating_cc.pdf
./documents/hadcrut3_gmr+defra_report_200503.pdf
./documents/CRU-sr-external-input.pdf
./documents/CRU-COF_Report.pdf
./documents/ADAM second-order draft.pdf
./documents/tdutch.pdf
./documents/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
./documents/080214_SUNYA_draft.pdf
./documents/defra.pdf
./documents/MannHouseReply.pdf
Anthony and WUWT don’t get much attention, I guess the Team reacts
the same way as we do at RC. The only Watts reference is really
more about general chatting, but kind of interesting general
chatting.
(I deleted Email and phone links and other sundry stuff and somewhat
reformatted to reduce wordwrapping):
tux:mail> cat 1245943185.txt
From: Michael Mann
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Skeptics
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:19:45 -0400
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
Hi Phil,
well put, it is a parallel universe. irony is as you note, often the
contrarian arguments are such a scientific straw man, that an effort
to address them isn’t even worthy of the peer-reviewed literature!
mike
On Jun 25, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Just spent 5 minutes looking at Watts up. Couldn’t bear it any
longer – had to stop!. Is there really such a parallel universe out
there? I could understand all of the words some commenters wrote –
but not in the context they used them.
It is a mixed blessing. I encouraged Tom Peterson to do the
analysis with the limited number of USHCN stations. Still hoping
they will write it up for a full journal article.
Problem might be though – they get a decent reviewer who will say
there is nothing new in the paper, and they’d be right!
Cheers
Phil
At 15:53 24/06/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Phil–thanks for the update on this. I think your read on this is
absolutely correct. By the way, “Watts up” has mostly put
“ClimateAudit” out of business. a mixed blessing I suppose.
talk to you later,
mike
On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin,
Good to see you, if briefly, at NCAR on Friday. The day went
well, as did the dinner in the evening.
It must be my week on Climate Audit! Been looking a bit and Mc
said he has no interest in developing an alternative global T
series. He’d also said earlier it would be easy to do. I’m 100%
confident he knows how robust the land component is.
I also came across this on another thread. He obviously likes
doing these sorts of things, as opposed to real science. They are
going to have a real go at procedures when it comes to the
AR5. They have lost on the science, now they are going for the
process.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology
503 Walker Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [3]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[4]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
If this turns out to be real I can just imagine all those guys saying:
“It’s all Al Gores fault. He invented the internet.”
“A FORMER shipbuilding firm has expressed an interest in buying the Exeter-based Met Office, it has emerged.”
“But a union representing more than 1,250 Met Office staff insists that the agency is not for sale, saying privatisation had previously been dismissed as ‘unworkable’.”
“How can a centre that is a key contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be privatised and still be expected to provide impartial, objective information?”
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/VT-Group-says-interested-Met-Office/article-1529365-detail/article.html
How can it now?
so these guys may be buffoons, so what? Is there science buffoonery?
Leo G
Gotta just love that objective organ of The Truth- the BBC.
You’ve been informed that cockermouth is rather floody and that the bastion of Climatic Catastrophe has just been ‘hacked!
You’re going with cockermouth and dissing the big story- bejasus, I’m really peed off that real-people are going through Hell tonight and, I know, that no amount of sympathy can compensate for their pain.
BBC, stop this selective nonsense that allows straining at gnats in preference to allowing the easy alimentary progress of camels!
Throw out the spinners, resurrect the values and those who valued the values and made the corporation the envy of the world
Wow!!!. I am again dazzled with the collective knowledge of the posters at WUWT. fm
This is absolutely real. There is no way to fake it. Hadley CRU are the Enron of science. Let’s hope they go down.
The content is exactly as one would expect. It isn’t surprising or shocking.
Bolding mine. From 1139521913.txt:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go
there personally, but so I’m informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d
like us to include.
You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…
mike
Re: George E. Smith (17:53:08)
I agree with your opinion to a point, but I also view the material that has been made public as just that; public. My understanding of what I have read so far is that all of the material is covered under FOIA. For that matter it was all made possible by spending taxpayer money.
However, it does make me uncomfortable prying into other people’s personal correspondence.
Unzip on an old computer you don’t use anymore.
If this is in the public domain then it doesn’t matter what Anthony Watts posts here. It’s public. These people are toast because the other scientists will run for cover torching each other. I can guarantee you there are many professional climatologists that will have their work discredited by this release. All you have to do is show the email cc list to each recipient and ask Whats this about? Now as for the data well the not for government grant crowd of scientists are hard at work looking over the data and comparing it with the publications, interactional data with say IPCC, and other releases now and in the past. I’m sure we will being seeing many many “gotcha” obvious fabrications and cherry picking to support the mantra mass hysteria of AGW. Commenters need to jump to the bottom line and look for any direct connections to government officials that might prove a direct link. I doubt there are many but if the data is false then the story must be false or at the very least greatly exaggerated. I wonder if this could be payback to the SOROS crowd for breaking the Russian Rubble? Just a thought.
George E. Smith (17:53:08) :
“…nothing that is revealed in this hack job, serves to justify what these intruders have done…”
George, if I have been remiss in posting on your blog and telling you how much I appreciate your efforts and point of view, forgive me, please but I really do. We agree on a lot. But not this. In my IT days I devoted considerable effort to keeping snoopers out of sensitive files…. but I was not above monitoring transactions when I suspected that my principals were being cheated. At one customer site I felt compelled to create a transaction register to document where material was disappearing…. sure enough, there was over $5 million of unaccounted for material. Management didn’t want to know.
In this case, I am management and I do want to know. I was willing to tell my principals what I’d done and what I’d found. I expect the hacker to do the same. Keith Briffa and his colleagues are committing crimes against humanity. God forbid we should violate their constitutional rights in exposing them.
Mike Abbott (18:19:41) :
“Furthernore, it is WUWT that is at risk by posting names and addresses, not the individual readers posting that info.”
Not necessarily true, as several legal problems encountered by other Internet sites evidence. WUWT is moderated, plus the claim of offending material in a post originates with an individual not affilitated with WUWT is not an ultimate defense. Anthony could be posting under an alias. WUWT could be “audited” at the least.
And it doesn’t matter how many violations of privacy have occured on the net. Each one is a violation, unless the person(s) themselves willingly provide that information.
Good old Phil….
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc: Ben Santer
Tom,
I’ll look at what you’ve said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don’t know the other panel members. I’ve not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
Shouldn’t certain individuals cited in these exchanges perhaps be placed on (academic) suicide watch, or something to that effect?
Sort of like, “Please put your hands above your head where we can see them; please advise us where you keep the keys to the building/your office; please back away slowly from that computer terminal; you have the right to remain silent; anything you say may ….; etc.; etc.”
If real, shocking and in need of a special prosecutor both in the U.K. and here in the U.S.
I see “peer review” written all over this … as in a Monckton peer review?
I verified the md5 hash of the zip file on another computer:
da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 FOI2009.zip
md5sum.exe for windows can be found in various places on the internet, if you run linux you probably already know how to use it. If anyone downloads a zip file with a different hash please post the location of the new file here so we can figure out what changed.
Tom in Texas (14:08:37) :
“And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.”
******************************************
Where do you see this statement?
This does not look like a hoax from what i have seen so far. It could of course be seeded with a few fake emails like some mentioned but most seems to be real. It would have taken alot of effort and a whole lot of time to fake something like this.
It looks legit but I would hesitate to download copies of the file from sites you are not familiar with. It won’t be long before some huckster uses that file name as a lure to get someone to download something, uhm, unsavory.
Folks, this is real and Cru will do nothing about it. To do so would only expose themselves even worse. They have been caught, period, in playing politics versus reporting science. I have said for 2 years now that AGW is not unlike the financial crisis caused by liar loans and the like. To hell with them.
Crosspatch: note my previous posts on md5sum. Everyone else, I strongly recommend downloading a copy of md5sum from somewhere trustworthy (or better blow away windows and install linux!) Run the sum on any file you download and make sure it matches the one I posted.
Molon Labe (18:29:54)
“Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through”
They are being very careful right now….no new comments on anything in hours. I doubt they feel very comfortable sending emails across the pond.
Is this what you call a Maalox Moment for these guys?
Something tells me these guys are busy consulting their lawyers and barristers right about now
The message posted with the file is:
“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents”
This does not appear to be written by someone whose first language is English. The grammer and syntax is all wrong. There is no way someone with limited command of English could have “faked” the above emails. Could this be the Russian government, attempting to put an end to the debate once and for all. They certainly have much to gain.
To easily read the .txt files use this program,
GetDIz
Install warning, uncheck the last 3 boxest that change your browser and search to Ask.com and install the Ask.com toolbar.
Reply: This is not endorsed by WUWT. Install at your own risk. ~ ctm
Rereke Whakaaro (14:37:56) :
“This has the smell of misinformation to me. It is all too convenient and laid-out on a plate.
Most cyber attacks are opportunistic and against soft targets. I doubt that CRU has gaping holes in their security systems, precisely because they fear the risk of attack from people wanting access their data. If the base information is real, then it would be a sophisticated attack. But for what purpose?”
Hypothetically speaking someone who reads this site may be employed by, or related to or friends with someone who is employed by, an agency of the British government that scoffs at the idea of CRU’s network being secure, and has been motivated by the MP scandals this past year to do their part to clean house for queen and country.
I personally have employed a half dozen people at various times in the past year who could have cracked that network like a nut. CRU is NOT a secure network, particularly it isn’t secure against people with higher clearance. There are people, like Lord Monkton, and people loyal to he and his party, who did what needed doing.
One thing I’ve learned in politics is that smoke ALWAYS means fire. ALWAYS.
More of the worst will come when the particpants start pointing fingers like individuals in a band of caught thieves.
adam I was thinking the exact same thing to myself…
previously posted fingerprint: da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 FOI2009.zip
my check: da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 *FOI2009.zip
looks to be the same by my meager analysis! 🙂
“John in NZ (18:15:40) :
Has anyone told James Inhofe?”
————-
A link to this story has been up at Climate Depot for hours. You can bet that the first person Marc Morano would have contacted is Senator Inhofe.
This is very exciting. We are right on the cusp of things now here in Australia because the government (with a supine leader of the opposition) is determined to pass an ETS next week.
I hope this serves to give them pause.
There are loads of other planets to try Global Socialism on. Meanwhile… we’ll always have Cuba.
Would it be too offensive (and pass moderation) [snip. To answer your two questions. Yes and No. ~ ctm]
Folks,
I really want to believe that what’s now in the wild is genuine and unedited. The reason I want to believe this is that so many of the partisans named in the e-mails I’ve seen posted in comments (haven’t looked at the .zip) have so brutally abused my BS detectors over the last few years. Making press releases ahead of journal publications, stonewalling on data and method transparency and giving nonsense answers to reasoned and valid criticism have, for quite some time now, had the Scotsman in Engineering calling me saying “Captain, the BS detectors ‘r nah gonna take this much lunger!”.
Unfortunately (for at least me I suppose), what I’ve seen of this event to date is setting off those same BS detectors in a big way. Call me naïve, but I simply can’t imagine that folks as smart and determined (if not principled on the face of the evidence prior to this event) as the named Team members would engage in e-mail discussions as presented.
I can buy arrogance (just from a regular read of RC), but the utter stupidity instantiated in the e-mail samples I’ve seen so far makes me instantly skeptical.
Tread cautiously on this.
All of that said, I hope my BS detectors are malfunctioning as a consequence of previous abuse 🙂
OA
It’s nice that someone has dropped a big comb of honey onto this ants’ nest. But all of the inside chatter in these emails, revealing though it may be to those lapping it up, won’t mean a thing to the average news reporter, media outlet, and the public in general.
What’s needed is a panel of unimpeachable individuals (i.e. no one named in this data drop) who can go through the file, vouch for its authenticity, and issue a quick white paper explaining its implications.
The media are clueless. They need to be helped to understand the significance of—
CLIMATEGATE! LEAK OF SECRET EMAILS SHOWS TOP CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ENGAGED IN MASSIVE FRAUD! GLOBAL WARMING WAS HOAX DESIGNED TO ENRICH POLITICIANS AND RESEARCHERS!
/Mr Lynn
This bluntly explains file 0939154709.txt:
http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg
Does the material include the raw temperature data that Stephen McIntyre has been chasing ?
1067542015.txt
Are they talking about what I think they are talking about?
Guys,
So the verification RE for the “censored” NH mean reconstruction? -6.64
The verification RE for the original MBH98 NH mean reconstruction: 0.42
I think the case is really strong now!
What if were to eliminate the discussion of all the other technical details (and just
say they exist), and state more nicely that these series were effectively censored by
their substitutions, and that by removing those series which they censored, I get a
similar result, with a dismal RE.
And most people would keep the RE of 0.42 over the RE of -6, right? So this would make
that point. I think we also need to say something about the process, etc. (the intro was
based on something that Malcolm/Ray had originally crafted).
Thoughts, comments? Thanks,
mike
I’m thinking of a note saying basically this, and attaching this figure.
Could everybody sign on to something like this?
Thanks for all your help,
mike
Has anyone considered the potential financial fallout from this if it turns out to be legit? A lot of major corporations have hung their hat on AGW.
adam (19:06:42) :
ChrisinMB (19:13:21) :
Doesn’t look too dissimilar to OK English-style English to me. I doubt that a Russian would use the word “Hereby” and the phrase “kept under wraps” is an English idiom. So I guess I disagree with your first point but, having read many of the e-mails, etc., there’s no way the bulk of this could be faked. NO snipping way.
I’m going to go easy on the moles in my yard now, for the rest of the year at least.
I’m having trouble on the download on a stupid Vista System and an XP 64.
Vista goes to 59 MB and says, “Out of space” Nonsense, there’s 70 GB left on
the C drive.
My XP 64 doesn’t direct to real websites. “Error Opening” the website.
Anyone got another FTP?
Reply: File is gone/taken down now. I’m sure there will be other places to get it soon. ~ ctm
Any emails to or from Al Gore?
Dr. Burns: McIntyre won’t use any data obtained in this way. Not his MO.
Indiana Bones (19:17:49) :
“There are loads of other planets to try Global Socialism on. Meanwhile… we’ll always have Cuba.”
Bones, you clearly didn’t see the cover of Algores new book, Cuba is underwater!
For all those concerned about viruses and trojans hidden within the files – download a copy of VirtualBox, and an Ubuntu Live cd, and review the files within a virtual machine – that way, any malicious trojans/viruses hiding inside the files – even if they did run on Linux – would only be “damaging” whatever’s running inside the virtual machine.
Regards.
(now back to restoring my website ASAP – I lost all my data in a massive server crash which totalled my sites and my wife’s, and took my email server down with it – ugh)
I’m worried that Climate Audit website is getting overloaded with viewers and is struggling….do you think it might be worth asking people to leave it be unless analysing the data?
Were these guys getting paid by someone while they altered records? Is this the work they were getting paid for, or did they misuse funds?
I haven’t read all comments, but it seems the warmers are not showing up in the thread tonight…. odd…. or not.
tucker (17:36:41) :
“I wonder if this is the imfamous Tom P of CA fame?? Hmm”
There’s two Toms in the archive, one is Tom Peterson, who I think is Tom P.
Thomas C Peterson of NCDC perhaps? He appears to be the Team’s defensive debunker. Here’s another example of his work: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/As_Earth_Cools.pdf
Ric Werme (18:23:43) :
“…It is a mixed blessing. I encouraged Tom Peterson to do the
analysis with the limited number of USHCN stations…”
LOL! The infamous “Tom P” got mentioned.
the ftp site does not have the file anymore. anyone have a link. i want to get this on a torrent asap
adam (19:06:42) : ChrisinMB (19:13:21) :
Re syntax and first language. I wouldn’t be so sure. I’ve seen similar usage by native English speakers. The grammar is slightly archaic, but still well within parameters for a native speaker.
“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents”
It’s very English, English if you catch my drift.
philincalifornia: What we need is Russian language teacher. A less skilled Russian writer of English might construct a sentence in Russian, and simply swap out Russian words for English ones. So, the syntax and grammer would be of a Russian construction. We would also expect to see the use of words which a native English speaker might find awkward (remember how your grade school English teacher might write “awk” in red on your essay).
The “in the current situation” clause just dosen’t fit (not to mention the incorrect spelling “correspondance”). Now, of course, a native English speaker could construct a “foreign-sounding” English sentence…
Fellow WUWT readers, attorneys licensed in the USA cannot give legal advice on a forum such as this. We can, however, read the postings and the comments. I cannot speak to what attorneys from other nations can or cannot do.
All of this is extremely interesting!
Anyone know what time zone RC’s comments are on? The last ones on the most recent thread were prior to 6pm today, and there seemed to be posts every several minutes leading up to that point. So it seems unusual that the commenting would’ve suddenly stopped for hours if that were 6pm Eastern. The commenting was going on pretty steadling well beyond “6pm” last night (longest break by far was 2am to 5:36am).
Is that a sign that they started sh!tting bricks and are letting everything sit in the moderation queue whilst they scramble to put out fires?
This sounds like a “get rid of the MWP,” I hope it’s just a what if
speculation/exploration that might lead to research directions.
tux:mail> cat 1254108338.txt
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
***************************
***************************
“Police ID fear after Met website is hacked”Cops fear hackers may have stolen the personal details of hundreds of officers.”
At first Scotland Yard thought it was just a prank when a picture of Brobee, from children’s TV show Yo Gabba Gabb, was posted by hackers on the recruitment website http://www.metcareers.com last month.
But a security review found the site was linked to two Met databases containing job applications and personal details.
A source said: “This information would be very useful for identity fraudsters and almost priceless to criminals.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/03/24/police-id-fear-after-met-website-is-hacked-115875-20361045/
“I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.” – Ben Santer
FWIW: Don’t know if this is related — not a scientist or aware of inside info.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
FOIA over at Climate Skpetic has had his(or her) site pulled down.
Clearly our AGW friends are not going to change form and actually cooperate with open disclosure.
Are there any other sites of this interesting archive?
Bill Marsh (18:53:03) :
Where do you see this statement?
Bill, Steven was the first to break this story on CA. Below is his comment:
101 steven mosher:
November 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Found this on the airVent.
Posted on Lucia. This is huge.
Lucia,
Found this on JeffIds site.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.c…..en-letter/
It contains over 1000 mails. IF TRUE …
1 mail from you and the correspondence that follows.
And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.
And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia
And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain..
you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy.
you get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you
get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect.
I don’t know that its real..
But the CRU code looks real
This file may be either highly significant, or a deliberate ruse to throw off the climate realists. There is no way of telling which it is, but the one thing we should do is to not go overboard in analyzing the material in the file. There are a lot of bright people that frequent this site and I’m sure a good fraction of them have downloaded the zip file either through the Russian server or bittorrent. Lets say that we want to allocate 1/8 of the brainpower that reads WUWT on a daily basis to a detailed analysis of this file. To determine whether any one particular person should do this, throw a coin 3 times. If 3 heads come up then dive into the file and spend most of your time on it. It you don’t get 3 heads then by all means download the file but leave it sitting on hour hard drive in case you need it. As my coin toss resulted in 3 tails I won’t be spending much time on the file aside from the 15 minutes or so already spent perusing the contents.
For those who suspect that there is too much data in this file for it to be artificially created, remember that the AGW proponents have budgets in the Billions. The file is large enough, though, to waste serious amounts of wetware time if everybody decides they have to do an in depth analysis of it. So I’m sitting this one out and I’ll leave it up to Anthony to decide how much time we should spend on this file. Whatever fraction it turns out to be it should be a power of 2 so people can determine if they’re going to be working on it or not with a simple series of coin tosses.
One concern I have is about file dates as has already been mentioned by David Thompson in that all the files in the mail folder have date 1/1/2009 00:00. This appears to be have been artificially set. Also, in the documents folder only 2 files have dates later than 1/1/2009 and a number of files have no date associated with them. Perhaps the file date on email files would potentially identify someone who leaked the data or, depending on the system the file date comes from, the hexadecimal representation of file date may be of significance.
Hi,
The zipfile contains a trojan named Win32.Agent.wsg
read about it here and what to do about it if your computer
have been infected.
Link!? Come on people, let this spead, chuck up a torrent or something
I’ve just managed to download from the originally posted site (from NZ) and get the same md5sum value as what been previously posted here.
It’s all pretty exciting, hopefully its not just some elaborate ruse where all the team members are sitting back and chuckling over their beers watching the ’skeptics’ fall over themselves with it…
In the emails there are a number of appalling comments in the emails regarding the Soon and Baliunas paper published in Climate Research in 2003. The crux of the comments seems to be the formulation of a plan or informal conspiracy to keep skeptics from publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Just appalling. In the future, this will be a classic study for psychologists as to what happens when people only talk to people they agree with.
#1047388489
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
#1047390562
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
#1051156418
“This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on)…. deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).”
#1051190249
“Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.”
#1051230500
“Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications? – and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do make their way through the peer review process?”
“I’m not providing the filename or sender’s name because I do not know if the documents are real or not. As others are saying, we need to be careful because these documents may be manufactured plants. However, if the one I quoted from is real, it provides possible evidence of felony tax evasion by ‘someone.’ ”
That’s from Mike Abbott, who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
It sounds very much like a felony (in the US), but the crime would not be tax evasion but conspiracy to evade the money-laundering reporting statute.
None of Abbott’s other posts have any better claim to anybody’s attention than that one, either.
Everyone else has had a go at this, so, me too, I guess. I’m in the ‘the emails are in the main genuine, but may have been altered’ camp at the moment. If they’re fake, any one of the original unaltered emails will suffice as proof. If these weren’t for some reason forthcoming, other validations might be along the lines of copying the text into Word and then changing the dictionary language to see what it gets excited about. E.g. changing it from US to Australian English will show if a native of one has edited the text of another as there are lots of specific differences. The spelling of Gaol and Jail (where the hockey team are headed) just one example.
“This is absolutely real. There is no way to fake it.”
Indeed. No one hides a lamp under a basket.
I’ve put it up on RapidShare:
http://rapidshare.com/files/309496568/FOI2009.zip.html
10 downloads only, MD5 is correct.
I have it and have started wading through docs.
This spreadsheet appears legit pdj_grant_since1990.
Created 15/5/06.
Mr Jones has certainly been on a good thing.
Nisse,
What file is infected? NIS2010 (latest pulse updates etc) finds nothing.
Neil
~ctm: Understood! Reverting to the vernacular does have its drawbacks.
However, I would imagine that, at this very moment, a number of fair-minded MSM enviro-journalists around the globe are drafting some serious copy for their publications’ upcoming production schedules.
“Behavior: Backdoor Trojan
Backdoor Trojans provide the author or hacker with remote-administration of victim machines. Backdoor Trojans can be instructed to send, receive, execute and delete files, harvest confidential data from the computer, log activity on the computer and more.
Platform: This malware is a Windows PE EXE file.
Systems Affected: Windows 2000, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows XP
”
http://www.nictasoft.com/viruslib/virus_description.php?virus_id=Backdoor.Win32.Agent.wsg
John Anderson- I too, was outraged by this John L. Daly was an E-mail Friend.
I’d E-mail Weather Tidbits from Coos Bay,Oregon,when I lived there.We remarked how similar the Climate of Hobart and Coos Bay were.Talked about boating and maritime issues,too great man but these ‘men’ aren’t
May this whole thing bring coals of fire on their heads…..
From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
Cheers
Phi
There is no doubt about it being real.
And hey they seem to be peering into other peoples email too. Here:
From: Tim Osborn
To: “Phil Jones” ,”Keith Briffa”
Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:12:53 +0000
and a whole lot of emails from “Sonja.B-C”
>Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:58:06 +0000 >To: Steve McIntyre
and back and forth
I strongly disagree with dumping other people’s emails on the web, regardless of the topic. Anything illegal, tip off the authorities, but email should be respected as much as regular mail.
If you believe a file to be infected submit it online at VirusTotal for analysis by all major AV software at the same time.
it would be interesting to break these down and read them in chronological order. that might provide some insight as events unfold over time. also need to weed out “fluff” from actual discussion of techniques, data, etc, which could be used to invalidate any studies.
shouldn’t be too difficult to substantiate authenticity, as many of these emails involved multiple recipients, and verification is straightforward once access is obtained. Not that this will be easy…
one would think that when faced with, at best embarrassing, or at worst damning accusations, the culprits would be forced to either produce documents or be cast out.
at least “they” will be in defensive mode for a while. although the general tendency will be to simply close ranks, declare it all fiction, and attempt to wait it out, it will be difficult for them to just ignore it, especially if a major media outlet or politicians run with it.
overall, I think this is a positive development for skeptics and will be a difficult time for alarmists.
“The zipfile contains a trojan named Win32.Agent.wsg”
I detected none. What file within the zip is it?
Did you use Spybot? It is known to cause false positives of this sometimes.
I’d be careful posting these Anthony. You might be getting punked or some of the files and emails may have been tampered with.
Be cautious. I like this site. Whenever I visit it, I get a dose of common sense and reality.
Does anyone remember a WUWT item posted on 26 07 09?
“Deep Cool” – the Mole within Hadley CRU”
“As some WUWT readers may have learned from reading Climate Audit, an anonymous source deep within Hadley CRU has provided Steve McIntyre a copy of a data file he has been seeking but has had his FOI requests to Hadley seeking the same file, rebuked.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/26/deep-cool-the-mole-within-hadley-cru/
If the leaked information is genuine then might this person not be your culprit?
Just wondering.
Jimbo
Reply: The mole in that case was Phil Jones himself who left the information on an anonymous ftp server. ~ ctm
I have not read all of the posts. Maybe someone said already ….
A linguistics expert with the right software could take these emails and compare them with known emails from the main players and determine if these “hacked” emails are real or faked. Every author has a unique linguistics style that experts can detect and compare.
My heart wants this story to be true. My brain says that it is an epic hoax.
Drum roll.
ChrisinMB (20:17:09) :
“The zipfile contains a trojan named Win32.Agent.wsg”
Thats wrong. There is no trojan
Nisse
Win32.Agent.wsg is a common false positive fir virus scanners. What file is reporting it?
See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&newwindow=1&q=Win32.Agent.wsg+false+positive&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
We are NOT being punked. This is the real deal. Nobody would go to this effort to replicate 13 years of emails from a server.
This is part of an FOIA response that someone who is part of the FOIA process has leaked or purposely put in the public domain to ensure it is it is thoroughly aired.
Sure is a lot of stuff.
Win32.Agent.wsg is a know Spybot Search and Destroy file.
Yes, there could be some fake emails or phrases but these will be harmless unless people start claiming every word is the absolute truth. Which they won’t with ctm on guard.
Every quote is an invitation for those mentioned to declare it fake.
I have done some basic word analysis and find no clear wording similarities and the email style seems to have certain characteristic specific to each person… This doesnt address whether the emails may have been tampered with or added to, but its an indication that they are unlikely to have been written by the same person…unless they are a real professional and has thought of everything.
Characteristics:
Phil Jones: Cheering news, McKittrick, Trick, annual, According, overrides, another, cherry picked, additional, omitting, supplementary, Little difference, expected, millennial, robust, otherwise, similarly, instumental, building, a head of steam, odder, stressed, bother, ignored.
Ending – Cheers
Michael M : assault, preferred, affiliation, ASAP, extremely disappointing, say about this, formerly, Phil, submitted, category, timeframe, rather, earlier, memo.
Ending – Thanks in advance
Tom wigley: Speculations, plot, deliberately, blip, vice versa, adjustment, consistent, noted, currently, probably, stuff, skeptics, urban warming, important
Ending – Name
I think we can safely rule out it ALL being made up
“it would be interesting to break these down and read them in chronological order.”
They are in order…the email file names with the lowest number were the earlier ones…higher numbers are later. I think the numbers corispond to some sort of archiving system. They are talking about it over at Climate Audit.
If I were Senator Inhofe, I might want to ask a few questions during a special session of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
You know, like four or five hundred questions, under oath, over the course of, say, six weeks.
Glory be to God.
If there is Fortran code in the .zip, has anyone with the time / software / inclination had time to look at that as well? Harder to fake than emails, but might have some interesting comments on how data is treated (or manipulated to achieve desired results) possibly. Could be an interesting angle on this situation.
Looking forward to seeing how this story evolves …..
“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents”
Take it from an Englishman, there’s nothing wrong with that English.
BTW, the zip file shows clean, but some scanners can occasionally report a non existent Trojan.
Here’s one from From:
To: k.briffaxxxx
Subject: No Subject
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 10:09:48 +0400 (MSD)
on trwcrn.rwm
Tree-ring widths (TRW) chronology:
… a whole lot of data and then:
Abstract:
Regional tree-ring chronology with extension 2209 years (since
212 B.C. till 1996 A.D.) was built for the east of Taymir
according to wood of living trees, well preserved residues of dead
trees and semi-fossil wood from alluvial bank deposits by the
cross-dating method. In addition the “floading” tree-ring width
chronology for the period of Holocene Optimum (3300-2600 B.C.)
was built with extention 685 years and supported by several
rdiocarbon dates. ….Temperature dynamics in the eastern part of Taymir
for the last two millenia agrees well with temperature variations
in the northern hemisphere obtained according to other indirect
sources. The warming of the middle of the 20-th century is not
extraordinary. The more long in time, and close in amplitude the
warming at the border of the first and the second millennia was.
the email was from
why is the email address getting deleted?
Reply: Because I’m redacting that level of personal information. Should you try again your posts will be completely deleted. ~ charles the moderator.
All’s still silent at RC since about 6pm today (I assume Eastern…not too long after things started up here).
After watching the ufo phenomenon and ufology for a few years there is one thing I know: That if something seems too difficult to hoax, you are wrong.
Shame shame shame
Had they been cooperative over the last 4 years and shared some data, it wouldn’t be so nasty now.
Add this to the tree ring circus and we see they flushed the credibility down the toilet. This will make 5-6 people even more angry and hatefull. Real climate is still at this hour discussing trees.
I have added another copy for download
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T
British “civil servants” are famous or infamous really for leaving laptops of unencrypted sensitive information when they get off the bus or subway. It could have involved zero hacking, just picking up a lose laptop.
Henry chance (20:49:05), you might want to read my last few post. Real Climate isn’t dicussing anything “at this hour”…or a number of hours earlier. I’m wondering if the RC staff went into supreme panic mode, and any comments at RC have been stuck in the moderation queue since 6pm Eastern since there is nobody around to release them.
Little need to spend much time wondering how genuine they all are. Any of the messages which involve public institutions could be requested from the institution. If you get the same message directly from the institution, you know that specific message was genuine. Then you can spend energy on the message content and on wondering whether the others are genuine.
From Lucia on her site:
“Gavin emailed me out of the blue. He told me the link was down at JeffId’s. I’d taken a screen shot so I sent the screen shot to Gavin. I don’t know if Gavin’s efforts led to getting the link down, or if that .ru server is down due to the link going viral. I mean…even though the link is not posted, do you have any idea how many people must be slamming that server?”
loki:
You are concerned that “all the files in the mail folder have date 1/1/2009 00:00.” This kind of thing can happen when the files are transferred from one computer to another. It happened to me once when I got a new computer in my office and I moved all my e-mail history to the new computer. Very annoying!
I am not stating that this is the case here, but it is not necessarily an indication of forgery.
Mike Abbott (18:16:20) :
My point about “Anyone advising the removal of numbers etc is being rather silly.” was in context of the futility of it.
Why should anyone take the time to redact the when it’s traveling fast and furious around the globe. They’d be the very few who did so and for zero reason but for presuming legal advise was needed
And what might that professional opinion be and more importantly how much would it cost?
My laymen’s advise is to have everyone post and spread the full content everywhere and let the lawyers try and sue us all.
Extraordinary. Things are really heating up!
If this proves not to be a hoax, it may have been released by one of the main actors in the play whose conscious was getting the best of him – best way to relieve the guilty conscious is to get it all out there so to speak & stop living a lie. Not too dis-similar from Jimbo (20:20:36) : & the reply that it was Phil Jones that released the data via anon. ftp
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY
A friend put the file up as a torrent..
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206
At 02:38 PM 9/14/98 -0700, Jonathan T. Overpeck wrote:
“Talking specifically about Jasper, it is interesting that the 20th century is as warm or warmer than everything in the last 1000 years EXCEPT before ca. 1110 AD.”
From: Keith Briffa
To: “Jonathan T. Overpeck” , p.jones@xxx, mann@xxx rbradley@xxx, drdendro@xxx coleje@sxxx Brian Luckman
Subject: Re: climate of the last millennia…
Date: Tue Oct 6 13:38:33 1998
“So don’t put much faith in the early warmth. We have devised a simple method of scaling down the variance in average series to take account of the inflated variance that occurs when a reduced number of series are averaged – such as at the start of this chronology .”
Reply: Stop that or I will simply start deleting. From now on. Everyone is on notice. ~ ctm
The ftp site is down. The rapidshare copy has reached a max number of downloads. Can someone post a working URL for the files please. Thanks.
could this be the work of “Deep Cool” – the Mole within Hadley CRU that send Steve the data he was looking for??
This needs to stop being reported as the work of a hacker. Looks like a leak to me.
I could take a look at the fortran code. I’ve been learning F77 for a few weeks now.
So if this is a hack job at Hadley how come it appears to be compiled for a US Freedom of Information Act request?
I am not questioning the legitimacy of the content, just trying to narrow down the true source.
I think it was james bond, he always saves the day
I read this site daily. The new (obscure) poster’s seem to be coming out of the woodwork on this subject! Quite interesting.
[quote]They are in order…the email file names with the lowest number were the earlier ones…higher numbers are later. I think the numbers corispond to some sort of archiving system.[/quote]
It’s UNIX time. You can convert those numbers to a “normal date”.
Is there a single common person (e.g., Phil Jones) for the emails or do they appear to come from indendent sources? My guess is the latter since some includes lucia’s email exchanges with Gavin. If so then can someone explain how these got bundled? I can’t imagine how it was done without leaving some kind of trail.
Is there an MP in the UK who is willing and able to take this on and force an investigation of what the public servants of the UK at CRU are doing?
There is too much speculation on here regarding the veracity of the e-mails.
FORGET ABOUT THE E-MAILS!
Concentrate on an analysis of the data files. Whenever a leak like this occurs, your first job is to check the veracity against known sources.
The e-mails are too convenient and, for now, irrelevant without comparison against the originals on Hadley CRU servers – which may never happen.
The emails can be denied as forgeries, the data cannot.
I say again, concentrate on the data files!
Thanks to those sharing the file – I appreciate it. I intend to d/l when I finish work and have a thorough read. From the snippets I have seen in the comments so far, it strikes me that these people spend an awful lot of time thinking up/discussing ways to minimise the impact of skeptics. What the hell does it matter to them what some blog person says about the climate? The fact that it does, concerns me… Not exactly giving me confidence in their ability to conduct objective research.
[Quote]Patrick G (21:16:49) :
There is too much speculation on here regarding the veracity of the e-mails.
FORGET ABOUT THE E-MAILS!
Concentrate on an analysis of the data files. Whenever a leak like this occurs, your first job is to check the veracity against known sources.
The e-mails are too convenient and, for now, irrelevant without comparison against the originals on Hadley CRU servers – which may never happen.
The emails can be denied as forgeries, the data cannot.
I say again, concentrate on the data files![/Quote]
Totally agree with this
If these emails are validated by a proper official investigation, then Phil Jones must go as director of CRU.
Looks like RC finally sent some comments through…none relevant to this issue!
This story, I believe, has gone viral.
Go do a search on “Hadley CRU hacked.”
The word is getting out fast.
The Examiner, The Herald, forums at Hannity’s site, and many many more.
Alarmists are about to reap the whirlwind for playing with fire.
The Fortran code looks legit. I doubt someone would have gone through the trouble of writing so much “realistic” code to enhance the credibility of a hoax.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T
I wish I could download this file. The original Russian link doesn’t work.
Some of the emails are without-a-question legitimate. I saw an email from I guy I know and he verified it was a real email he received from Tom Wigley. Steve M verified emails from him to these guys were real.
There may be some fakes, but the vast majority are surely real.
I am still skeptical, but am beginning to believe it may be real. Some have described this as an earthquake. But if this is really true, it is not an earthquake, nor a tsunami….this is SuperNova!!!!!
I can verify that at least one email is legitimate. It was a private conversation that we agreed to keep private. What I find most interesting is that this “private” conversation ended up with someone who was not part of the conversation.
“As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average subject/resident of the United Kingdom. The document suggests that it is a precis of a longer document housed at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs”
I did a quick scan of emails, documents, Fortran (.for .f90), and awk. IMO they are authentic. I compiled f77 files — they compile.
Mother lode.
There seems to be a lot of posters participating in this thread that I have not noticed posting to WUWT before. Just thinking here, but several posters have offered downloads of what they say is the original ftp file. Gavin, and likely the whole Team are alerted by now. There may be some involved here, at CA and the other sites discussing this hot potato, with other than obvious motives. I suggest caution and restraint.
I really feel for gavin at rc, I mean that, he’s been hoodwinked and that must be a bitter pill to swallow. He is, I believe, a genuine bloke and faithful unto death, until now.
They told you porkies mate, dunno the reasons why and it must hurt like hades but, as Winston S. Said – kbo!!
Sort it out, Gav
Ah, let the games begin.
And just before Copenhagen.
gtrip (21:11:14) :
“I read this site daily. The new (obscure) poster’s seem to be coming out of the woodwork on this subject! Quite interesting.”
No surpise though.
This number one science blog now get’s over 2 million visits per month now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/new-wuwt-milestone-2-million-hits-this-month/
Geo (21:20:53) :
“If these emails are validated by a proper official investigation, then Phil Jones must go as director of CRU.”
This is real and every one of the other particpants must go as well. Some of them to jail.
Possibly a data plant? A Honey Pot of sorts in order to discredit and attack those with opposing views? If not for the original data then whatever resides there now?
Hmm…
Megaupload link:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
It might be valuable to construct an email relationship web using the
To: and Cc: and From: and Bcc: fields of the emails.
It could be a directed cyclic graph with no information on the content
of the emails. The graph could be animated in time. Use something
like a 30 day running average to shown the number of bytes moving
between 2 nodes.
Analysis of and display of the flow of information might be enough to
convince a grand jury there is enough evidence of conspiracy to
start prosecution.
Overall this seems like a REALLY good data set to pass off to one of
the modern pattern finding tools used by law enforcement. These tools
_already have judicial notice_ and are designed to spot criminal
collusion or criminal conspiracies.
If this data set is real, some people either will, or should, be going
to jail. At this point, it looks too good to be true.
Who has already said this..again not reading all.
Is this a hoax done by alarmists … they will then claim was done by skeptics?
Oh the paranoia. ☺
I just uploaded the file here also:
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009
And true to form, the once mighty BBC ignores the story of the millenium, sticks fingers in ears and squeaks La, La We can’t hear you!
RIP, BBC and farewell.
Robert Wood of Canada (16:52:44) :
Roger Knights (16:44:30) :
Stop wasting your time. “Trick” has a meaning, and it is widely understood. You cannot undermine that.
I think there’s a chance that it was used in an idiosyncratic sense by insiders, as a sort of local slang. This can easily be determined, as I suggested, by doing a computerized search for the word in the files that have been obtained. If this usage is not found elsewhere, then the darker interpretation will be unavoidable. Until then, which should only be a week or two at most, let’s not rush to judgment. We have nothing to gain by doing so, and lots to lose.
erik (17:04:42) :
Another thought – it is possible that the perpetrator (hacker or insider) has not yet released everything. There could be more files yet to come …
Order another carton of popcorn!
We can only hope that climate scientists who have scruples will now understand the disingenuousness of these “leading lights” of their science, realize how much damage is being done to the credibility of their science, and shun them from science forever. We can hope they will re-examine their own science and realize how easy it has been to say “this looks like AGW,” but now realize good science demands they be more modest in admitting that there could be many possible explanations for their findings, not just AGW.
We can only hope these charlatan scientists (who no doubt truly believe in AGW, but who have clearly been willing to shade truth to support that belief) are brought into bright public scrutiny so that the entire AGW thesis can be shown to be just what it is: an unproven hypothesis.
The general public must turn their backs on AGW science and force politicians to abdandon their dreams of world domination through carbon taxes. So many believe in the “green religion,” it will be difficult for many to believe that mankind’s economic activity and rapidly improving lifestyle is not “bad” for our earth. They want to believe that increasing wealth is bad. They want to believe that using nature (whether farming, fishing, logging, mining) is bad. They cannot differentiate which activities are truly destructive (over-fishing) and which are not (petroleum extraction and use).
Despite what these documents imply and the impact they might have, there is a long, long way to go before the worldview that so many people have, which allows politicans to believe they have the support to tax our very breath, is changed.
I would like to read more of their emails. The FTP link is overwhelmed or the box melted.
This has to be a hoax.
If the outed information is genuine, it means some people on the inside don’t want to get thrown under the bus as the sacrificial lamb when it all comes crashing down. We may be seeing a “Deep Throat” in action, or a smokescreen to divert attention while the real crooks wash thier hands.
There’s some humour in there too, see here. Shows what the warmists spend their time doing…
Have to say, this story has made my year.
Cheers,
Simon
ACM
“We have to get rid of the warm medieval period” SAGA from Deep Cool
Mon, 24 Mar 2008
Hi Phil, Kevin, Mike, Susan and Ben – I’m looking for some IPCC-related advice, so thanks in advance. The email below recently came in and I googled “We have to get rid of the warm medieval period” and “Overpeck” and indeed, there is a person David Deeming that attributes the quote to an email from me. He apparently did mention the quote (but I don’t think me) in a Senate hearing. His “news” (often with attribution to me) appears to be getting widespread coverage on the internet. It is upsetting.
I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long ago, and that he’s taking the quote out of context, since know I would never have said what he’s saying I would have, at least in the context he is implying.
Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can imagine that it could take on a life of it’s own and that I might want to deal with it now, rather than later. I could – as the person below suggests – make a quick statement on a web site that the attribution to me is false, but I suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce a fake email. I would then say it’s fake. Or just ignore? Or something else?
I googled Deeming, and from the first page of hits got the sense that he’s not your average university professor… to put it lightly.
Again, thanks for any advice – I’d really like this to not blow up into something that creates grief for me, the IPCC, or the community. It is bogus.
Best, Peck
(The email referred to: Dear Dr Overpeck,
I recall David Deeming giving evidence to a Senate hearing to the effect that he had received an email including a remark to the effect “We have to get rid of the warm medieval period”. I have now seen several comment web pages attribute the email to your. Some serious and well moderated pages like ukweatherworld would welcome a post from you if the attribution is untrue and would, I feel sure, remove it if you were to ask them to. I am sure that many other blogs would report your denial. Is there any reason you have not issued a denial?
David Holland
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences)
At .. 26/03/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Jon
There is a lot to be said for ignoring such a thing. But I understand the frustration. An alternative approach is to write a blog on this topic of the medieval warm period and post it at a neutral site and then refer enquiries to that link. You would have a choice of directly confronting the statements or making a more general statement, presumably that such a thing is real but was more regional and not as warm as most recent times.
This approach would not then acknowledge that particular person, except indirectly.
A possible neutral site might be blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/ I posted a number of blogs there last year but not this year. I can send you the contact person if you are interested and you can make the case that they should post the blog.
Good luck
Kevin
From: Phil Jones Thu, 27 Mar 2008:
Peck et al,
I recall meeting David Deeming at a meeting years ago (~10).
He worked in boreholes then. I’ve seen his name on several of the skeptic websites.
Kevin’s idea is a possibility. I wouldn’t post on the website ‘ukweatherworld’.</B
The person who sent you this is likely far worse. This is David Holland. He is a UK citizen who send countless letters to his MP in the UK, writes in Energy & Environment about the biased IPCC and has also been hassling John Mitchell about his role as Review Editor for Ch 6. You might want to talk to John about how he’s responding. He has been making requests under our FOI about the letters Review Editors sent when signing off. I’m sure Susan is aware of this. He’s also made requests for similar letters re WG2 and maybe 3.
Keith has been in contact with John about this.
I’ve also seen the quote about getting rid of the MWP – it would seem to go back many years, maybe even to around the TAR. I’ve no idea where it came from. I didn’t say it!
I’ve written a piece for RMS [popular journal Weather on the MWP and LIA – from a UK perspective. It is due out in June. I can send if you want.
I’m away all next week – with Mike. PaleoENSO meeting in Tahiti – you can’t turn those sorts of meetings down!
Cheers
Phil
Hmmm… “I need to do an exhaustive search I guess” and “I assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long ago, and that he’s taking the quote out of context,” how does that reconcile with “Peck’s” last sentence “It is bogus.”
Not very convincing Mr Peck!
8 hours and only one or two MSM stories?
One of the documents contained and mentioned above is “Rules of the Game.” This is a shorter version of this document:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-1206-scoping.pdf
Of course, its presence in the .zip without context is meaningless, but the mealy-mouthed language contained within is still blood-boiling.
Tossing a T-Bone to the wolf pack might allow one to tip toe away during the confusion- – – a well connected political ploy?
OK. I agree we need to be very wary of this. But, for those who are doubting because it seems so bizarre that these smart people would write and have these e-mails saved, remember that most of the big corporations that have gotten into legal trouble, from Microsoft to Enron, have had a heck of a lot of evidence presented in court in the form of e-mail correspondence that, when read, you wouldn’t believe someone would not erase it, much less write it. They only purge the things when they think they might get caught, which no one ever does.
PS. Yes I wrote this at CA, so it’s a repeat.
Oh, Damn,
I think I may have hitched my ride to the wrong horse…
Politicians in various countries on the green machine…
Mike
If these emails are real it will be worse for people like Phil Jones than the iceberg was for the Titanic.
erik (17:04:42) :
Another thought – it is possible that the perpetrator (hacker or insider) has not yet released everything. There could be more files yet to come
Please note the original context: “a random selection“.
Honey pots and straw men aside, I think it is imperative that this situation is investigated by a third party. I have a resposibility as a principle of a public company to have a disinterested third party evaluation of my company’s assets in order to assure the public of the veracity of claimed assets. The system “eliminates” self interest and I believe that this situation demands the same approach. Steve Mosher, on Lucia’s blog, indicated thet he has conveyed this information to a disinterested party, a journalist, who is well equipped to investigate the W5 – who, what, when, why, where. It is imperative that this process is followed as it is the only way “skeptics” can create the necessary distance from the conclusions to maintain the integrity of those conclusions. Be it a hoax, perpetrated by parties unknown, or a verifiable “leak”, interested parties will not have the credibility to expose the truth, which is what we want.
Hadley and CRU are two different centres, belonging to two different institutions, several hundred miles apart.
There is no “Hadley CRU” here, just as there is no “New York D.C.”
The headline should reflect which was hacked.
The emails suggest that Wegman’s social network analysis had real substance to it.
However, while the e-mails are interesting, isn’t the real treasure trove the data and the code?
BTW, the filename on the Emails is the time in seconds since what Unix calls “the Epoch”, the start of time in the Unix world:
tux:mail> grep ‘^Date: ‘ *.txt | tail -10
1256760240.txt:Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009
1256765544.txt:Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000
1257532857.txt:Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700
1257546975.txt:Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
1257847147.txt:Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:59:07 +0100 (CET)
1257874826.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
1257881012.txt:Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:23:32 -0500
1257888920.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 16:35:20 2009
1258039134.txt:Date: Thu Nov 12 10:18:54 2009
1258053464.txt:Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44 -0000
tux:mail> python
Python 2.4.2 (#1, Jun 21 2007, 14:06:12)
[GCC 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux)] on linux2
Type “help”, “copyright”, “credits” or “license” for more information.
>>> from time import ctime
>>> ctime(1258053464)
‘Thu Nov 12 14:17:44 2009’
>>> ctime(1256760240))
File “”, line 1
ctime(1256760240))
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>> ctime(1256760240)
‘Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009’
Interesting Folder naming for mbh98-osborn.zip…
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1000
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1000-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1000-FIXED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1000-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1100-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1200-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1300
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1300-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1400
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1400-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1400-FIXED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1450
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1600
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1750
I hope I am not out of order transferring this from Lucia’s site, please delete and accept my apologies if this is so……………….
Steve McIntyre (Comment#23773) November 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pdf.
I’m having trouble getting into CA right now.
I made up a pdf of the emails to help browse through them and it’s over 2000 pages. Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine.
It is really quite breathtaking.
[Oops, my previous comment was sent before its time. And editing, and additions.]
BTW, the filename on the Emails is the time in seconds since what Unix calls “the Epoch”, the start of time in the Unix world:
tux:mail> grep ‘^Date: ‘ *.txt | tail -10
1256760240.txt:Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009
1256765544.txt:Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000
1257532857.txt:Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700
1257546975.txt:Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
1257847147.txt:Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:59:07 +0100 (CET)
1257874826.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
1257881012.txt:Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:23:32 -0500
1257888920.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 16:35:20 2009
1258039134.txt:Date: Thu Nov 12 10:18:54 2009
1258053464.txt:Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44 -0000
tux:mail> python
>>> from time import ctime
>>> ctime(1256760240)
‘Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009’
>>> ctime(1258053464)
‘Thu Nov 12 14:17:44 2009’
The messages are not just for one person, but it appears they may be
a log of all traffic that went through uea.ac.uk. I’d expect a lot
more files, but I haven’t looked for omissions.
Harry Eagar (19:59:24) :
“I’m not providing the filename or sender’s name because I do not know if the documents are real or not. As others are saying, we need to be careful because these documents may be manufactured plants. However, if the one I quoted from is real, it provides possible evidence of felony tax evasion by ’someone.’ ”
That’s from Mike Abbott, who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
It sounds very much like a felony (in the US), but the crime would not be tax evasion but conspiracy to evade the money-laundering reporting statute.
None of Abbott’s other posts have any better claim to anybody’s attention than that one, either.
I’m a CPA with a tax practice and I do know what I’m talking about. I only posted a snippet from the email exchange. Clearly, a plan for evading U.S. income taxes was discussed. In my original post I referred to a possible felony. That is because I have no way of knowing if they actually carried out the act. I’m sure this matter will receive abundant scrutiny.
Harry, you wouldn’t happen to be THE Harry Eagar from the Maui News, would you? If you are, a blogger named the Maui Curmudgeon wrote an interesting article about you on the Maui Almanac. The title was, “Wake Up and Smell Harry Eagar.” Did you happen to read it?
PS. At 10:24 PM pacific time, I checked RC comments on the latest post. Saw nothing referencing the Hadley Hack. I did however see one comment that stuck out. It was # 127 @ 4:20 PM:
#
Don’t skeptics ever post here?
No, seriously.
Comment by [snip’d by sonicfrog] — 17 November 2009 @ 4:20 PM
I guess this guy doesn’t come ’round here much.
And go to exactly WHAT authorities???????
I was in the “old” USAF. Got a complaint? Go to the chaplain and get your T.S. card punched, lad.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89 another link
Some have said why would they put this into email? My long experience has been that the higher up the academic chain people get, often the less common sense they have and the more they know about less and less.
I therefore feel these emails are more likely than not to be mostly, if not entirely, real.
Roger Knights (16:44:30) :
I’m with you on the meanings of trick
I use programming tricks, meaning non-obvious techniques.
DaveE.
[ Frank Perdicaro wrote: “It might be valuable to construct an email relationship web using the To: and Cc: and From: and Bcc: fields of the emails. It could be a directed cyclic graph with no information on the content of the emails.”]
Recall that the Wegeman report already *did* a full social analysis of Mann’s peers and concluded that peer review was compromised due to the fact that Mann was coauthor with every climatology group around. It even included charts of the social hubs of co-authorship.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Here are the co-authorship charts that explain how Mann may very much be the Machivellian center of the entire AGW sphere of influence:
http://i49.tinypic.com/w7zlsx.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/2i7bcd3.jpg
A couple realclimate notes I can’t resist:
Part of the original announcement, sent to a long list:
tux:mail> cat 1102687002.txt
From: Gavin Schmidt
Colleagues,
No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.
In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:
http://www.realclimate.org
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.
Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
‘refutations’ of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.
———-
What it’s become:
tux:mail> cat 1139521913.txt
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go
there personally, but so I’m informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d
like us to include.
You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…
too bad we don’t have public floggings anymore. this would be the type of occasion where one would be appropriate.
“OK. I agree we need to be very wary of this. But, for those who are doubting because it seems so bizarre that these smart people would write and have these e-mails saved,”
There is absolutely nothing to doubt in this regard, many university scientists are notoriously computer illiterate in regards to data security and recovery, many use macs thinking it has special security magic powers. Steve Wozniak who invented the Apple computer thinks macs can’t be hacked because they are not PCs.
Do not underestimate the stupidity of so called “smart” people.
Bernie (22:24:23) :
The emails suggest that Wegman’s social network analysis had real substance to it.
Excellent observation. Wegman nailed it.
Clearly, a plan for evading U.S. income taxes was discussed.
Good grief. It’s an email from a Russian to a Brit. How would US income tax come into it?
If this turns out to be real, the implications will be devastating
to science. International conspiracies? Political manipulation?
The waist of money in the EU……heads will roll. U.S. political
careers will end. The EPA will look stupid, along with the
Supreme Court. Poor NASA, and all the good people that
work there. My God….
I wonder how many years we’ll wait to find out who ‘Deep Throat'(the hacker) is?
“This does not appear to be written by someone whose first language is English.”
Maybe he speaks Fortran. (I.e., some programmers aren’t very fluent in natural language.)
[REPLY – I read that thread and I disagree. The grammar is just fine and so is the usage. In fact, it’s above par for “American”; it looks like Ynglish (sic) tp me. ~ Evan]
I downloaded the FOI2009.zip file. What an unbelievable trove of information! Better than any 1,000 page best-selling novel. I’ll be reading a lot this weekend.
Why is this news not been posted to Fenton Communications, I mean Environmental Media Services, I mean RealClimate.org? (Sorry I get them confused)
HOW TEMPERATURE CHARTS AT HADLEY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED TO MAKE SURE THEY AGREE WITH THE CURRENT WARM PERIOD BEING WARMER THAN THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD – FROM DEEP COOL
At 14:10 15/01/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Phil,
The attached piece is very good, impressive in the detail you’ve been able to dig up on this. Won’t pass this along. [No idea what the mysterious “this” is – Richard]
A couple minor comments:
1. I understand the point of the 50 year smoothing, but I think it would still be very useful to show were the most recent decade is on this scale. a lot of the recent warming is washed out by the padding at the end. People will look at this and say “see medieval peak was warmer than present”. but that doesn’t follow because so much of the warmning has been over past two decades.
2. I would not reference Wegman report as if it is a publication, i.e. a legitimate piece of scientific literature. Its a piece of something else! It should be cited in such a way as to indicate it is not a formal publication, wasn’t peer-reviewed, i.e. could be references as a “criticism commissoned by Joe Barton (R, Exxon). [ad hominen – tut tut Mr Mann]
3. I think that Stefan/Gavin were hoping to do something on RC sooner than the timeline you mention. What do you think about this? Do you want to forward the message to them and tell them the timeline you have in mind?
talk to you later,
mike
p.s. thanks very much for the ‘nomination’ :), but you flatter me. I think that someone
farther along in their career such as Keith is more deserving at this time.
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Thanks.
On 1) Putting the last few years in zooms the CET curve much higher. Tim took out the last few years. I need to make this clearer in the caption. Padding is an issue with a 50-year smoother.
2) I agree Wegman isn’t a formal publication. This was the highest profile example I could come up to show abuse of the curve. if you know of any others then let me know.
Even Tom Crowley shouldn’t have used it. There is a belief in the UK, that a curve of UK/CET past temperatures (by summer and winter) exists. It doesn’t, but the winter curve from Lamb is probably a lot better than the summer one.
I’ll let you know on time-frame when I hear from a few more I’ve sent the piece to.
Cheers
Phil
This is hugely interesting and should be fun to watch unfold.
An additional minor note of caution though about reacting to what appear to be loaded words. I see a lot of terminology here that needs to be understood in the context of people who routinely handle data. Several have commented on “tricks” which I hear all the time (working in clinical research) when describing entirely legitimate approaches to reformatting a data set. Another is “censored” data. Data for patients that didn’t comply with the protocol for example are routinely and correctly “censored” from the per-protocol analysis.
Just important not to read jargon as plain English and jump to conclusions based only on that.
Of course, the existence of an agenda beyond pure science is something I find personally unsurprising, and clearly demonstrated in these alleged emails!
While I sympathize with the admonitions that some have posted here that the data is more important than the emails, you are wrong.
The data is very important, but the AGW crowd didn’t steal a march on real science with data, but with what we in the military call their IO (information operations) campaign. In that regard the emails are extremely important, I’d say as important as the data.
IF all this is legit, then the emails are huge for swaying the people that matter — the people who vote, who are sadly mostly scientific illiterati. They will be swayed by the email contents. The email contents would likely scare an awful lot of politicians who’ve been pushing their “national economic suicide” plans.
Therefore IF all this is legit, there would need to be a two-pronged attack which would involve airing the data and all that it might show for science and exposing the deliberate fraud and conspiracy between the fraudsters that the email seems to portray.
All that is contingent upon validating authenticity of the files. That big IF should not be taken lightly. Time will tell.
I’m hoping that the leaker is monitoring these sites and understands that provenance is important. I am confident that Steve, Anthony, Lucia, Jeff Id or Tom Fuller would respect your anonymity. Just contact them… get a throw-away e-mail address at hotmail, use it to post a comment and simply say, “please contact me”… there are lots of questions that need to be answered… many of the posters on these sites are easily found and would probably be honored to act as a cut-out if you felt you needed one. Please come forward.
poptech,
You must like this as the fixing of the peer review process is revealed in some of the e-mails I’ve seen. I caught your 450 peer reviewed list and how RC & Gavin tried to discredit it.
The email discussing RC screening etc is a keeper too.
It shows the background prepping for censoring and controling by the team.
tux:mail> cat 1228330629.txt
Just an excerpt of this one, though there’s a lot worth reading and criticism of other thorns in their sides. (Which might be worth giving a fair hearing some day.):
From: Phil Jones
To: santer, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to
abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one
at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all
about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing
with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental
Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very
supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief
Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is
going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t
know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures. [The
number of FOI requests.]
The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data
Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the
email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he
pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my
emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2
months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if
anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI – it is
supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit
rating !
There are anti-virus sites to which you may send a file to have them examine it for malware.
This one is very large, so an intro may be appropos.
Justin (16:07:02) :
From: “Michael E. Mann”
……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….
1054757526.txt
I don’t inderstand all of it,…
I understand it. If it is real, then he was working to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period. If this email is real then it is evidence that the Mann Hockey Stick was created to try to show there was no such thing as the Medieval Warm Period. The email, if real, is evidence that the entire reason for the existence of the Mann Hockey Stick, and for no other reason, was to accomplish the goal of showing it is warmer now than at any time in the last 2000 years—including during the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1000 years ago.
But is Michael Mann dumb enough to have spoken like this in an email—if it is real? I am having trouble believing all of this is real.
But if all of this is real then this is scandalous! How will the people involved with this ever be able to live down the shame!
RulesOfTheGame.pdf
Don’t create fear without agency
Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon the threat. Use fear with great caution.
12. Create ‘agency’ for combating climate change
Agency is created when people know what to do, decide for themselves to do it, have access to the infrastructure in which to act, and understand that their contribution is important
6. Use both peripheral and central processing
Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.
17. Use emotions and visuals
Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do.
jon (22:44:10) :
too bad we don’t have public floggings anymore. this would be the type of occasion where one would be appropriate.
The shame of all of it will be a thorough beating in itself. They cannot escape that. I am wondering if some will lose jobs over this. After all they are not irreplaceable. Others can be put in their places.
nikfromnyc:
I’ve always thought that pro AGW peer review was just a circle jerk. Thanks for confirming this
Another place to DL from:
http://www.4shared.com/file/155712653/b3d99d5e/FOIA.html
OT: In Canada we have an IT guy called Jim Prall at University of Toronto, i.e. a support staff guy, not a scientist, who is making lists, compiling photos of climate scientists and skeptics or the kind way he calls them “deniers”. So like other well known administrations before the eco totalitarist regime, one could feel this guy is positioning himself with the help of CBC radio hosts!!! -taxpayers public radio- to help find and track deniers when the time will come… So once the regime will be set, it’ll be easier to hunt them down if they go in hiding and bring them to justice… green justice that is. Gulag revisited! Jonathan Little novel is alive and well…
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7806#comment-366154
Perhaps World Meteorological Organisation?
http://www.wmo.int/
I see Andrew Bolt is running with this in the Herald Sun:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/
Not sure this is going to help any… but the story is obviously starting to creep into the mainstream media.
royfomr (17:27:49) :
For what it’s worth, IMHO this is from a mole within.
I am kicking around that same idea, that it is someone from within, and who knows how high up from within. But who knows for sure at this point.
Poptech (22:45:07) : Do not underestimate the stupidity of so called “smart” people.
Bingo.
All of these “smart people”….in some ways…and for all their brilliance, no doubt…ain’t that “smart.”
[snip]
This phenomenon is not new. Group-think has duped the best minds on the planet. These group-think participants might be pawns (even unawares) of a far grander scheme….
Bottom line: Beware….beware politicos and ideologues and opportunists who seek to control Science.
It should be the other way around.
And don’t let bureaucrats control anything.
Perhaps, after damning revelations like these, our species will evolve where we get the priorities right.
Time will tell….
Chris
Norfolk, VA (not East Anglia), USA
TerryBixler (18:49:54) :
If real, shocking and in need of a special prosecutor both in the U.K. and here in the U.S.
That would seem to be in line. This could be a public scandal. I am wondering if those involved are sweating it out tonight at the thought of what could be coming.
One thing that stands out, before the real crap hits the fan is that there are several skeptic community boards like this in which are worthy of munching popcorn over but that there are no non-censored boards to witness the gnashing of teeth of the opposing side. Lefty blogs are all one can hope for and they aren’t exactly going to jump on this story. What it tells me is that there really *is* no populist movement that supports AGW like up to today I sort of assumed there was.
Sites like this are a nerd’s paradise which goes quite far in explaining their popularity. AGW sites are all in major lock down so no community upwelling occurs on their side even when a major blow like this pops up. That’s why the debunking of several hockey sticks made only small waves in their world. So right now they all are very bated breath waiting for their leaders at RC to issue a STATEMENT that will make everything O.K., the only problem being that the very people running RC are the ones in all these emails!
There is a huge dichotomy between what the followers of AGW believe about skeptics and what the actual climatologists believe! It’s ONLY the climatologists who take the skeptics seriously. Wow. What propaganda-swallowing softies the typical environmental activist laymen then must be!
I want to gloat. Don’t those of us who have wasted a good portion of our free time on this deserve to gloat a bit? It’s no fun gloating here, amongst the skeptical crowd who are so skeptical that they are even skeptical that the AGW clique might be crooks instead of being merely misguided by “observation bias”. You are a polite lot!
So assuming these are legit…what is the outcome? It seems to me this is bad for laymen on both sides since folk science debate (“auditing”) is now much less possible since the AGW side can no longer be treated as honorable. And it seems too that the pivotal character who might make this into a mass media event is the skeptic’s version of Al Gore, Lord Monckton. Though he co-opts some of Gore’s methods, he is at least smart as can be compared to Gore, and he’s buddies with Glenn Beck so can get air time.
It seems kind of insane that a scientific debate in the age of the Internet, which each side thought they were about to win would finally be blown out of the water by a mere scandal. The AGW side as I gather from these files was very much hoping to produce a real Hockey Stick that stood up to immediate and devastating auditing, no matter how speculative instead of likely their prediction of AGW became. And the skeptical side merely wanted enough delay in World Government action for temperature rise to peter out.
Now it’s different. That’s why it’s uncomfortable. It’s as if we found out we were fighting an ant instead of a lion. What honor is there in fighting those who lacks honor in kind? What I see now is that it’s worse than mere observer bias. It’s merely pathetic. Michael Mann became a mafia wannabee, calling for the dismissal of journal editors who dared allow opposition. That’s not evil at the level that he is speaking of. It’s pathetic. He already *has* the top science journals on his side but he can’t even stand third tier journals publishing things that don’t fit his mold.
You can feel it in these emails. Their alarmist agenda started merely as a means to get a bit of funding. But the IPCC jumped on their work as billions instead of a few million dollars were suddenly pumped into climate research. Being responsible for creating a huge societal phenomenon, they with some confidence that old Nature magazine issues would gather dust, they set out to use in-your-face cherry picking instead of covert cherry picking.
Why? Merely to cover their own butts in the span of their own career.
The conspiracy wasn’t with the tree ring climatologists. They did not really stand to earn harems and private jets. But they could not back of of the power structures of those who DID stand to earn harems.
This MegaDownload address:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY
worked nicely for me.
There were no trojans, viruses, embedded web bugs or other
nasty things that crept through the process.
Now, if I can just get a copy of the disk to my U.S. Senator,
George Voinovich, when he’s back in NE Ohio for Thanksgiving…
There’s a whole lot of shakin’ going on.
Perhaps Copehagen could have a follow-up meeting in Singapore. I hear they still use the flogging technique.
David Deming (19:57:44) :
If these emails about peer-review are real it is sickening.
Perhaps not so much “stupidity” as over-specialisation. These people have specialised in a particular field and are in all likelihood possessed of very high IQ scores.
But that doesn’t mean they are IT experts, or know how to do a basic service on their car, or know the best time of year to plant cherry tomatoes.
I found this comment in 1140554230.txt. Sounds like MM is a rough person to cross. Maybe a tad vindictive.
“I need to diplomatically word all this. I never wanted to criticise Mike’s work in anyway way. It was for that reason that I made little mention to it initially.”
From what’s been quoted here, and what I have read myself, this is the bombshell of the century.
In the old days this might have been suppressed. Today, not a chance. It’s in the wild, it’s everywhere, and ANY reporter worth their Press card had best be looking at what has been built by these people.
I see why they are called “The Team”, because I am seeing evidence of what can only be called a conspiracy. I mean, come on, emailing for advice on how to handle things? How to respond to what someone claimed? Put me in, coach! I know I can handle this one!
I used to only loathe these people. Now I want to see their empire CRUSHED, them duckwalked into prison cells, every last penny ever allocated to them or their projects accounted for, every last penny in their bank accounts scrutinized. I want to see repulsive manipulative documents like “The rules of the game” made public so EVERYONE can see how they were manipulated, how these foul dishonest charlatans went beyond “selling soap” and into emotional blackmail.
This has GOT to come out, big time. I hope and pray that these MONSTERS are exposed for everyone to finally understand how EVIL their Machiavellian plans actually are.
And, as always, I hope to see the day when cAGW is remembered as fondly as Cold Fusion.
From: Phil J*nes
To: Gil C*mpo
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data – One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean
….
One final thing – don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be
changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also
a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may
be down to SST issues.
Once again thanks for these! Hoping you’ll send me a Christmas Present of the draft!
Cheers
Phil
Niphredil (21:10:27) :
I think it was james bond, he always saves the day
No, I think it was Courage the Cowardly Dog. 🙂
David Alan (21:24:14) :
Alarmists are about to reap the whirlwind
That looks to be the case.
As mentioned above by another poster… why are we referring to this as “Hadley CRU”? The Hadley Centre is part of the Met Office:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/
While CRU is a completely different location AFAIK:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
The latter is at the University of East Anglia and home to the following staff (as seen in the email headers):
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/
Notably Professor Phil Jones:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/
So presumably the title of the bl9og should read “Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released” (i.e. omit the Hadley reference).
Sadly the “Hadley CRU” thing is all over the blogosphere now…
Just got this from my RSS reader:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html
The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
“Have you alerted police”
“Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”
Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.
“Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….
Robert Wykoff (21:32:02) :
this is SuperNova!!!!!
Svensmark shows that supernovas cause cooling. This news could put manmade global warming on permanent ice.
CodeTech (00:17:43) :
Well said….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Here is a copy of a genuine email from Dr. Don Keiller to the BBC Radio4 (Planet earth under threat)
12. At 04:59 PM on 24 May 2006, Don Keiller wrote:
All to often we hear that there is a scientific “consensus” on climate change and its causes.
If this were the case why then is increasing evidence to the contrary being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
I could go on almost ad infinitum about such evidence, but I will restrict myself to one recent paper.
Briner et al (2006) Quaternary Research (65), pp. 431-432.
Check it out at http://www.sciencedirect.com.
Evidence is presented that some 8500 years ago the Canadian Arctic was 5 degrees C WARMER than at present. Also note that carbon dioxide levels were some 100ppm LOWER than at present.
Try and equate this with the modern myth that increased atmospheric CO2 = increased warmth.
(Dr. Don Keiller) Environmental Science research Centre, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge.
This file may be either highly significant, or a deliberate ruse to throw off the climate realists.
Of course it’s not a ruse. You can tell it’s not a ruse because there’s absolutely nothing incriminating in any of it.
Patrick G said it right:
“But that doesn’t mean they are IT experts, or know how to do a basic service on their car, or know the best time of year to plant cherry tomatoes.”
Given that the email traffic alleged indicates that they believe they deleted it, they will not issue a categoric denial if it’s true. Having said that, if they take days / weeks to issue a statement you know they are having IT experts look at what actually can be dug up if they have to through the doors open to investigators on their network.
If true this is the bombshell of the decade.
The text
“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents”
is not only correct English, its very much the sort of wording used for Government/Civil Service reports (as someone who produced these for many years)
Which rather does imply an internal mole rather than an external one.
Some figures of interest from a quick search of the email:
Name Mentions
McIntyre 109
McKitrick 32
Christy 52
Pielke 17
Spemcer 12
Lucia 2
WUWT 8
It is also quite plain that they find reading a “skeptical” blog easily as abrasive as skeptics do a “believers.” Also it’s quite clear that some conscientiously monitor skeptical blog sites including CA and WUWT. More striking though they BELIEVE in AGW. If there were no really serious issues like the proposed Copenhagen treaty hanging in the offing, it would be funny. There is a remarkable level of insecurity and paranoia reflected that is particularly disturbing. Were they as confident of their work as they purport to be, they would far less frequently appeal to arguments of authority and they would be ready to discuss methods and data in a more collegial frame of mind. Instead, it would appear that at least some writers really believe that many skeptics are funded and backed, bought and paid for, by energy, big oil and (laugh here) government groups.
Keith Minto (22:27:03) :
I hope I am not out of order transferring this from Lucia’s site, please delete and accept my apologies if this is so……………….
Steve McIntyre (Comment#23773) November 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pdf.
I’m having trouble getting into CA right now.
I made up a pdf of the emails to help browse through them and it’s over 2000 pages.
2000 pages? How, o how, did that many emails get grouped and released?? It must have taken long time to put that all together before letting it out. The explanation at the end of this rabbit trail will be interesting.
~ctm I would appreciate an explanation of what I said that was snippable in the previous post.
[Please email me personally at sharkhearted@gmail.com and don’t publish this as it is not important to everyone else.]
But I am intrigued and would like to know.
Thanks. Chris
Reply: email sent. ~ ctm
> Ric Werme (23:11:33) :
> From: Phil Jones
> To: santer, Tom Wigley
> Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
> Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
> Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler
>
> Ben,
>
> When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to
> abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one
> at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all
> about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing
> with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental
> Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very
> supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief
> Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is
> going on –
Wow, heads are going to roll over that email…
D. King (22:52:41) :
If this turns out to be real, the implications will be devastating
to science.
I think it will be good for science. It will be a wake up call to clean the ugly sores caused by bad science.
By my count that is at least 6 people who colluded to comit FOI fraud.
Repost From Erick Barnes at Air Vent,
1024334440.txt
From: Ed Cook
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Esper et al. and Mike Mann
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:20:40 -0400
Hi Keith,
Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in
Mike’s recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your
response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his
letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this
whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are
clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you
actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly
stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as
bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit
more objectively.
Ed
>I have just read this lettter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to
>death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical
>area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature
>representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of
>regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the
>increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over
>the last few years , and … (better say no more)
>Keith
I don’t see anything in these e-mails that is damning at all. What I am seeing is a lot of people reading snippets of conversations and technical details they don’t understand, and then assigning some hidden meaning to the e-mails.
For example, I refer to doing something with software as a “trick” all the time, it doesn’t mean I’m actually tricking people. You have all gone conspiracy crazy nuts.
Ah! A Tinker, Tailor fan…
[REPLY – And perhaps high time for a celebratory pink gin with the Lord of Admiralty down at Percy’s club. ~ Evan]
Zeke the sneak
I detailed the ‘rules of the game’ in my article carried here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896
Hadley got £153 million since 1993 from the UK Govt and are the prime contributor to the IPCC. What arrangements Cru has I don’t know. They are separate but interlinked organisations.
Climate change is not a ‘scientific ‘ matter requiring lots of highly complex equations to try to prove some theory on how climate changes due to man.
History tells us this current warming era is nothing new. This has everything to do with power, politics and control.
Tonyb
Don’t use this information at all. Three reasons
1) it could be a trap. It is all to possible it has been tweaked and once it goes public that you use this kind of higly suspicious data you will be damaged beyond repair.
2) It infuriates the opposite party. I mean, the conversation they though was private is now being reviewed. I don’t know about you; but I would be disgusted if this happened to me. Stay courteous.
3) It doesn’t add anything usefull. I mean, the data will either prove IPCC or the sceptics right. If you can wait another 10 years, and you should be able to do that, nature itself will prove your case.
Nev (00:35:03) :
Just got this from my RSS reader:
Did you post this same at Climate Audit yet? They might like to know.
The ‘marooned’ jpeg is quite humorous. 🙂
Just in time for Copenhagen. Watch them spin this one for all its worth. But strange, have not seen it reported by the likes of the BBC, CNN ABC etc, strange indeed.
Mind you, here in Sydney it has been pretty hot, 39c today where I live and still around 30c right now 8:15pm, some November hot records broken too.
Amazed that obvious story dropped so soon as first maybe update from Phil Jones admitting is a much bigger story as well? Sorry to be such a pain…LOL
Michael Jankowski (19:42:54) :
Anyone know what time zone RC’s comments are on? The last ones on the most recent thread were prior to 6pm today, and there seemed to be posts every several minutes leading up to that point. So it seems unusual that the commenting would’ve suddenly stopped for hours if that were 6pm Eastern. The commenting was going on pretty steadling well beyond “6pm” last night (longest break by far was 2am to 5:36am).
Is that a sign that they started sh!tting bricks and are letting everything sit in the moderation queue whilst they scramble to put out fires?
Busy shredding paperwork and deleting emails I should think.
The funniest one so far is a discussion on how to protect FTP/web pages:
The username and password must be a reference to Steve McIntyre, I have no doubt.
Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
‘The data’—but also the emails? Are they also genuine?
Is Phil Jones also the mole for this?
1252164302.txt
From: Jonathan Overpeck
Subject: Re: Arctic2k update?
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:25:02 -0700
Cc:
D et al – Please write all emails as though they will be made public.
…
Be careful, very careful. But now you know why I advocated redoing all the analyses a few
months ago – to make sure we got it all right. We knew we’d get this scrutiny.
This paper has had great impact so far, so that’s something to remember – its good work.
Thanks, peck
What on earth are they so keenly avoiding speaking about?!?!
from the harry read me file (long)
READ ME for Harry’s work on the CRU TS2.1/3.0 datasets, 2006-2009!
they seem to have a pretty water tight filingsystem ;p
”
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.
These are the files that have been lost according to the gridding read_me
(see above).
The conclusion of a lot of investigation is that the synthetic cloud grids
for 1901-1995 have now been discarded. This means that the cloud data prior
to 1996 are static.
Edit: have just located a ‘cld’ directory in Mark New’s disk, containing
over 2000 files. Most however are binary and undocumented..
”
what a noobs!
1233249393.txt
Ben,
> Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood’s
> work. He is a prat. He’s just had a response to a comment
> piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper
> they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn’t understand independence if it
> hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you
> reading them unless interested.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
For those still looking for the file, you can get a torrent of it from The Pirate Bay:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/Hadley_CRU_Files_(FOI2009.zip)
The md5 agrees with those published above:
da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 *FOI2009.zip
I am an old guy. 74 at the end of this year. The warmmongers who post here sound to me exactly as the Republicans sounded right after Woodward published what he got from Deep Throat. No actual witness to testify, no actual “proof”, but it did bring down the President of the United States, it did.
Any Woodwards around anymore? I understand that the viewing of TV is really down, and getting “downer”. Desperation might do what otherwise couldn’t be thought to possibly happen. I can only hope.
I wonder if big oil is behind this…if so perhaps we’ll see a pop among the Exxon Mobils of the world. Just dreaming here….
1247199598.txt
From: “Tim Osborn”
To: I.Harris
Subject: cruts tmp to 2008
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:19:58 +0100 (BST)
Hi Harry,
finally had time to take a look at the latest cruts3 run through to 2008
for tmp, picked up from /cru/cruts/
…
So:
(1) hot spikes have been corrected.
(2) cold spikes still there.
(3) some odd differences in mean level.
Progress!
Tim
Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt confirms hack three or four days ago:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
Now that Hadley has admitted the files to be genuine surely the mainstraim media will have to jump on it they would be mad not to. First one in will get the readership/numbers. They will have weeks of stories for this one
George E Smith.. not the “CCD” George E Smith.. if you’re the same person.. What an honour!
A few of you have posted worries about “new” posters here that have been coming out of the “woodwork” on this topic with concerns about intent. I can only speak for myself, but I am an official lurker here but have never, until today, posted a comment.
I instead have spent much of my time (same username) trying to convert some of the AGW cult in the global warming threads on Media Matters for America (needless to say, the response to my presence there has been less than kind–kind of like that Donald Sutherland screech at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers) and have frequently referenced Steve and Anthony in my failed missionary efforts.
Seeing this story break and start to evolve has forced me from my lurker position though. Like many other posters here, I have to concur that we have to tread forward cautiously here. I too get the “too good to be true” feeling about it and time will tell whether or not this is authentic (hopefully).
And like others have said, really the most important thing here is the data. If it has not been “salted” it will yield much over the coming months. That being said, if the emails are authenticated, they are truly damning.
But to me this is the bottom line: regardless of whether or not this is real, I believe the continued chipping away at AGW will eventually ensure its failure. As I have said at MMfA, it is a house of cards built on the shakiest of foundations. Perhaps this will be the heavy wind that will finally blow it over, but if not, rest assured that day will come (I know for many of us that day has come and gone long ago, but I mean for the deeply-entrenched in the AGW crowd).
Until then, I will continue my battles over at MMfA (wish me luck–one woman said, “I hope you drown yourself when the sea level increases.”). Keep up the good work here, but proceed with caution on this one until it develops further.
Rereke Whakaaro, wrote:
“Most cyber attacks are opportunistic and against soft targets. I doubt that CRU has gaping holes in their security systems, precisely because they fear the risk of attack from people wanting access their data.”
If that were true, this should have been impossible:
“Gary McKinnon faces extradition to the United States, where he is wanted for allegedly hacking into computers at the Pentagon and NASA.”
http://www.theautismnews.com/2009/07/31/uk-pentagon-hacker-loses-appeal-will-be-sent-to-u-s/
I haven’t read all the comments – so perhaps someone has already mentioned this – but when they refer to the “decline” could they not be referring to the post WW2 temperature decline that led to the “global cooling” scam of the mid seventies? After all, it is the post 1961 and pre 1981 data that they appear to be modifying.
It’s no secret that there was an apparent significant decline in global temperature during that time and that decline itself doesn’t prove or disprove the CO2 warming theory, but it does cause an inconvenience to the warmists. Perhaps they wanted to smooth it out in some way by adding in modified data that factored out anomalies?
As a layman sceptic I am hopeful that the file contents are genuine. Like others here I suspect this is not “hacked” in the true sense of the word, but actually the work of an insider. However, I would also urge caution at this time. Ideally, it would be good if this story was followed up by a good independent investigative journalist with the skill and contacts to maximise the impact if it was found to be genuine.
I fear, however, that even if found to be genuine, the MSM will freeze this out of the news. It doesn’t suit the MSM narrative. AGW has been massive for the MSM – they do not want to kill the goose that lays a hundred 9 carat golden eggs a week for a one off 18 carat monster ouef.
“Will work for food”
Mike Salmon, IT manager, CRU
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/photo/mike_salmon.jpg
Joe:
““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.”
Holy crap, if that’s what it sounds like there a smoking gun.”
No Joe, an exploding ammunition dump. And a big one at that.
Unlike most fossil fuel company CEOs, Massey Energy’s Don Blankenship knows his global warming. Calling Anthropogenic Global Warming a hoax and a Ponzi scheme, he will be proven right by the data released today.
http://eenews.net/tv/video_guide/1073
Unfortunately, I have zero confidence in the completely global-warming-captured mainstream media to even mention this scandalous, sordid affair.
Just watch out for the new doc movie made by Michael Moore :
“De Warming Code”
The ABC will have a exclusive wright for broadcasting.
LOL
Me think these guys are the foot-solders for higher power (Gore, Soros etc)
“useful idiots”
If true, fraudulent scientists belong in jail!
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
Jones has been contacted. It is real.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-verification-of-hadley-cru-files.html
Hey guys, Jones admitted this was real? Something seems fishy about that. How does a warmist hoax (old data + edited emails) designed to discredit valid scientific skepticism sound to you? I know such a hoax would simply confirm that they’re nothing but a bunch of anti scientific charlatans, but i doubt the media/public would see that.
i can see how obama pretending that he wont be going to copenhagen might put some in a false sense of security, then BAM.. they’ve signed the damn thing with this hanging over our heads.
Lets hope not hey.. and be careful
Second galileonardo
– but lots of anonymous dropping this link into well known UK blogs eg Guido without any comment which looks fishy.
I think it’s real. More or less, the e-mails unsurprisingly confirm what we skeptics have strongly suspected all along regarding peer review; stonewalling; advocacy; and so on.
Most likely to be an insider.. He/she would have a LOT to gain in the end as the winds make a U turn
Paul S. The email you posted was written by me and is word for word correct.
This suggests to me that the rest is probably genuine.
For info. Keith Briffa did reply -I thanked him for his courtesy. However I remained unconvinced with his explanations.
Don
Were they a bit cavalier, audacious, or arrogant to email this way? Why not. They were saving the world weren’t they. They were on a mission from Gaia. I’m not one bit surprised, they have been stitched up here by someone.
Matty, Perth Western Australia
TO: FOIA
RE: The Air Vent: Open Letter On Climate Legislation (# 10)
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/
You did it. You made many people very, very happy with your visit here and the given link. Luckily Jeff Id discovered it immediately: “This is the biggest news ever broken here. hunter said November 20, 2009 at 12:01 am , „Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. God bless you.“ And at : http://www.examiner.com Terry Hurlbut (Nov19; 9:42 PM) said: „Commentary on all the blogs involved has been brisk, except, oddly enough, at The Air Vent, where only seven comments have been received.“
Allow me to assume you did it intentionally with regard to the subject OPEN LETTER. That would at least make me very happy, as it would be a clear indication that there are other persons out (at minimum one), which would agree with me that a science is nuisance if it is not able and willing to define in a reasonable scientific manner what it is talking about. That the talking about a definition on CLIMATE should not be taken lightly, is indicated in my previous comment. # 20 http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/
If a nonsense term is used by science it is not only misleading the simple people, but also shows that they do not understand what they are talking about. That is the real tragic of all the talking about the CO2 greenhouse gases since the James Hansen’s AGW claim before the US Senate in 1988. They stare in the air, without knowing where they are going to. OK. Currently, presumably only you, (few other ?) and I know. That should change, and your kind appearance here may have been a help, hopefully, for which you deserves my highest appreciation, and sincere thanks.
Gratefully yours
Arnd Bernaerts
Glenn (21:36:59)
See my previous posts on md5sum. I am anonymous, but have posted here before. Hopefully that and the fact that other people say they got the same md5sum. If anyone gets a different md5sum, I would ask them to post that location so someone else with the real file can download the new one and see what changed.
To get the md5sum, download and run md5sum.exe on windows (be sure to get it from a “trustworthy” source, but sorry I don’t know of any). The result should match what is posted above. If anyone wants my copy, ask the mods to email me and I will email the mods a link for one-time use. Sorry I don’t have the bandwidth to host a public link.
Here’s the md5 sum again
da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 FOI2009.zip
José (02:02:16) :
Rereke Whakaaro, wrote:
“Most cyber attacks are opportunistic and against soft targets. I doubt that CRU has gaping holes in their security systems, precisely because they fear the risk of attack from people wanting access their data.”
If that were true, this should have been impossible:…
No need to indulge in conjecture anymore – Phil Jones has admitted its genuine
http://thepiratebay.org/search/Hadley%20CRU%20Files%20(FOI2009.zip)/0/99/0 this link works and the info i have seen backs up the lord monckton data and claims to a t.
I’ve unzipped it into a directory which I quarantined and then scanned with the latest PCtools (updated this morning) and it seems OK. Nothing sad happening to my machine as we speak.
There’s a letter in Narure this week.
Here’s the Editor’s summary:-
Editor’s Summary
19 November 2009
Interglacials get warmer
——————————————————————————–
Reconstructions of temperature variations from Antarctic ice cores rely on the assumption that the relationship between hydrogen and oxygen isotopic ratios and temperature are stable in space and time. Sime et al. analyse three 340,000-year-old ice cores from East Antarctica and use an isotope-enabled general circulation model to show that instead, the relationship is nonlinear. During warm periods, the ratios are less sensitive to temperature, so previous estimates of interglacial temperatures are likely to be about 3 °C too low. This is consistent with peak Antarctic interglacial temperatures at least 6 °C higher than today. This work suggests that there are serious deficiencies in our understanding of climates that are warmer than today’s
And yet the Antarctic didn’t melt!
What will the Team make of this?
My guess would be that it will be ignored.
“HadleyCRU says leaked data is real
The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html
An online poll in Australia (Ninemsn -news site) has put up the question – “Are humans to blame for global warming” just today. Around 40% have said no. Is this getting towards the big AGW splat moment we have been hoping for? Matty, Perth
Pure speculation but…
The information released may only be a small portion of what was taken. Imagine the press clamour for more information, which of course would be paid for.
I might even buy a newspaper.
Downloaded the file and run it through our system,( we have not had a virus enter in 7 years) 100% clean, ( more than 200 computers in our system)
Wow. That update is interesting. The bulk of the snark and backbiting in these emails was never really a smoking gun, but if according to the TGIF site the – “hide the decline” -quote is not being denied outright by Jones then this really could get really interesting.
Tim Blair is on the disaster:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
How the mighty fall, amid peals of laughter.
Just an analogy, The German fascists kept meticulous records of their crimes and when their world came crashing down around them, they couldn’t destroy records fast enough to hide their complicity. Likewise “scientists” keep meticulous records of everything they do, back it up in triplicate. Sometimes even hard copied, such is the ease of technology allows. Politicized science and scientists complicit, should face the wrath of a population decieved. this info once released will rapidly spread, there will be much to account for.
Hey guys, Jones admitted this was real? Something seems fishy about that.
One e-mail they can explain. Twenty you can cook up explanations for over night. Fifty – every one comes to the office. 1,000+ ? It’s over. We have taken a spread of fish below the waterline. Abandon ship. Sauve qui peut.
And that doesn’t even count the data. Or the How to deny Deniers pdf.
Or the coming FOI requests. Or the hearings in Congress. Or the MPs at question time.
The big fish has been landed. It is just a matter of time before it is gutted. The rats will be turning on each other. etc.
1105019698.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: “Parker, David (Met Office)”>, Neil Plummer
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
Cc: “Thomas C Peterson”
Neil,
Just to reiterate David’s points, I’m hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a different base period is the key one in my mind.
…
Personally I don’t want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:
Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature.
Regards
David
JDougherty (00:50:22) :
“[…] Instead, it would appear that at least some writers really believe that many skeptics are funded and backed, bought and paid for, by energy, big oil and (laugh here) government groups.”
Nope. Just for the record, since ~they~ seem to be avid readers of WUWT, I pay (and pay and pay) FOR energy, pay (and pay and pay) TO big oil, and pay (and pay and pay) TO government.
I liked your idea to count occurrances of various topics and names. Interesting results. Thanks.
As Steve M. would say, “truly breathtaking” as he did about the Briffa non-scandal. I guess “truly breathtaking” is a tip-off that this is much ado about nothing.
It is amazing that so many people/things are “in on this conspiracy to show AGW” such as:
1) UAH, RSS, and GISS
2) Rapidly warming Arctic
3) Rapidly decreasing sea ice extent
4) Rapidly thinning sea ice
5) Rising ocean heat content
6) Cooling stratosphere
7) Net increase in downwelling LW
8) Net decreasing TOP LW emission
9) Increased species migrations/extinctions
10) Increased severe weather occurrences
11) Glacier mass loss and retreats increasing
12) Rising sea levels
13) etc., etc., etc.
All this happening with the biggest conspirator yet: rapidly rising human emissions of GHGs that have not been seen in millions of years.
I guess all of the these things also “got the emails” and decided to play along.
gul·li·ble – adjective easily deceived or cheated.
Also, gul·la·ble.
Oigin:
1815–25; gull 2 + -ible
Related forms:
gul·li·bil·i·ty, noun
gul·li·bly, adverb
Synonyms:
credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green.
The links from Guido are from me. I’ve covered it on my blog in the UK
http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate.html
Real Climate has been renamed:
Real Quiet
Torrent — http://www.torrentz.com/search?q=foi2009.zip.
Just for those still looking for it.
It’s genuine and they have admitted it. Joy of joys, that has made my year.
Is this really an outside hack? An internal whistleblower (who may have made it look like a hack) seems just as likely to me.
From: Phil J*nes
To: Tom W*gley
Subject: Re: paleoT
Date: Fri Jul 15 11:06:31 2005
Tom,
This Briffa series is just a three site average (trees from Tornetrask, Polar Urals
and
Taimyr) – all in northern Eurasia. It is therefore for a limited region and is likely
just the summer, whereas some of the others have regressed on annual T for
the NH (or north of 20N).
Of these 3, the first two are in most of the other series (Esper, Crowley, Jones, Mann)
and also for HF in Moberg. Not sure whether Taimyr is in any of the others.
Esper uses a different standardization approach, but should have most of the
same trees, but only TRW. The others use our reconstructions which have MXD
is as well.
Have you tried these correlations after extracting the LF trends (say residuals
from a 30 or 50 yr filter)? Would expect some of them to be much, much lower.
Keith’s reconstruction that would be much better is the one that goes back to
only about 1400. Do you have this? Go here [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
then click on paleo data, then on obtaining and look for Keith’s – it says 600 years in
the title. You can get the data.
Cheers
Phil
At 21:57 14/07/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
I eventually refiltered all the paleo data and have compared these
with likewise filtered MAGICC output. Very interesting results.
Can you comment, off the record, on Keith’s paleo series.
Here are correlations of individual series against the 7 series average.
(Different series lengths, but essentially same results over common lengths.)
SERIES 1000-1610 1610-1995 1000-1995
Briffa -.272 .262 .207
Esper .583 .917 .687
Crowley .879 .946 .902
Jones .773 .917 .861
Mann .760 .856 .822
M&J-NH .929 .965 .936
Moberg .904 .856 .871
Correlations with the climate model are not the same — but Briffa is
again the clear outlier.
Why?
Tom.
GOOD WORK GUYS ,KEEP THE PRESSURE ON THESE COMMUNIST SCAMSTERS .
1121439991 by the way
just check that info with this video it matches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8 but this i the real worry and goal of the scammershttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9VeqKUkfqA
I have no doubts this will hit mainstream media either very soon or in weeks ahead…and heads will roll. I think that we should be gracious in our victory and not persecute or demean any of these people. After all they were probably well intentioned academics who simply lost the plot (and many scientist do, I am one of them..) and we should remember that the only contention here was that Anthropogenic CO2 is/was responsible for increased averaged global temperatures. Other issues are pending but not related to global temperatures such as overpopulation, waste, local land use and I’m sure and hopeful some of those brilliant minds will find employment in these areas such as environmental science etc…
“NikFromNYC (03:16:56) :
1105019698.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: “Parker, David (Met Office)”>, Neil Plummer
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
Cc: “Thomas C Peterson”
Neil,
Just to reiterate David’s points, I’m hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a different base period is the key one in my mind.
…
Personally I don’t want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil”
And there we have the “reason” people. Income protection.
1121869083
Our only concerns have been that we should
1/… be clear what we wish this Figure to illustrate (in the specific context of the
MWP box) – note that this is very different from trying to produce a Figure in such a
way as to bias what it says (I am not suggesting that we are, but we have to guard
against any later charge that we did this). We say this because there are intonations in
some of Peck’s previous messages that he wishes to “nail” the MWP – i.e. this could be
interpreted as trying to say there was no such thing
It seems that president Obama had the foresight to address the CRU issue in his inaugural address back in January’09.
“We will restore science to its rightful place….”
“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”
“Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old.”
An obvious follow-on would be that EPA CO2 endangerment needs to be put on ice until a public enquiry is conducted in the UK to determine the depth of the alleged fraud.
The emperor that used to have no clothes is finally de-throned. A velvet revolution, of sorts. Happy days.
To me this is very damnimg – they admit conning the IPCC
From : Phil Jones [1]
To: Kevin Trenberth [2]
Kevin,
Right on ! Assumes precip doesn’t change – i.e. it’s constant. Difficult to do much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps. Ch 4 has swallowed this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn’t even aware of it.
Can’t decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn’t there and the Swiss Glacier people didn’t know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I’m glad someone has tried the approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely isn’t enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I’ve not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I’ve not been able to get the supporting material. This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better science than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February. Susan has been sending a few emails to Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series – some of which she’s not thought through.
Just be glad we haven’t got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
Very late into this discussion, but as I look more closely, the story of Dan Rather and GW Bush comes to my mind.
It can very well be a trap. Be VERY careful and take everything with a grain of salt.
But will it even get a hearing in the mainstream press or media ???
This morning the main climate stories are about mammoth dung and the predicted 6c rise in global temperature
These emails prove they are very good at influencing media presentations
Left a tip with Drudge, probably the 200th.
Files here.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T
1134497252
> Phil,
>
> Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75
> thru
> Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88,
> Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.
>
> Also — more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented
> by a single
> box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It
> would be
> better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.
>
> I have had to do this in my code — but you really should fix the ‘raw’
> gridded data.
>Tom
confirmed by Hadley
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf
Scott Mandia, here’s something for you: Please explain why Greenland was warmer in the 1920-1950 period than in the current warm period.
See e.g.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2816.1
Excerpt fra abstract:
Year 2003 was the only year of 1840–2007 with a warm anomaly that
exceeds three standard deviations from the 1951–80 base period. The
annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude
than the 1994–2007 warming. The recent warming was, however, stronger
along western Greenland in autumn and southern Greenland in
winter. Spring trends marked the 1920s warming onset, while autumn leads
the 1994–2007 warming. In contrast to the 1920s warming, the 1994–2007
warming has not surpassed the Northern Hemisphere anomaly.
1098472400.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: MBH
Date: Fri Oct 22 15:13:20 2004
Cc: santer1@llnl.gov
…
…
…
Point I’m trying to make is you cannot trust anything that M&M write. MBH is as good a
way of putting all the data together as others. We get similar results in the work in the
Holocene in 1998 (Jones et al) and so does Tom Crowley in a paper in 1999. Keith’s
reconstruction is strikingly similar in his paper from JGR in 2001. Mike’s may have
slightly less variability on decadal scales than the others (especially cf Esper et al),
but
he is using a lot more data than the others. I reckon they are all biased a little to the
summer
and none are truly annual – I say all this in the Reviews of Geophysics paper !
Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the
last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C
on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but
years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Cheers
Phil
Theo (03:12:34) :
Just an analogy, The German fascists kept meticulous records of their crimes
Stop analogising. There’s no need to descend to their level.
BBC about to report it – just checked with them by phone.
To the hacker; Thank you. You have done the world a great service.
A recap of the story with a few select excerpts:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate–Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
I think the journals, (i.e. Nature, Science), will be interested in reading some of these emails. If they want to distance themselves from this they will need to enforce their standards.
I have looked at the data…there is no mention of planetary influence, and solar influences in general are not questioned.
But it looks to be all about “faking it for mutual reward”
The overwhelming theme is the “teams” paranoia of the sceptic blogs sites and the threat to their existence that we provide.
A job well done so far.
Can anyone honestly say that this has come as a real massive surprise? I mean, really?
I am amazed: what next?
Scott A. Mandia (03:21:24)
There are plenty of other threads with very good arguments about every one of the AGW points you mention. Instead of starting a fresh argument here, how about you download the zip file go to the yamal directory. There are 75k lines of data to be analyzed including what looks like the raw data from Hantemirov. If you really want to prove that Briffa is a “non-scandal”, that is your way to do it. Otherwise you are just repeating memes you picked up somewhere else which is of zero interest here.
Has anybody tried to doorstep the CRU …
What do they say?
Do they acknowledge the hack?
Do they state categorically that files are forgeries?
What is their reaction?
Real climate…..
Well, these seem to be just emails–
http://poitsplace.com/temp/mail.rar
1106322460
>> >Thanks Tom,
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something
>> might be
>> > up here. What a shame that would be. It’s one thing to lose “Climate
>> > Research”. We can’t afford to lose GRL. I think it would be
>> > useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and
>> > potentially Mackwell (I don’t know him–he would seem to be
>> complicit w/
>> > what is going on here).
>> >
>> >
>> > If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it
>> could be
>> > taken through the proper channels. I don’t that the entire AGU
>> hierarchy
>> > has yet been compromised!
>> >
>> >
>> > The GRL article simply parrots the rejected Nature comment–little
>> > substantial difference that I can see at all.
>> >
>> >
>> > Will keep you all posted of any relevant developments,
>> >
>> >
>> > mike
Glenn said:
“A FORMER shipbuilding firm has expressed an interest in buying the Exeter-based Met Office, it has emerged.”
“But a union representing more than 1,250 Met Office staff insists that the agency is not for sale, saying privatisation had previously been dismissed as ‘unworkable’.”
“How can a centre that is a key contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be privatised and still be expected to provide impartial, objective information?”
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/VT-Group-says-interested-Met-Office/article-1529365-detail/article.html
How can it now?
Well Glenn, It looks like the International Corporations want to put everything up on the auction block. They already sold the toll roads, bridges, seaports and water authorities in the USA:
”The Department of Homeland Security says 80% of our ports are operated by Foreigners and they are buying and running US bridges and toll roads. http://www.alabamaeagle.org/issues.asp?action=form&formID=2105&recordID=131006
The World Trade Organization are not satisfied with just part of the cake they want it ALL.
Up for grabs at the negotiating table is worldwide privatization and deregulation of public energy and water utilities, postal services, higher education and state alcohol distribution controls; a new right for foreign firms to obtain U.S. Small Business Administration loans; elimination of a list of specific U.S. state laws about land use, professional licensing and consumer protections, and extreme deregulation of private-sector service industries such as insurance, banking, mutual funds and securities. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0305-02.htm
Expect to see lots of “government owned” stuff up on the auction block soon if this “ worldwide privatization and deregulation of public…” is agreed to.
Back on subject:
I think the information was released by an insider. The fact CRU is yelling “HACKER” makes me very suspicious. “HACKER” has very negative connotations where as an insider release does not. Also “HACKER” released information would be much more likely to be discounted and considered “salted “ with false information. Is blaming a “HACKER” CRU performing damage control perhaps?
Does the term “HACKER” originate anywhere in the original release or is it from CRU and secondary sources?
I can’t help laughing at the audacity of Jones’s comments. Its like the three ugly sisters they appear on the defensive as though sceptics were cinderellas
Be very careful with this stuff. If I can read & edit the files, anybody can. I smell a trap …….. but I could be wrong.
Just emails–
http://poitsplace.com/temp/mail.rar
to make the text files more readable–
open them in Wordpad instead of Notepad. Or vice versa.
Scott
Well done for putting your head above the parapet.
You haver admitted before that you know nothing of history. History shows us that nothing today is by any means unprecedented.
Sea ice has been thinner, weather more disturbed, sea levels higher, temperatures higher-all within recorded history, not millions of years ago.
The temperature records are highly manipuluated (and don’t account for realstic uhi) as many of us have pointed out. Climate is highly variable and taking temperature records from the depths of the LIA ignores the summits that preceded it.
I would send you the links to these events(again) but you just dont read them.
Tonyb
More on Phil Jones:
Global Warming ate my data
We’ve lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
“The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.”
Phil Jones, before admitting he’s lost all the data: “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
Hmm..if something is too good to be tru, it probably is. Those mails and stuff, briefly scanned, seem to say exactly what the critics have suspected.
If it is a scam though, it’s a good one. What’s improbable is that someone has got so much talent and so much time.
If someone has committed a crime, either by giving out fake reports like the files suggest, or the person(s), who released it by doing so, police could secure the CRU-files and compare them to the upload.
Simply unbelievable.
It’s worse than we thought.
icehawk55 (00:15:46) :
I think the Mike in this reference is Mike Evans. Please be very careful matching pronouns and names to antecedants.
vg.
No. They demanded witch hunts and tribunals.
They demanded silence and they hid and corrupted data for an argument to limit and control global resources.
They played politics and media and falsified science. No one cares who they were, it is what they tried to do.
Magnificent world saving scientists was their goal, , you say, Liars crooks and fraud.
The best science for climate science in the last decade has come from Skeptics or Closet Skeptics.
More understanding has come diligent science than media politico science. So stick that your up apologetic mouth and smoke it.
From: “Tim Osb*rn”
To: “Keith Br*ffa”
Subject: Re: ppt
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:14:23 -0000 (GMT)
Here is the old version for you to compare with… the only noticeable
difference is for the URALS/YAMAL region, which previously had a higher
peak near 1000 AD. Although that was quite a big change, once you average
it with the other two series, the overall mean series shows very little
difference.
Cheers
Tim
By the way, what’s happened to CA? Did it fall under a bus? Is it a DNS attack, or did SM take it down for a while?
This preface was sent by the hacker/mole on 17 November to various sites [from CA]:
Sounds to me like someone on the inside, rather than a hack. Time will tell.
gt,
Bush did not trap Rather. Anti-Bush deranged idiots trapped Rather. ‘False but true’.
Hadley has admitted the docs are real. These docs are as real as the Pentagon Papers and the busted CIA operations the NYT so gleefully reported on over the last several years.
Let’s focus on the data.
Anthony,
Since it is now pretty clear that the archive dump was due ot a conscience-emboldened insider, I would suggest that the Hadley hack claim is bunk.
I think the headline should reflect this, with all due respect.
Instead, we now have firm evidence that AGW leadership has engaged in illegal data erasing, and conspiracy to do the same. We now have proof that AGW leaders have at the very least deliberately played with the numbers and misled the press, the politicians, the media and their fellow scientists.
I suggest we focus on those issues, with a great deal of energy.
And thanks be to all that is good that the person who released this information did so.
I have enjoyed this site and CA & Blackboard for a long time but never commented. This story has absorbed me all day.
I have a slightly different take on this. Reading the emails you can possibly form the view that these people are not corrupt (in their view) but are defending their personal status, wealth or, hopefully, a real belief they think they are saving the planet.
That is, in order to save the planet, it is OK to sacrifice science.
Email 1248902393 01/01/2009
From: Phil Jones
To: Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: This and that
Date: Wed Jul 29 17:19:53 2009
Tom,
Good idea with that BAMS paper.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:07 29/07/2009, you wrote:
Hi, Phil,
Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but
I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii – I left Monday morning
and flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston airport on my way
home.
Data that we can’t release is a tricky thing here at NCDC. Periodically,
Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would violate agreements
and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you don’t
specifically cite me or NCDC in this.
But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All those
workshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data would be
released.
If it looks to good to be true then it probably is.
I think this has HOAX written all over it.
Of course, we have to be sceptical, but right now it does seem that it’s probably genuine. Jones is reported to have confirmed that it’s for real. Why would he do that? The obvious first step for him would be to say it was all fabricated. But he knows full well that any investigation at CRU would quickly confirm the leak’s truth or otherwise.
One school of thought is that these people would never have said some of these damning things openly. I disagree. The evidence over the past few years is that they have played a shameful part in the corruption of science. But they are also arrogant, possibly because they believed they were somehow above the law. To them, saving the planet was all that mattered, and if the corruption of science was necessary, then so be it.
Pretty well all of the quotes I’ve seen so far are consistent with my view of the Team. I think it’s probably for real. And I think these people are going to pay for their arrogance. Or at least they will if there’s any justice left in the world.
As the Chinese say, we live in interesting times!
Chris
Flooding in the UK has invaded the news, where comments it being used as indications of the climate change problem. I think it would be a miracle if the BBC makes any serious attempt to cover this story, it doesn’t just potenially expose Hadley employees but also the BBC itself. What do others think?
Just for fun:
It’s weather, not climate (re Colorado weather).
What’s CERES? “it is a travesty that we can’t.” Ouch.
“Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat??” Kool-aid?
BBC losing their way?
tux:mail> cat 1255352257.txt
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: [Several of the Team etc]
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was
about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF]
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published
in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC
are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with
ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real
PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the
switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for
first time since Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat
at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy
was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might
be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might
ask Richard Black what’s up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and
signal to noise and sampling errors to this new “IPCC Lead Author”
from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the
sunspots get over their temporary–presumed–vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely
be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard
someone–Mike Schlesinger maybe??–was willing to bet alot of money
on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of
global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest
in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of
the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably
do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such
“fun”, Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building – MC 4205
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Narasimha D. Rao”
To: “Stephen H Schneider”
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC’s reporter on
climate change, on Friday wrote that there’s been no warming since
1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next
20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics’ views.
[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
——————————-
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology
503 Walker Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [8]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[9]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
—
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,
Boulder, CO 80307
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
References
1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
2. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
3. mailto:
4. mailto:
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
6. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
7. mailto:
8. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
9. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
10. mailto:
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
ClimateAudit is still there, I assume there is a large enough volume of traffic accessing the site that it is slowing it to a crawl 5 refreshes and some patience later and it loads).
Incidentally, my first link to a copy of the files back around 300 comments and 5 hours ago (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T) has in the last 6 hours had over 400 downloads, and thats not including the 6 or so other links I have seen. To say the files are getting around would be an understatement.
Something worth knowing about the Freedom of information laws:
From: Phil Jones
To: t.osborn
Subject: Re: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 – IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process [FOI_08-23]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:13:35 +0100
Cc: “Briffa Keith “Mcgarvie Michael
Dave,
Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA,
Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn’t get any additional
comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith
should say that he didn’t get any papers through the IPCC process.either.
I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn’t get any. What we did get
were papers sent to us directly – so not through IPCC, asking us to
refer to them in the IPCC chapters. If only Holland knew how the
process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and
most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland.
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but
Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC
comments.
Folks, I’d stay careful with the information. Given the bulk most of it must be real. That is not to say odd lines of supposed dialogue have not been added. I’ve read most of the excerpts quoted above and some lines do not fit comfortably. Be careful the well is not poisoned.
The only sad part of all this is that both skeptic and pro AGW sites will now wane dramatically in interest but at least the propriety of science has been upheld
I have e-mailed a friend who works for the BBC informing him – whilst stating that the veracity of the data / e-mail needs to be checked.
He has different political views to me (to say the least) but he’s a journalist, and if this is true then it’s a career defining, award winning story to break. And journalists love that kind of thing.
I’ve also contacted the Daily Telegraph and Christopher Booker. Let people know. Get the fraud out in the open.
If this is true, then I expect people to go to jail. It’s misappropriation of funds, refusing FOI requests and all number of things.
The reputation of the IPCC and climate scientists is in tatters. Time to start afresh.
Tallbloke 5 22 34
They are presumably referring to David Holland
tonyb
From: Michael M*nn
To: Phil J*nes
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
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:
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
Holy Cow!
(0952106664.txt):
2. As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of
the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some
flak from the skeptics saying we’re wrong because everyone knows it was
warmer in the Medieval period. We can show why we believe we are correct
with independent data from glacial advances and even slower responding
proxies, however, what are the chances of putting together a group of
a very few borhole series that are deep enough to get the last 1000 years.
Basically trying to head off criticisms of the IPCC chapter, but good
science in that we will be rewriting people’s perceived wisdom about
the course of temperature change over the past millennium. It is important
as studies of the millennium will help to show that the levels of natural
variability from models are reasonable. Tom has run his EBM with current
best estimates of past forcing (Be-10 as a proxy for solar output and Alan
Robock’s ice core volcanic index) and this produces a series similar
to all series of the last 1000 years.
The above is just ideas of how we, as a group, could/should try and reduce
criticisms etc over the next year or so. Nothing is sacred. Your North
American borehole series could be correct as it is annual and most of the
high-freq proxy series respond mainly to summer variations. Is yours really
annual when there is a marked seasonal snow cover season ?
The way they talk in these e-mails may not reflect the way they talk in public but, as any fule kno, people talk very differently when they believe their discussions are private.
Mike McMillan said:
“I strongly disagree with dumping other people’s emails on the web, regardless of the topic. Anything illegal, tip off the authorities, but email should be respected as much as regular mail.”
The “authorities” here in the US of A do not feel that way. Here is a case that the ACLU got involved in
”…. Technically it should have stopped there, as the ACLU does not normally go after a private corporation in matters like this. But the ACLU believed the whole story ‘stunk of censorship’ and did not buy the State Dept of Ag’s excuse. They then had conversations with the expo organizers and a very interesting story emerged in where even names were named from my State Dept of Ag. They informed the expo organizers that I had been at a huge Farm Expo last August (Untrue as I working). They claimed that I harassed people, was rude and obnoxious and had even caused a riot to break out over NAIS! They also stated that they were ‘in fear of being on the same grounds’ as me for fear that I would cause another riot. Of course the expo organizers made the decision to ban me. Who wouldn’t after hearing such a story from a govt agency? My first reaction was to laugh over this absolutely ridiculous ‘story’ then I really got angry. I was NOT at said Farm Expo but I did know people who attended. NO riot broke out!
My State Dept of Ag also provided the expo organizers with numerous e-mails that I had written about NAIS – going back an entire year. I saw these e-mails from our State Dept of Ag with my own eyes. It was then that I realized they are actually tracking me on the internet…..”
This was done to a private individual BY government officials. In the present case we are talking of a government funded group who was obstructing justice by ignoring FOI.
This is not an hoax what is the advantage for warmistas to do this?
Not sure what the rules of engagement are about releasing Phil Jones’ email address, but anyone who’s worked in UK academia can now email him at will, since you’ve xxed out the bit that anyone can work out for themselves.
Some UK institutions, like York, deliberately make the first name. second name scenario prior to the @ more complex with some random numbers, to try and eliminate hackers and spammers.
But poor old Prof. Jones might end up being spammed as a result of this.
Not from me, I add……
IF this is a hoax, what be the reason behind it??
Two questions…
1. Even if somebody came out now claiming they had faked those files, how could they provide definitive evidence of the faking if not by getting all the originals released? (and even in that case, how could we be sure nobody had tampered with the originals?)
2. CRU claims all passwords have been deleted. Surely there is at least one techie around that has the one account and password that can still look at the files? Otherwise they would have locked themselves out of the system for good.
Oh – I’ve been so busy reading Emails I forgot I wanted to post this content-free comment.
It looks like we’ve finally reached the tipping point.
Sorry, I have to head to work anyway. I really could have used a couple more hours of sleep.
Scott A. Mandia (03:21:24) :
You’re not only on the wrong blog, you’re on the wrong planet.
P.Jones interview:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf
suggest new thread on same its a special….this is getting too long
“Freedom of information? Not ours!”
From: Keith Br^ffa
To: Tim Osb*rn P.J*nes,”Caspar Amm*nn”
Subject: Re: Fwd: IPCC FOIA Request
Date: Mon Jun 23 09:47:54 2008
Caspar
I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private ,
inter-collegial discussion is just that – PRIVATE . Your communication with individual
colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC
process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these
“demands” undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is
for this reason , and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe
none of us should submit to these “requests”. Best wishes
Keith
Pt II
Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the
responses and letters up.
There are three threads – two beginning with Fortress and
a third later one.
Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards – can you do this Tim?
I’ve saved all three threads as they now stand. No time to read all the comments, but I
did note in “Fortress Met Office” that someone has provided a link to a website that helps
you to submit FOI requests to UK public institutions, and subsequently someone has made a
further FOI request to Met Office and someone else made one to DEFRA. If it turns into an
organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than to obtain useful information,
then we may be able to decline all related requests without spending ages on considering
them. Worth looking out for evidence of such an organised campaign.
Tim
Given the description of what was taken, I doubt seriously it has anything to do with compromised passwords. My guess would be that a vulnerability related to a patch that was not applied allowed these guys to gain access to the data. Happens a lot.
peeke (01:10:07) :
Don’t use this information at all. Three reasons
1) it could be a trap. It is all to possible it has been tweaked and once it goes public that you use this kind of higly suspicious data you will be damaged beyond repair.
2) It infuriates the opposite party. I mean, the conversation they though was private is now being reviewed. I don’t know about you; but I would be disgusted if this happened to me. Stay courteous.
3) It doesn’t add anything usefull. I mean, the data will either prove IPCC or the sceptics right. If you can wait another 10 years, and you should be able to do that, nature itself will prove your case.
——————————————————
1) It’s been confirmed by Jones.
2) Diddums – when have warmists ever been considerate of the feelings of “deniers”?
The people of several countries put up the bulk of the funding for the work discussed, the people discussing it, the FOI mechanisms they are trying to circumvent, the tax systems they are trying to avoid and the data they are discussing distorting and deleting. Some of the exchanges appear to justify sackings and legal action.
I think we have a legitimate interest.
3) How many billions will be wasted in the next ten years, how many resources wasted which could have alleviated real problems, how many industries crippled, how many opportunities lost?
I’m sure the conspirators (as we can now justifiably call them) would love this to die down so that in ten years time they can come up with another excuse for the failure of their projections.
More evidences coming out supporting it.
One file – a five-page PDF document entitled The Rules of the Game, discusses indoctrinating the residents of the United Kingdom with global warming propaganda.
http://www.twawki.wordpress.com
Probably black ops. by UK gov. (Lord Mandelson aka Voldemort) following collapse of photo op. at Copenhagen for Brown (aka Macavity). Hence also upcoming cut in funding (‘You have run out of our money’).
Rhys Jagger,
I found his email on a CRU website, sure it will be spammed since it is currently involved in a hot topic, but it’s hardly private.
The Story is up on http://www.lucianne.com/ with a link here. It is starting to get out.
Anthony, did you look at the TGIF post linked to at the briefing room? Did you not notice that TGIF is a segment from “Investigate Magazine,” a Kiwi tabloid roughly equivalent to the National Enquirer? And Phil Jones talked to them first? Really?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven…
Weren’t e-mails dumped on the ‘net about the stock scandals, or the Bear STearns Hedge fund blow up? Seems to be quite common in the USA
vg (05:26:03) :
The only sad part of all this is that both skeptic and pro AGW sites will now wane dramatically in interest but at least the propriety of science has been upheld
——————————————
Even more sadly, I don’t think that climate “science” is unique in having a huge profitable infrastructure built on sand. If AGW does go the way of the Millennium Bug, then there are other areas which would benefit from the scrutiny of the likes of Anthony, Steve et.al – not least in medicine.
I love Die Hard. This history would be a great plot for Die Hard Hot! Shouldn’t Siemens also know of this?
1254832684.txt:
Hi Phil,
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases – I thought we’d moved the debate beyond this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
Kind regards,
Andrew
Lots of FOIA requests will bring out the truth. All the search data you need to put them out is in the files.
Having trouble getting your paper through peer review to legitimise it’s inclusion in AR4 months previously? Easy, just get the Journal editor to ditch the problematic reviewer!
From: Ben S*nter
To: P.J*nes
Subject: Re: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 – Decision on Manuscript]
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:56:40 -0700
>> Dear folks,
>>
>> I just returned from my trip to Australia – I had a great time there.
>> Now (sadly) it’s back to the reality of Douglass et al. I’m forwarding
>> the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you’ll see,
>> Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we’ve made to the paper.
>> Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor
>> (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is
>> requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer’s comments.
>>
>> Once again, Reviewer 2 gets hung up on the issue of fitting higher-order
>> autoregressive models to the temperature time series used in our paper.
If this is atually NOT a hoax, this is a massive, massive bombshell. This is the smoking gun…
James Delingpole at the Telegraph …
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
No comments yet.
“I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.” –Phil Jones
Now that they are admitting these are real, I’ll say it again –Phil Jones must go as director of CRU.
The previous warning about a trojan named
Win32.Agent.wsg in Zipfile FOI2009.zip is a
misconception due to an error in the heuristics
scan in Spybot S&D 1.6.2.42 updated 11 Nov 2009.
The latest update will clear the issue.
You have access to EXACTLY THE SAME radiosonde data that we used in our
recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology
(IJoC). You are perfectly within your rights to verify the calculations
we performed with those radiosonde data. You are welcome to do so.
We used the IUK radiosonde data (the data mentioned in your email) to
calculate zonal-mean temperature changes at different atmospheric
levels. You should have no problem in replicating our calculation of
zonal means. You can compare your results directly with those displayed
in Figure 6 of our paper. You do not need our “numerical quantities” in
order to determine whether we have correctly calculated zonal-mean
trends, and whether the IUK data show tropospheric amplification of
surface temperature changes.
Similarly, you should have no problem in replicating our calculation of
“synthetic” MSU temperatures from radiosonde data. Algorithms for
calculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been published by ourselves
and others in the peer-reviewed literature. You have already
demonstrated (in your own IJoC paper of 2007) that you are capable of
computing synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model output.
Furthermore, I note that in your 2007 IJoC paper, you have already
successfully replicated our “model average” synthetic MSU temperature
trends (which were published in the Karl et al., 2006 CCSP Report).
In summary, you have access to the same model and observational data
that we used in our 2008 IJoC paper. You have all the information that
you require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our
IJoC paper are sound or unsound.
You are quick to threaten your intent to file formal complaints against
me “with the journal and other scientific bodies”. If I were you, Dr.
Douglass, I would instead focus my energies on rectifying the serious
error in the “robust statistical test” that you applied to compare
modeled and observed temperature trends.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC
paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. They deserve to
be fully apprised of your threat to file formal complaints.
Please do not communicate with me in the future.
Those pesky FOI requests again:
From: Phil Jones
To: Gavin Schmidt
Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper
Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008
Cc: Michael Mann
Gavin,
….
Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our
FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions
not to respond – advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an
aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself
from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn’t want to have to deal with
this hassle.
The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the
skeptics
have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info
the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t
have an obligation to pass it on.
Cheers
Phil
It keeps getting worse and frightening:
From: Phil Jones
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
I have spent the last 14 hours watching this sory on WUWT. It also appears on ClimateAudit, a few Blogs (Blackboard, Andrew Bolt at News.com.au) , and the Examiner. Phil Jones (of the CRU) has confirmed the leak in a New Zealand subscription magazine.
It now seems as if the worlds media is engaged in a large scale act of self restraint, as I cannot find any entries attributable to the BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The Telegraph, or any major media outlet.
Surely they are not going to hide this on page 4 and just move on?
I begin to grow concerned about climateaudit.org’s server. I know Anthony is “tech support” on that, and Anthony’s travelling. For the amount of actual activity there the last 18 hours, it should not be responding as terribly slow as it has been. Somebody running a DDOS against it, perhaps? Or some other technical flaw?
Another issue is science by blog sites – and the then immediate response mode.
Science ought to work through the peer-review system….. sure you’ve said all these
things before.
We’re getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other
blog sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used.
Keith had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths! Even one reading far
too much into his off ill message.
Even though I’ve had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have
been the worst yet. I’m realizing more what those working on animal experiments must
have gone through.
Cheers
Phil
Hi Phil,
lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a
very long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I’ve received.
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and
highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack
campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat
Obama’s health plan, we’ll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap &
trade bill that passed congress this summer. It isn’t coincidental that the original
McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S.
senate was considering the McCain Lieberman climate bill in ’05.
we’re doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our Realclimate post goes some ways
to exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal w/ the continued onslaught we can expect
over the next month.
The truth will always find a way to get out.
As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in
the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper
are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are
sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit.
Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and
synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the
very purpose of an audit.
By James Delingpole
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
A rather tight lipped story so far.
Too many comments – crashing my iPhone !
Can I be the first to call it Warmergate ?
Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing
the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am
unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and
frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et
al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect
conclusions on the basis of that flawed test.
I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of
Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He
has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the
currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our
scientific research without constant fear of an “audit” by Steven
McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
send to our scientific colleagues.
Given that his email address is right there on the CRU web site, I’d say it’s no problemo.
The BBC have picked up the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
TonyB (05:29:52) :
Tallbloke 5 22 34
They are presumably referring to David Holland
tonyb
Laughing up their sleeves at him in fact.
Dear Phil,
Please can we have our £150,000,000 back
Thanks
The UK taxpayer.
Because of this story the pink clouds at sun rise look more beautiful this morning.
BBC News …
Hackers target world’s leading climate research unit.
Mixed messages about UHI
From: “Jenkins, Geoff”
To: “Phil Jones”
Subject: London UHI
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:37:34 +0100
Cc: “Wilby, Robert”
Hi Phil
Thanks for the comments on the Briefing report. You say “There is no evidence with London
of any change in the amount of the UHI over the last 40 years. The UHI is clear, but it’s
not getting any worse” and sent a paper to show this. By coincidence I also got recently a
paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp
during spring and summer”. Its not something I need to sort out for UKCIP08, but I thought
you both might like to be aware of each others findings. I didn’t keep a copy of Rob’s PDF
after I printed it off but I am sure you can swap papers. I don’t need to be copied in to
any discussion.
Cheers
Geoff
It is human nature to monkey with data
used car salesman do it all the time
Now on BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
Let skeptics, ect., get all excited, tons of e-mail traffic, national news stories, escalating noise all around….
and then a quiet chuckle standing in front of cameras while telling how the whole world, once again, got caught up in this (so blatantly) fabricated tale. Climate Change is coming and the naughty people won’t getting even coal in their stockings.
Lots of free press right before the big meeting to keep up the flagging interest.
“Just an analogy, The German fascists kept meticulous records of their crimes.”
“Stop analogising. There’s no need to descend to their level.”
Actually it’s a good analogy. Ir never occurred to the the people keeping the records that they were doing anything wrong.
If you don’t like that, I have a more personal record keeping analogy. I have some involvement with a company that has recently had a problem with a manager who also does bookkeeping. He did things that he “thought” were for the companies good, but since they were controversial he decided to do them without telling anyone he answered to. Doing it this way meant that he ended up writing tens of thousands of dollars worth of company checks and depositing them in his personal account, and then paying some expenses personally without reporting them. He was sure it was going to be so successful that he would be able to pay it all back and we would thank him. Because of this, he kept careful personal records about everything.
But then it all blew up, and all the money was lost. Now we only have his word that the money went towards what he said it went to – all we know for sure is that a very large amount of money is gone, and that his signature is on everything.
It was an absolute shock to him when he was informed that regardless of the motive, this is what is called “embezzlement”. He even offered the excuse, “If I’d thought it was illegal, I wouldn’t have kept such good records!”
Doesn’t matter what you thought, buddy. It is.
Lot’s of lovely money. OUR BLOODY MONEY!! Grrrrrrrrrrrr!
At 11:31 13/10/2008, Tim Osb*rn wrote:
>Hi CRU Board,
>
>I just had an interesting chat with Jack Newnham
>from the International Development Team at Price
>Waterhouse Cooper. They get lots of DfID
>(Douglas: DfID is the UK Government Department
>for International Development) funding.
>
>They’ve heard that DfID are likely to call for
>expressions of interest for a new centre
>focussing on international climate
>change. Their idea is to fund a centre that
>would be the first point of call for advice and
>for commissioning research related to climate
>change and development or to climate change in countries where DfID operate.
>
>He was talking about £15 million per year for 5
>years! Not sure how much would be from DfID and
>how much raised from other donors (and hence
>uncertain), nor how much would be given up-front
>versus how much spent later on specific research
>projects organised via this centre.
>
>Nevertheless, sounds big enough to be worth getting involved in.
>
>He was clearly just testing the water with us,
>so not sure that they definitely wish to involve
>us. He may want to meet to talk through things,
>if they decide to ask us to join their
>proposal. He said he’d email me later — I’ll
>forward this when it arrives. They’re also
>contacting the Tyndall Centre, and no doubt a number of other institutes.
>
>Has anyone else in CRU been approached?
>
>Presumably, if this call for tenders is actually
>issued, this is likely to interest Tyndall
>greatly. But CRU can offer a significant
>contribution — especially data and scenarios
>developed for specific (developing) countries —
>and this should be seen as independent from
>Tyndall rather than part of Tyndall
>contribution. There’s also Declan/DEV, so UEA as a whole has much to offer.
>
>Any thoughts on this?
>
>Tim
>
Zero chance it’s a hoax. 158MB of plausible data, emails, talking points, etc., would take mann-years to create.
My guess the Yamal release by McIntyre was the last straw for someone at Hadley. The stench of tar in the pot was overbearing to associates close to Jones.
You don’t know [who], do you, Mr. Jones?
it’s out at bbc now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
Having read through these E-mails, this is genuine correspondence. (In addition to Phil Jones admitting that the correspondence is legitimate).
Discussions such as “how are the wife and kids” and “have fun in Switzerland!” are typically the way that E-mails between colleagues are composed. (A quick check of this one reference could prove authenticity. Was there a conference in Switzerland at the time?)
This is devastating……..Now, the only question that remains is how thoroughly will this information be disseminated.
Criminal/Civil legal ramifications could be on the horizon for these chaps.
Latest report released from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
To be a fly on the wall now lol
mike sphar said:
I wonder if big oil is behind this…if so perhaps we’ll see a pop among the Exxon Mobils of the world. Just dreaming here….
“Big Oil” that is Standard Oil aka the Rockefellers is 100% behind AGW. Just google Rockefeller and Maurice Strong.
I always laugh when I see the Warmers and Environmentalists pointing fingers at “Big Oil” Take a look at ActivistCash. com -see – http://www.activistcash.com/index_foundations.cfm?alpha=R – and click on each of the different Rockefeller foundations. “Big Oil” funds groups like Greenpeace and WWF and then controls them.
I figured that out when Organic Consumers was FOR a very bad food bill that would kill Organic Farming. No amount of talking to them would budge them from their pro bill stance. Turns out the founder just got appointed as a Chief Advisor to the UN and the Rockefeller’s give lots of money to Organic Consumers.
Follow the money but it isn’t from big oil to the skeptics – just the opposite!
To follow the story as it unfolds in the blogosphere go to:
http://www.climatedata.info/Opinions/Opinions/search.html
The hack heard ’round the world.
Scott Mandia:
gul·li·ble – adjective easily deceived or cheated.
Also, gul·la·ble.
Oigin:
1815–25; gull 2 + -ible
Related forms:
gul·li·bil·i·ty, noun
gul·li·bly, adverb
Synonyms:
credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green.
Thank you Scott, for your very apt description of many, if not most of you AGW Believers. You and your brethren would rather trust in a mythical much-hyped “consensus”, and simply believe what you’ve been told to believe, rather than to trust your own brain and its ability to ferret out fact from opinion. Then again, your continual conflation of anything remotely either related to, or at least blamed on warming (melting glaciers, hurricanes, toothaches, etc.) and the idea that it must be caused by man is an example of fuzzy thinking in the extreme, so perhaps you can’t be blamed for that.
Sen Inhofe to Sen Boxer from yesterday : “We won, you lost, get a life.” And this was yesterday, before this story broke. What will he be saying today!
Is the CA delay from a DoS (denial-of-service attack)?
Boudu (05:00:43) :
Simply unbelievable.
It’s worse than we thought.
Nice line! 🙂
I KNEW IT. AGW is a freaking hoax.
Hey, Al Gore, [snip] me.
This is about the e-mail file #1255553034:
‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’
http://algorelied.com/?p=3177
BBC news woke up 46 min ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
I haven’t read all the responses but from looking at a few I would think authorities now have “probable cause” of several crimes (eg. tax evasion). As such, warrants could be issued and CRU, NCAR, GISS, etc. could be served.
If I were a politician trying to CYA I would start the process ASAP. I think Copenhagen is now toast. Any politician or scientist attending would be suggesting some degree of complicity.
ClimateGate sounds about right to me.
Gene Nemetz (23:22:54)
By “containing the MWP”, Mann means only that the data should start early enough that the beginning of the MWP is included. A lot of people here have been overly skeptical about the leaks bonafides. It’s obvious this stuff can’t be faked in this quantity, and that “planted” emails would contextually stick out like sore thumbs. This is all business-as-usual stuff. The peer-review pressure material is great,
Are they still in protective ‘lock down’ over there?
.
.
vg (05:37:33) :
This is not an hoax what is the advantage for warmistas to do this?
Kjell T Ringen (05:39:19) :
IF this is a hoax, what be the reason behind it??
Are we sure about that super computer the MET office just bought? What if there is some totally new type of virus hidden in this data? What if they are just waiting until this has spread throughout the entire internet? What if this is just part of their sinister plan?
SKYNET! Rise of the Manns!
I just checked out the Hadley CRU website: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
Looks like something unusual is happening over there b/c their homepage is displaying the following message regarding an “Emergency Webserver”:
“This website is currently being served from the CRU Emergency Webserver.
Some pages may be out of date.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.”
It might just be due to unusually high traffic at the Hadley site, or they might be in full lockdown mode over there due to a real security breach.
CRU servers being reconfigured it seems, from their webpage:
“This website is currently being served from the CRU Emergency Webserver.
Some pages may be out of date.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.”
“Does it occur to any here how chilling it is for open communications if one is always aware that some Knight in shining armor may take it upon himself to invade those conversations”
Especially chilling to these criminals, terrorists and humanities enemies.
The leakers of “The Pentagon Papers” will get no medals from me; no matter what their crime may have uncovered.”
Very poor analogy. Exposing national security secrets(supposing evil intent would be found somewhere) simply to damage the military indiscriminately on the one hand. On the other hand exposing what was already known via M&M to be fraud, known to be enriching corrupt politicians, and known to be causing wild fluctuations in commodities, threatening to cost humanity tens of trillions.
I believe you are letting your knee-jerk fears and emotions cloud your judgement. Happens to the best of us.
First assessment:
Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.
“At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2390661/posts
It’s “The Day After Tomorrow” for real for climate science.
Anyone else noticed that the writers of the e-mails always seem to be getting ready for conferences in, for example, Nice and Florence, or on skiing trips?
Nice work – if you can get it….
And BBC managed not even to mention WHAT was hacked. Talk about cover-up.
At least the hacking seems like it occurred. UEA IT are enforcing a password change.
Whether the content has been modified is another matter
Also de-lurking for a moment:
1) The data does appear to have been “illegitimately obtained,” which is a shame, but the suggestion of FOI fraud blunts that, as does the magnitude of the revelation. Obviously stolen data is improper evidence for a $100 fine for mis-sorting recyclables, perhaps there’s wiggle room when the topic is multi-billion dollar fraud and political manipulation that affects the quality of life of billions.
2) I take the middle road on caution here – I say “aggressively pursue, with disclaimers.” There may be a limited window for verification, and double-kudos to people who have been doing that verification, piece by piece, by matching e-mails to conversations they’ve had with parties, etc.
3) Refreshing to see the trolls jumping on this one. Usually a waste of time, but the smell of desperation is palpable enough that the attempt is meaningless and funny rather than an interruption.
4) I doubt this will get the coverage and, more importantly, investigation, it deserves from traditional media sources that have already signed on to the AGW bandwagon. For example, how many fact-checkers do you think AP will assign to this “leak,” more or less than a book by a former Alaskan Governor?
As some have said here, I hope this turns out to be a “realignment” of climate science – a ray of sunlight on the process, a process that should have been open and transparent in the first place.
I’m less concerned with the individual “punishments” than I am with making this kind of behavior more difficult to get away with.
Provenance is also important, especially with digital data – though someone would have to have put in an AWFUL lot of time to fake even a portion of this, it is possible.
So, basically, keep up the good work, I’m going to try to do a little mining myself this weekend, by which time it will probably have all been done. 🙂
You really don’t need to beak Godwins law when thinking of analogies for this scenario, where people rashly bare all in email 😉
The recent Romm versus Levitt and Dubner episode struck me as a handy comparison.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/
To those who don’t know, Joe Romm emailed to a respected climate scientist an open admission he wanted to feed him a quote to help “trash” Levitt and Dubner. It turned out that the scientist in question, Ken Caldeira, who is no doubt a firm believer in the threat of AGW, forwarded the email to the putative trashee – Dubner , which blew up into a mini debate that hovered under the MSM radar for a while.
That episode illustrated to me that there are probably many people in the AGW camp who find some of the bullying wilful distortions and arm twisting applied by the more vocal activists rather distasteful. Maybe like our whistle-blower/hacker here?
Oh Noes! The RMS demands replicability!
I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained
about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t
be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS.
The paper is about London and its UHI!
Cheers
Phil
At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:
Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I’m really sorry you have to deal with
that kind of crap.
If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS
results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS
journals.
Cheers,
Ben
I believe the word of the day is:
cabal (ka bal’) – n. 1. A small group of persons joined in a secret, often political intrigue; junta.
When you howling wolves realize that the meat you think you have been thrown is made of rubber, are you going to spit it out, or keep telling everybody that it tastes really good?
I wonder if Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton, after polishing off their fake Nobel Prizes, sent out these doctored emails?
This thread is an embarrassment just as the Briffa non-scandal was here and at CA.
I suggest in the meantime some of you should read the following:
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science (2007)
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
So we are dealing with a Bernie Madoff type scam after all!
Data is knowingly manipulated and false results are knowingly published in order to fool people into thinking that the Global Climate is in real jeopardy and that Governments should direct HUGE amounts of TAXPAYER money at the perpetrators of the scam in order to understand and fix a problem that never existed.
WOW
I actually thought they might simply be incompetent. This email data shows the cheerleaders for AGW are far from incompetent but an extremely well organized criminal ring who are clearly orchestrating fraud on a massive scale.
This will make a great movie or book – the truth is stranger than fiction.
I love the smell of AGW sweat early in the morning.
It smells like.. victory.
Jesse wrote:
“For example, I refer to doing something with software as a “trick” all the time, it doesn’t mean I’m actually tricking people. You have all gone conspiracy crazy nuts.”
Not “all” of us. I proposed the interpretation you’re suggesting, and re-posted it. And DaveE seconded me, posting:
Roger Knights (16:44:30) :
I’m with you on the meanings of trick. I use programming tricks, meaning non-obvious techniques.
You have to read the whole thread before using the word “all.”
Tony (04:32:50) :
A recap of the story with a few select excerpts:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate–Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
Tony I think one should be circumspect about how and what the eXaminer.com reports. They are not a main stream media outlet and claim only to be “An insider source for everything local.” We here in Indiana find that to be… out of this world:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2383-Honolulu-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2009m11d12-Vatican-prepares-for-extraterrestrial-disclosure
Submitted this FOI request to UEA:
Dear Mr. Palmer,
I hereby make a EIR/FOI request for the complete text of the following emails transmitted over the University of East Anglia’s servers (header information is given):
Header #1
From:
To:
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc:
Excerpt: “I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.”
Header #2
From:
To:
Subject: Re: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 – IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process [FOI_08-23]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:13:35 +0100
Cc:
Excerpt: “On (2) [xxxxx] should say that he didn’t get any papers through the IPCC process.either. … What we did get were papers sent to us directly – so not through IPCC, asking us to refer to them in the IPCC chapters.”
Header #3
From:
To:
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Excerpt: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with [xxxxx] re AR4? … Can you also email [xxxxx] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.”
Header #4
From:
To:
Subject: Re: CA
Date: Mon Jun 23 09:54:03 2008
Excerpt: “I’ve saved all three threads as they now stand. No time to read all the comments, but I did note in “Fortress Met Office” that someone has provided a link to a website that helps you to submit FOI requests to UK public institutions, and subsequently someone has made a further FOI request to Met Office and someone else made one to DEFRA. If it turns into an organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than to obtain useful information, then we may be able to decline all related requests without spending ages on considering them. Worth looking out for evidence of such an organised campaign.”
Header #5
From:
To:
Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper
Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008
Cc:
Excerpt: “The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”
Header #6
From:
To:
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc:
Excerpt: “When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals.”
I also submit a SEPARATE FOI request for any emails transmitted over UEA’s servers that contain any content related to FOI requests submitted to UEA during calendar year 2009.
As you may or may not be aware, copies of many UEA emails have appeared all over the internet. Some emails have been confirmed to be entirely accurate. It is not presently known whether the emails referred to above are also accurate. If they are accurate, they may represent a deliberate and concerted effort to be non-responsive to legitimate FOI requests, and therefore would be covered under the FOI regulations (and quite possibly other regulations as well).
Full text of the alleged emails can be provided if necessary. I intend to post this FOI request publicly. However, I will remove all names from the headers and text as I do not know whether the emails and excerpts are authentic until this FOI request is fulfilled.
Sincerely,
[xxxxx]
The grammatic structure of the hacker’s message is similar to Russian syntax. Probably it was literally translated. I suppose that the hacker lives in Tomsk or somewhere nearby.
WUWT is quite popular. People read it even in Tomsk. Well, I also write from Tomsk, though I’m not the hacker.
Scott, Scott, Scott… you silly lockstep libtard…. the joke is on you.. GW that is!
“This thread is an embarrassment just as the Briffa non-scandal was here and at CA.”
Not feeling so good this morning, eh Scott?
This is excellent.
Now watch as the AGW cockroaches, in the light of truth scurry desperately for cover.
Nice one Scott, Next time you peddle on your three wheel eco bike, stopping traffic and being a whiz.
Your three wheel eco bike frame is smelted, the tires on your eco bike are vulcanised. CO2
Your shoes have plastic, the frige you keep your Kool aid and toenail and Tofu sandwiches, in is made of steel.
Everything you enact with is CO2, even your breathing, you talk of mirrors the silvering on the back is a CO2 manufacturing process.
You are a fool.
Scott A. Mandia– I think that besides your blustering and rants against big tobacco and oil etc. which, is standard alarmist rhetoric, perhaps you might be persuaded to look at the facts, or is that too radical for you?
What you disagree with is dismissed out of hand, just as RC rejects out of hand any comments it doesn’t agree with (yes, one of the emails explains just HOW this happens. I will hunt it down and post it for your viewing pleasure when I get home from work). Calling Yamal a “non-scandal” after looking at the data is probably quite correct though. I mean it’s one bearded loon making a few graphs by measuring bits of trees (why anyone would choose to do that for a living, unless of course he’d rather walk around the forest than get a proper job, is anyone’s guess); how could that be classed as a scandal?
What is a scandal though, is that the keys to the future of western economic prosperity have apparently been given away by our cretinous politicians to these climate change fanatics. What these emails show, over and above character (although they do demonstrate an almost unbelievable arrogance), is that they are not exactly upholding the best traditions of the scientific method. If you care about Science, then this is a scandal.
To Scott A. Mandia. I may not have the terminology absolutely correct,but am I correct in saying that Gore et al and all the merry folks in the AGW camp have been “served “?
Scott A. Mandia (07:46:39)
You’re out of your mind. While much of what I’ve read in these CRU emails seems nothing more than scientists working hard to put the best face their research in ways that are hardly fraudulent, even if misguided, there IS a pretty good case that these guys are “over the line,” especially in their comments about manipulating the peer review process, in fighting to prevent their data from being scutinized, and in clearly indicating they believe AGW is “settled” (for them) and their job is really mostly to convince the populace and politicans about that so that government action (e.g., Cap and Trade). This last bit is NOT the work of science for which these guys are getting paid.
Bottom line — give it up. You sound stupid and discredit yourself. Even if you believe AGW is “true,” this is not the battle you should be fighting. You ought to be figuring out how to get beyond this mess to avoid the entire AGW science from being circular-filed by the public.
Interesting stuff emails
These days most are sent html style documents.
Why are all these in text format.
If I lose my password for email then there is no way that emails can be seen. They are saved in an encryped form to stop others reading them.
This would also apply to spool files for backup. The whole package looks to me as if this was prepared as a FOI response or as many have suggested as a trap!!.
Apart from a few silly asides in PRIVATE emails I have see very little earth shattering stuff.
Most of the latter seem to be about organised FOI attacks with tales of hate mail and wasted research time.
Here’s one possible motive for an insider to leak this info: He/she was exposed to / the recipient of the sort of haughty / high-handed / dismissive attitude and behavior evident in these e-mails, resented it, and decided to get even. What goes around comes around.
I hope we get a post of an update soon.
Seems like they will be able to deny most of this even if it is true.
Mann responds…
“I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
If this is so HUGE-why has it not been reported in Mainstream media? Even Drudge won’t post it on his site.
Probably because it’s one big fat hoax.
To me it looks like the data was compiled for a Freedom of Information request but wasn’t released…. until someone either leaked it or found it.
Story hits the Telegraph…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Scott-
I’ll make you a deal. I’ll read the report you posted by UCS, one of the world’s largest cheerleaders for man made climate change and proponent of some of the farthest left opinions in the public space, if you will read this considerably shorter piece detailing the background of UCS and the partial list of organizations that fund it.
Neither of us will be convinced of anything but at least you will have the benefit of reading a shorter, more fact based piece.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6631
It is ironic that UCS has been acussing the Bush administration for years of suppressing data on man made climate change and you pick this very thread that proves you warmists are in fact the ones who have been surpressing and manipulating the actual “data”. Though I don’t suppose you warmists are feeling all that ironic today.
The BBC have this story, missing the whole point of course.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
Scott,
Yeah yeah yeah. The VRWC mind control ray got Jones to admit that this is hs archive.
And of course the great lords of AGW are permitted, nay, encouraged, to keep the dogma pure by stomping down that inconvenient data from the past.
Scott- your side lied from day one, about the data, the methodlogy, and corrupted the peer review process.
Most people, with any wits, have the mental accuity to get angry when lied to. But you AGW true believers are proof of the PT Barnum saying – a sucker is born every minute.
Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
If it was a hacker who “hacked INTO our system,” that implies it was from outside, and it further implies that the hacker’s phrase “random selection” means that it contains all he could obtain, but that he didn’t obtain all that there was, because he couldn’t systemetically get an overview of the whole site. IOW, he/she isn’t holding anything back.
tz: That’s what I’ve been thinking. Is it possible the Russians want to plunge the knife into the back of AGW once and for all? This may not convince Western pols, but it gives the Russians, Chinese, and Indians an excuse to exit these discussions once and for all.
Robinson (08:05:10):
“…the keys to the future of western economic prosperity have apparently been given away by our cretinous politicians to these climate change fanatics.”
This “How-To” manual on promoting alarmist propaganda links to their fellow travelers in the UK government: click
The Wrecking CRU has a nice ring to it.
I have no sympathy for CRU. Their secrecy and withholding of data that is being used to push for a global carbon tax brought this on. I congratulate the hacker or hackers responsible for this.
Note that the BBC reports and confirms the hacking but fails to even mention the embarasing and unprofessional e-mails describing how they cook the books and regulate the peer review process.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
Hi Scott
I read your link about Exxon and tobacco. I am not sure what your point is?
In the first para the authors call it the ‘most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign’. Sucessful in what sense? The world has gone carbon crazy and all sots of controls are planned. If that is the end result of a successful campain by Exxon I wouldn’t like to see their example of a failed one.
You seem a genuinely nice sincere guy. I read your links. What about reading mine? I have written five articles in total-one on the politics and four on the historic aspects. Will you read them if I link to them or will you continue to believe all climate scientists have totally pure motives and the current warm(ish) era is truly unprecedented?
Forget the complicated mathematical formula that plague this experimental science and look at the history and the politics.
best regards
Tonyb
Such hypocrisy. They can all go get arrested with James Hansen, so where’s the harm in a little hacking?
This pseudoscience appears to be a crime of the highest order against all humanity. By making CO2 appear to be some demon gas, every person in the entire world suffers, and the poor disproportionally so. The people of India, Russia, indeed the entire earth should be calling for the strictest sanctions to be placed against anyone pushing this death and poverty agenda. Peer review is dead. Science will soon be dead if this crime is left to stand.
I’ve been back in touch with the guys who write the pages at the BBC’s science online page, and they say that they cannot report on the subject of the matter as the emails have been gained illegally, and also that the content of the emails haven’t been verified by those involved – so they may be reporting something which isn’t true(!). They will only report on the content if they get the people involved to verify to the aunthenticity of the emails. I pointed out that this was unlikely in the extreme and the guy said that’s just how it is. I think UK newspapers will run with it, and the BBC may report on what the newspapers are saying – but don’t hold your breath!
“And thanks be to all that is good that the person who released this information did so.”
How about a Nobel Prize?
Incidentally, remember when Lindzen took off the gloves a month or two ago and called alarmist climate science “corrupt”? How sweetly vindicated he must feel.
From the Guardian article linked by Peter S (08:08:56) :
“A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said: … Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine. … We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry.”
“When the Guardian asked Professor Jones to verify whether these emails were genuine, he refused to comment.”
Looks like the CRU guys are speculating every bit as much as we are. I bet they are praying that just one bit of the 150+Meg is fabricated just to give them a breather.
They dont know either.
Scott – from the contents of the emails – if they are genuine, they write more in the language of eco warriors than scientists.
Whether the leaker is an insider or someone external, it is appropriate to refer to him or her as a “whistleblower.”
Scott A. Mandia (07:46:39) :
I suggest in the meantime some of you should read the following:
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science (2007)
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/489.pdf
Grasping at straws, eh Scott? Read this if you can, through tears.
Yeah, this is all a Big Conspiracy by Big Oil. Go with that.
omgz! why r u all looking at our private files! You were never supposed to see this! Marx-damn-it! Now we’ll have to start all over!
OMG! GLOBAL TEMPERATURE STAGNATION IS GOING TO KILL US ALL! THE GOVERNMENT MUST USE MONEY TO STOP IT!
In all fairness if anyone does any research we can all see that the “facts” and figures are manipulated left right and centre to produce whatever the people making the points at the time require them to say. However, it would be nice if what comes of this, is the stopping of all the propaganda consistently being forced down our throats about global warming and carbon footprints. Anyone with a grain of common sense and a small urge to investigate can see the majority of what we are told is utter rubbish in order to justify another gazillion dollars of input!
What I wonder about is… if we know that it’s all rubbish.. yet the governments still manage to get their gazillion dollars… what will they be spending it on instead?
The actual scientific method imitates art. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761
Notice how RealClimate manages to get credit for a partial problem report, and the issue is one of an assumed invader rather than what the information reveals.
The BBC confirms the data hacking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
“Due to the volume” of data there is not yet confirmation that all of it is genuine …
According to the Guardian – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
“When the Guardian asked Professor Jones to verify whether these emails were genuine, he refused to comment.
Professor Michael E Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, is another prominent climatologist who features in many of the email exchanges. He said: “I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”‘
I was wondering if the theft of not genuine emails would constitute criminal activity that Mr. Mann would like to have tracked down?
Lurker surfacing.
Lots of comments to the effect that the warmist brigade are on the run.
Don’t you believe it.
Lots of careers are predicted on this stuff – including many heavyweight political careers. To a lot of these people scientific truth is of less concern than their perceived public status.
They will do their damnedest to sweep this under the carpet, to minimise the effect of the leaks – and at the last will invoke the Precautionary Principle – “Well, it could happen, so we’ll go right along pretending that nothing has changed.”
This fight has a long way to go yet.
The BBC have this story, missing the whole point of course.
What point would that be — that y’all are conspiracy nutters? I’ve read all 600+ comments here and the impression they’ve left is that this hack is the final nail in the coffin of denialism.
“Can I be the first to call it Warmergate ?”
No. It’s CRUaquiddick. Let the Left wear this.
“It’s misappropriation of funds, refusing FOI requests and all number of things.”
Could someone prepare an indictment containing a numbered list of charges? E.g., the first draft might look like this:
1. misappropriation of funds;
2. refusing FOI requests;
subsequent commenters would append numbered items one digit higher than the previous last number, e.g.:
3. deleting e-mails;
It’s important to round up and centralize an overview of what’s objectionable in what has been revealed, so outsiders and the press can “get a handle” on it.
Somebody call the WSJ, for the love of God.
So the stuff is real and thus damning!
Enron revisited!
Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, et al, have had a long-standing invitation to debate their position.
They should take this opportunity to explain their side of this scandal in a neutral, moderated and televised debate, in order to set the record straight.
If they have been acting ethically, they should welcome the opportunity to explain to the world what they really meant in these emails. Maybe everyone is simply reading them out of context, and there is an innocent explanation for what they appear to say.
Any honest person would jump at the chance to explain, since what it appears to be is a conspiracy to use the cloak of ‘science’ to defraud taxpayers out of truly enormous sums of money, and to use themselves and their friends in the climate peer review system to marginalize or bar outright any skeptical views.
So far their answer, via their own blog realclimate, has been silence. Maybe they’re busy coordinating their calendars for available debating dates.
Hmmmm… Where’s Joel Shore??? I’m sure he can clear this whole thing up and get AGW back on track with just a few carefully worded paragraphs.
Mike Bryant
From some months ago. Formatting too complex to post. Tons o’ links.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers–Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
WSJ has a short blurb:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
Real Climate has now forcefully responded with a hard-hitting piece on multiplicity in a recent solar forcing paper. Wildly off-topic comments are being allowed –so long as they are to blast the Der Spiegel piece.
On the topic of this thread? Not a peep.
Have they even picked the hotel for the Council of Trent yet? Or maybe they’ll convince the UK government to let them use an embassy “safe room” somewhere with the unbuggable glass walls.
Our Gav has gone all quiet I wonder what could be upsetting him. Anyway I left him a little message at the religious site he runs just to cheer him up.
“Hey
You guys should rename your site Not the Real Climate. The truth is out boys the Hockey Team appear to have not been playing to the rules. The worst thing of course is your sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Who are the Deniers now then.”
Comment Is Free if you agree is also silent.
The disgrace in all this is that this bunch of scientific non-entities have brought science into disrepute.
To chuckle over the death of John Daly is to show the calibre and low standard of these people and in these circumstances Ad Hominem attacks are justifiable.
Steve McIntyre has always treated this as not a conspiracy and very clever too although I suspect he must have had an inkling all along. His sites is still down.
I shall repeat again “Who are the Deniers now then?”
Tim S. said
“I have no sympathy for CRU. Their secrecy and withholding of data that is being used to push for a global carbon tax brought this on. I congratulate the hacker or hackers responsible for this.”
I still think this was an insider. We know from some of the e-mails that the FIO was going to be honored until “the FOI person and the Chief Librarian” were subjected to “a couple of half hour sessions” of browbeating.
“…When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to
abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one
at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all
about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing
with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental
Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very
supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief
Librarian – who deals with appeals…”
I is very possible it was the Admin. Assistant who put the file together originally and then had it stomped on. It is probably someone low ranking with kids who could no longer stomach the idea of sentencing their children to misery to fill the pockets of their “betters”
Who ever it was – THANK YOU
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
Made it to the wall street journal…enviro blog. At least they’re talking about it in more email context than the BBC did.
Andrew Bolt of the Oz HeraldSun says Phil Jones admits veracity of [some] emails:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
REAL CLIMATE is conspicuously quiet? Perhaps they have been “advised” to not say anything.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/11/hadley-hacked-roundup-with-updates-and.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Chris Horner over on the NRO blog site Planet Gore calls this: The Blue-Dress Moment May Have Arrived http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/
I see many references to “hackers.”
This appears to be done by one person with root access. Mail files are normally only readable by owners of those files. You could over ride that with root access.
Which means the “hackers” would be someone in an IT position, unless the root access was compromised.
Or, someone was collating information for a FOI request, and that file was “leaked” by a user with normal access.
Anyway, this appears to be an inside job with high level access.
Scott A Mandia,
Perhaps you would try to explain why Big Oil would be trying so hard to discredit a theory which has done more than anything else to push up the dollar barrel price of their product?
““When the Guardian asked Professor Jones to verify whether these emails were genuine, he refused to comment.
Professor Michael E Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, is another prominent climatologist who features in many of the email exchanges. He said: “I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”‘”
– just like Nixon’s reaction to the Pentagon Papers.
Dr. Roy has picked up the story……
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/global-warmings-blue-dress-moment-the-cru-email-hack-scandal/
Let’s start lining up the more obvious accusations and/or charges.
1) Conspiracy to obstruct FOI requests.
2) Conspiracy to evade taxation.
3) Conspiracy to suppress and obstruct publications in peer reviewed publication.
please add
Incredible. If you have a chance to download the entire series of e-mails I would suggest doing so. I have gone through about 10 documents and I have found a ton of smoking guns! Here is one example from email
0845217169
For climatologists, the search for an irrefutable “sign” of anthropogenic warming has assumed an almost Biblical intensity. The leading figures of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claim that, in all probability, they have seen it. Last summer [ed: 1996], the IPCC’s scientific working group, chaired by former UK Meteorological Office boss Sir John Houghton, concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. But it is like the “balance of evidence” suggesting BSE causes CJD. The judgment is far from “beyond reasonable doubt”. The case remains “not proven”.
THE CASE REMAINS NOT PROVEN HE SAYS!!!!! I guess this is the scientific consensus when this e-mail was produced! in 1996 why then the Kyoto accords in 1992?????
The Guardian:
They misrepresent the situation. Here is that particular branch of the clique:
I just stopped by ClimateProgress to see how the crew there is reacting to this debacle. Funny thing, Romm has two posts today with a total of 1 comment. And yesterday, with a grand total of 7 posts, he’s got 51 comments. Where’s his readership?
Yup, going by the e-mails, these AGW dudes all seem to have spent a lot of their time flying around the world going to meetings and conferences and the like. Just think of the collective carbon footprint! How can they sleep at night?
I’m assuming the most egregious emails are the ones that have been reproduced on this thread. Is that all we got? They are all ambiguous at best. So eager are some people to find fault that they get things quite wrong. To whit (upthread)
“The director of the CRU admits that everyone “in the know” realizes that Mann’s original 1998 Hockey Stick was faulty.”
But when this contributor quotes the email…
“Bristlecones are only crucial to the issue if you are MM. They misused them, by their PCA application. This is all well-known to those in the know.”
Catch that? Email is saying MM (McIntyre & McKitrick) is wrong. The same email refers to Mann’s paper as MBH.
Every email I’ve read quoted here smacks of honest scientists exasperated with ‘skeptics’. They clearly believe the science is on their side, and that’s obvious if you read neutrally, instead of knee-jerking over supposed red flags. I’d advise cautious reading – but not because the emails might be doctored. They look quite genuine to me. Like Rumsfeld and Iraq, I wouldn’t be too quick to assume there are smoking guns without proper investigation.
In the words of Dennis Green:
“They are who we thought they were.”
Come on Scott – you can do better than this.
Haven’t read all the mails but I think Wegman was right on the money regarding the insular nature of the group. Nasty lot too.
But how do you get in?
[From 1123163394.txt]
[xxxxxxx] has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because he was working w/ Stott et al, and so I assume he was legit, and not associated with the contrarians. But if he’s associated w/ the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have additional information about him and what he has been up to?
[and from the same – though not related (now cleaning coffee from my k/b)]
There is an issue coming up in IPCC. Every curve needs error bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether they are right or how they are used.
And they wonder why sites like Climate Audit exist!
Climate fraud scam published at the front page of investigatemagazine refers to WUWT. Scam spreading like wildfire.
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf
The worst thing is the insinuation that they are fully prepared to just adjust the historical thermometre-based records without any justification.
Tom Wigley (who use to work at Hadley and is now tat UCAR) suggests to Phil Jones that the SST data from the 1940s just be adjusted down by 0.15C or so.
Hadley and Phil Jones have been working on a new HadSST3 and it would be unsurprising it the new dataset now confirms global warming is even worse then we thought.
I have posted before it appears to me the historical record has been adjusted by 0.3C or so more than it should have been.
Now we have a bunch of emails showing the people in charge of the records (they are all in there), have motives to make these kind of changes. Why would the head of NCAR and a former colleague suggest such a thing if he didn’t already know what the response would be.
Global warming is a different issue if global temperatures are only up 0.3C or 0.4C. Its a non-issue that is.
Boudu (06:31:46) :
Can I be the first to call it Warmergate ?
Not bad.
“If this is so HUGE-why has it not been reported in Mainstream media? Even Drudge won’t post it on his site.
Probably because it’s one big fat hoax.”
With all the layoffs the MSM are likely over-taxed. Note AP has 11 of its remaining reporters fact-checking “Going Rogue”.
Your credulity amuses. ROTFALMAO.
“I’ve been back in touch with the guys who write the pages at the BBC’s science online page, and they say that they cannot report on the subject of the matter as the emails have been gained illegally, and also that the content of the emails haven’t been verified by those involved – so they may be reporting something which isn’t true(!). They will only report on the content if they get the people involved to verify to the aunthenticity of the emails. …”
LOL!!! Someone should run that para past the NY Times, and see if they will comment on the emails. After all, they deal in purloined material all the time (cf Pentagon papers; spurious NSA report on Iran’s nuclear intentions, secret reports on waterboarding, outing of CIA agent names etc.) MM knows this to be true, which is why he is blowing smoke when he mutters about the illegality of publishing the emails. Good luck trying to make that case in an American court.
Guardian has it.
Link is http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
Mann’s comment at the end would imply that most of this is accurate though that could be a double-bluff.
The tone of the emails I’ve seen reproduced here talks to me of a group that may or may not be right in the science but that is so committed to the dogma that “tweaking” at least the public output if not actually the data itself is almost second nature.
The “great unwashed” MUST become convinced and the realists among us MUST be shouted down or preferably silenced altogether and almost anything is legitimate to achieve that end.
Don’t blame them; I have seen people in similar, though admittedly less important, positions do almost exactly the same thing. When eventually they are faced with the truth of what they have done they find it very difficult to handle. It wont’t matter that their beliefs may have been right all along.
If I am right and what we have in front of us turns out to be correct then I think a touch of sympathy might even be in order.
Just checked. BBC have it now as well
Link is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
Karl B.: If this is an inside job, it may still be a hack (if it’s a *nix system, lots of systems are not adequately patched from privilege escalation bugs if you have shell access – getting in from the outside is usually harder).
Another spicy one:
1252154659.txt:
On 9/5/09 8:44 AM, “Darrell Kaufman” wrote:
All:
I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn’t be wasting time reading the blogs.
Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected composite (Nick’s graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree?
Should it turn out that the files arrived from an insider of some kind – they may have legal protection under the UK employee code for “making a disclosure in the public interest.” Although placement on a Russian FTP server is not likely in the protocol.
It might make a fine story for a U.S. “Raising the Bar” episode.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DG_10026552
Excellent second edition of Joanne Nova’s Skeptics handbook II, now available as a PDF here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/skeptics-handbook-ii-global-bullies-want-your-money/
May I suggest that people commenting here go over to WSJ and comment? If they feel there is enough interest, they may run a story to get the ball rolling…
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/tab/comments/#comment-115282
From: Tim Osborn
To: mann@XXXXXXX.edu,imacadam@XXXXXXXXX.uk
Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:18:29 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@XXXXXX,p.jones@XXXXXX
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven’t put a 40-yr
smoothing through them – I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
that I think you have the reference for already. They are analysed in a
different way, to retain the low-frequency variations. In this sense, it
is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998). It is not two-steps removed
from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.
**************
I plotted data in the mail, Osborn 99 full length:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/osborn99.jpg
748 comments here so far. Has any other topic generated anywhere near this much interest?
Oh, and I just wanted to give some recognition to the moderators. This thread has almost three times as many posts as the ‘Tips and Notes’ has gathered in 9 days. You guys need some coffee?
[Been up since 3:30 a.m., working non-stop. ~dbs, mod.]
Merovign wrote: “I doubt this will get the coverage and, more importantly, investigation, it deserves from traditional media sources that have already signed on to the AGW bandwagon.”
WUWT -> Monckton -> Beck is a direct path to the top rated MSM show on the planet. Without the non-boring Monckton as spokesperson, Beck is out of water. But of all people it’s Monckton who will be utterly fired up and chomping at the bit to get back on TV because of this situation.
Sure, Limbaugh will run with it but he’s doesn’t reach swing voters. His audience isn’t half democrat/independent like that of Fox News. But he will likely be the first to expose this to a wide audience, if not today then the next.
Since Monckton goes all the way back to Thatcher and the inception of Hadley I wonder what he has to say about this.
Ah, so Michael Mann is now having fantasies of sending Anthony, Steve, and others to jail for allowing these stolen emails to appear on their blogs.
“I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.”
This should be added to textbooks that describe Observer Bias.
From Wikipedia:
“An example of the observer-expectancy effect is demonstrated in music backmasking, in which hidden verbal messages are said to be audible when a recording is played backwards. Some people expect to hear hidden messages when reversing songs, and therefore hear the messages, but to others it sounds like nothing more than random sounds. Often when a song is played backwards, a listener will fail to notice the “hidden” lyrics until they are explicitly pointed out, after which they are obvious. Other prominent examples include facilitated communication, dowsing, and applied kinesiology.”
@ Adam Grey
You know what bothers me the most, which you apparently missed?
It is asking fellow colleagues to delete emails, in an email, with a subject line containing the letters “FOI.”
Let me know if you don’t think that isn’t egregious.
David (09:23:54) :
I suggest the Wall Street Journal come here.
[Been up since 3:30 a.m., working non-stop. ~dbs, mod.]
Much appreciated, I think we all agree.
Jails are such big heat islands They need new eco jails for all of us that have seen/downloaded/read/wiped-our-bottoms with those emails.
In eco-jail, you get lied to a lot until you believe you did something wrong and then give all your money to the sierra club, which as we know, has no agenda at all.
Interesting to me expecting that the mole or hacker is reading every line of this blog and probably making comments.
Drudge, where are you? Trying to read the file before linking. Deciding whether to use the flashing police light????
I will comment on the WSj but I would also suggest that maybe this weekend if people have time to go through as many of the docs as you can. The first few quotes that get out to the media will affect how the story developes if at all.
I can’t see that anyone would go to this much trouble to spend literally years creating fake e-mails and documents. Some of this stuff should be able to be corroberated with published peer reviewed articles.
Out of all the material I have gone through thusfar the clear ipression I get is that they believe in the warming but their is not enough evidence to be sure. The other thing that becomes apparent in some of the e-mails is that the peer reiview process seems to be extremely chummy. I only published one economic paper in my life but it was at arms length. I did not know the other peer reviewers and they didn’t know me. Much of these e-mails are from people who are obviously working together and peer reviewing each others articles. I can see how colleagues would get close but not this close. If you we’re very close to someone it should be incumbent to get another peer reviewer.
In any event a vast group of people over the internet should pick this buzzard clean this weekend and come up with the goods.
Robinson (08:05:10) :
“What is a scandal though, is that the keys to the future of western economic prosperity have apparently been given away by our cretinous politicians to these climate change fanatics. What these emails show, over and above character (although they do demonstrate an almost unbelievable arrogance), is that they are not exactly upholding the best traditions of the scientific method. If you care about Science, then this is a scandal.”
That is a perfect summary. Well said.
Harold Blue Tooth:
They are linking to this story. So they came here as much as possible. If the story is to get the notoriety it deserves, there needs to be an interest for WSJ to run it. If their comment section explodes, then they will see the interest in the story, and recognize that it is in their interest to run another.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hacker-releases-data-implicating-cru-in-global-warming-fraud/2/
Just hit Pajamas media in the states. It’s only a matter of time before Drudge picks it up. He generally waits until it can’t be refuted.
There is so much here. I would hope someone would compile and condense this information into a cogent essay or presentation that boils it down to the point where even a Senator or President can understand it.
No one thinks their Senator has actually read all 2000-plus pages of the health care bill. I doubt our elected officials can be bothered to plow through the thousands of emails and files in this CRU information.
Visuals. Even the CRU people realized the power of presentation. With weak data they had to!
We need to help Anthony and others make the most of this released information.
David (09:30:55) :
Oh, and I just wanted to give some recognition to the moderators. This thread has almost three times as many posts as the ‘Tips and Notes’ has gathered in 9 days. You guys need some coffee?
[Been up since 3:30 a.m., working non-stop. ~dbs, mod.]
Ditto to the mods.
I haven’t read all the comments, but finally, can we use the f**** word.
Rush is mentioning the hack right now 9:49 AM PST.
Limbaugh’s on the case as I write.
Rush Limbaugh is talking about it now.
Over 730 comments and counting. Yowza!
As a creative writer I’m not qualified to speak on much other than fiction, but can say that, if these emails are fiction, they were very well written.
One of the hardest things to do in fiction is to keep a character behaving “in character” and to keep them from behaving “out of character.”
The characters appearing in these emails seem very much like the characters I witness prancing about in the spotlight, when I visit Real Climate.
They are so realistic that my intuition is that the emails are not fiction, but something far more wondrous, called the Truth.
The pity is that Gavin, Mann, Briffa, and Hansen fail to see that Truth is the most beautiful thing, even when it is a hard truth to take, and instead they prefer fiction.
It’s a pity because, as a creative writer, I feel they (and indeed many scientists) do an exceedingly bad job, when it comes to fiction. Scientists should stick to the Truth, which is what they are best at.
This was just discussed on Rush Limbaugh around 12:50 p.m. Right or wrong, word is out.
Rush is on it now
Dude, you’ve just repaired those so clearly Russian-sounding “61 megabites” as was in the primary source (-: You’re the best then, ‘cos no one seems to be going to redact this output yet in another articles… though the case is just about something to brag about… oh, and about 61-mega-bite-in-the-ass ecology also.
73
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
I wonder if the left will yell like they yelled when Sarah Palin’s email account was hacked by the son of a democrat /sarcasm …
Realclimate confirm it is real files
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
Real Climate response is now up. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
This is fun! There is even a connection to BIG OIL. See the “uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc”
“2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.”
Thank for that Paul, that was a good laugh.
cogito (03:02:47) :
“HadleyCRU says leaked data is real
The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
Possibly damage control, creating the implication that the hacker had access to the files for several days before releasing to the public, allowing plenty of time to do serious editing.
There is perhaps no way of confirming whether Phil is telling the truth here. At this point I have to put his honesty -and the UEA IT dept- in question. He also claims they haven’t informed authorities because they haven’t found out what was taken. That’s more than a little lame; taken or copied are both illegal acts. Several days would give them time to do damage control though, if they feel they have some things to hide or discredit.
Another snippet from PJ…
Tim, Chris,
“I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug’s paper that said something like –
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998! Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.”
“An update on IPCC. Almost done w/ my revisions, taking into account
yours and Phil’s comments, and included the *correct* briffa et al
series.”
Is Mann going to claim the asterisks are entirely innocent?
The emails are either true or false.
If they are false I would have expected by now some refutation. It would be easy to call in the police and say see, this email dated the xx January, this is whats on my computer/server and this is whats been written. See, its false?
If they are true then an honourable person would resign, well no chance of that then?
All together “Who are the Deniers now then”
Well, RC has a weak response.
Boy I hope this make a difference and buries this scam once and for all.
Have you noticed the pdf* XLS spreadsheet in the documents? Here is the Google Preview:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en
The punch line is that Jones has received 13.7 million British pounds i.e. 22.6 million U.S. dollars in grants since 1990.
[snip – sorry lubos, no labeling like that here please – A]
RealClimate Responds:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Don’t forget that it is Friday, so there is going to be an information “dump” by Obama and crew. Also, the Senate is going to be going for a cloture vote on Saturday. This could be a well-planned, Chicago-style diversion to take our eyes off of those other two “balls”.
That having been said, Climate Change has ALWAYS been a load of crap; if this turns out to be real documents, then Cap and Tax will go by the wayside (thank goodness). Of course, there will always be those who want to believe in global warming, just like the folks in the 70’s who wanted to believe in global cooling….
First EU President conforms new world order desire. Who’s going to stop them?
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/new-eu-president-confirms-new-world-order-desire-19nov09/17989978
From RC
“The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.”
Nice try Gavin. Exactly what one would expect.
Better read more of them for yourself and then resign.
Because the “scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change” you speak of is tainted and discredited by the influence of the unethical Team you’re part of.
Your recent blather about the peer review process could not be more hypocritical and despicable now that we see, in broad daylight in your own words, your conspiring to control and obstruct the peer review process.
The idea that you and so many of your troops would be out there for years propagandizing that skeptics are not publicized in peer reviewed journals, while you and your team are blocking them is corruption, sir.
Your lecture today in repsonse to being exposed for the science hack you are serves as proof of your derangment and unethical core.
[snip]
Paul Brassey (09:59:36) :
Real Climate response is now up. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
Filed by “group”. Hilarious. “The Team”.
Question: Why would the hacker have sent the file to RC first, days before sending it to JeffID? Has anyone seen any real evidence that the first release of the file, as well as the day of the hack, was prior to yesterday?
“”” Gary D. (18:36:04) :
Re: George E. Smith (17:53:08)
I agree with your opinion to a point, but I also view the material that has been made public as just that; public. My understanding of what I have read so far is that all of the material is covered under FOIA. For that matter it was all made possible by spending taxpayer money.
However, it does make me uncomfortable prying into other people’s personal correspondence. “””
Well Gary, don’t misunderstand me. There is no-one who would be more supportive of a “whistle blower” than I would be. But to me a whistle blower is somebody who becomes aware of shady goings on, in a legitimate fashion; such as for example a business employee who is in possession of legally acquired information of illegal or unethical behavior.
I’m fortunate to work for an employer who regards ethical (and legal) behavior by any employee as a company imperative; so it provides for whistle blowing avenues of communication; and every single employee must every year pass a mandatory training program with a test; so there is no doubt in anyone’s mind how the company views corporate misbehavior, and expects every employee to behave.
From the few clips that readers have posted here, it certainly sounds like the revealed information is real; and it certainly sounds quite damning for the participants; and now that it is out, there hopefully will be proper investigation. All that aside; I’m not going to condone the actions of those who did this by apparently criminal means.
Perhaps if you had grown up, as I did in an era, where every telephone and power pole in town carried a poster bearting the sentence:- “Loose lips, sink ships !”; then you might understand my position.
Back in the early days of Silicon Valley; when Fairchild and National Semiconductor battled for supremacy in Analog ICs, there was a local watering hole, called Walker’s Wagon Wheel, where on Friday nights; or any other night for that matter, all the young teckie jocks met to get drunk and other activities (even had a beer or two there myself).
So a process engineer from company (A) would simply ask another process engineer from company (B); Why don’t you tell me about your new analog process that makes those super Op-Amps. Then he would add; you might as well tell me, because I will just take out one of your fab girls, and ask her.
And these juveniles didn’t seem to understand that the company they worked for, might get a six months market window advantage from their new process, to make some profit, before the competition caught up; and their job could depend on that short profit window. It’s a lot more rational now; and then there is the fact that a modern fab may cost $10B to put together; and a set of masks might cost $10M, so there aren’t too many real players now.
Espionage, whether military, or industrial or in this case “scientific”, is not exactly one of the better human traits.
RC’s response is the equivalent of ‘Trust us’. Even Bernie Madoff said he did something wrong. But hey RC guys, I understand. After putting years of your life into an all-encompassing theory in a vastly complex field, who would want to be wrong?
If HADCRU would like to dispel the notion that these emails do not point to something more sinister, they can start by giving McIntyre the data they are stonewalling him on. Of course, they would rather destroy it. But why? Surely they can’t be worried about something if the results are ‘robust’.
Scott A. Mandia (03:21:24) :
gul·li·ble – adjective easily deceived or cheated.
Synonyms:
green.
On that one, I will agree with you!
The Real Climate response strikes me as a Fenton Communication inspired piece. It is not really on point, but I think it is very well written. The obvious omission is the behavior around the FOIA requests. How can you mention that one without negative consequences.
So let’s cut to the chase, does this mean I can now ignore Sheryl Crow’s admonition to only use one square?
The team’s response over at RC reminds me of the excuses these other guys always gave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator
“I was just mentoring”
If you search around you will find somebody named phil jones discussing
the 30 year base period and the rationale for choosing it and not changing it.
Also a reference to using 35 years instead. If that kind of thing interests you
RealClimate talks about private e-mails, but how private are they? If the majority of these e-mails were sent through the CRU systems then don’t they legally belong to the CRU, and that is a public-funded institution, right? So what are the UK laws on this?
A comment on RC says:
“Let’s just move on and stick to the science.”
Steve S. needs to get his head out of his **S
All you SHEEP, blindly following along, behind your shepards, well, it’s just sad, is what it is.
So what’s going to happen now?
By the way has anyone searched the emails for Al Gore? 😛
OT but I just read the cheese I bought earlier today and it says CO2=0…
Drudge has it, hidden lower left to Guardian.
I just posted this on RC. I do not expect it to be approved.
jeez says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
20 November 2009 at 1:33 PM
Please explain how in the context of ongoing FOI requests and IPCC declarations of transparency the following is not prosecutable under British Law:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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
School of Environmental Sciences Fax
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email
NR4 7TJ
UK
I guess they finally realized that they where forced to release the files due to FOI.
This may be the least damaging way. Some collateral damage but still least possible damage. By claiming that they have been hacked may take away media, as BBC, ability to check the files. Released but not discussed in mann-streamed 🙂 media.
It is odd that Jones and RC is the one that confirm that the files are the real stuff.
And so soon.
RC’s finally posted.
I wonder if my comment will get past the censor?
“Adam Gallon says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
20 November 2009 at 1:30 PM
Certainly some interesting e-mails, looks like the eagerness of some of your contributors to spread the warmth around, isn’t liked by some of others.
Perhaps a little more openness and candour with background data and less mounting of the high horse when “non-climatologists” raise questions may be the way to go in future?”
The Guardian story is linked on Drudge.
*****************
NikFromNYC (23:53:51) :
One thing that stands out, before the real crap hits the fan is that there are several skeptic community boards like this in which are worthy of munching popcorn over but that there are no non-censored boards to witness the gnashing of teeth of the opposing side. Lefty blogs are all one can hope for and they aren’t exactly going to jump on this story. What it tells me is that there really *is* no populist movement that supports AGW like up to today I sort of assumed there was.
*****************
In my opinion you are over-thinking this. The laymen involved in casting doubt on AGW will still be heros in the end. The apparent fact that the entire AGW was apparently mostly fabricated does not detract from their valiant efforts.
RC’s response is interesting. They state flat out that they won’t post any of the emails:
“As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here.”.
They then proceed to quote from one in order to justify their “move along, nothing to see here” position.
“One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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.””
I think this is a PR nightmare for them that is outside their control. It will be interesting to see how the situation develops over the next week.
It just hit the blogosphere for real:
http://www.memeorandum.com
Drudge has it but it’s a dead end article favorable to the Team.
God bless Russian hackers.
Real climate has posted a thread
Real climate has allowed 2 very supportive comments to be posted
Real climate claims e-mails are “private” No, they fall under the Freedon of Information law and not only are not private, they are public information and can’t be deleted as they suggest in some of the e-mails.
Real climate also took a cheap shot at yesterday’s picture of Hadley center which has been corrected. Too bad Mann can’t make corrections.
@Patrick M. (10:11:06) :
It is (perhaps uniquely) worth reading this Real Climate piece.
Not that they have anything very sensible to say, naturally.
But as a first glance at how these eco-fascist crooks will (almost certainly successfully) wriggle out of this fix.
Even if it could be proved that (to take their example) they were on George Soros’s payroll, I doubt if the UEA team would face more than a discrete ticking off and advice to be more guarded in future.
As to those who imagine it will make an iota of difference at Copenhagen, or to Cap & Trade, I am in awe of your optimism.
Are Obama, Brown, Rudd (let alone the Goreacle) going to admit that the scientific ‘consensus’ is non-existent and their policies are based on balderdash? I don’t think so!
It will all get turned round to prove what nasty, irresponsible people the ‘Deniers’ are.
They will press on regardless and, if pushed into a corner, brush off even the most egregious examples from these files as well intentioned (if ill judged) over enthusiasm for promoting a ‘higher truth’.
It will all get turned round to prove what nasty, irresponsible people the ‘Deniers’ are.
Which, of course is the truth that they are hell bent in screwing up the economy of the developed world and moving towards their eco-fascist superstate, where they will be even less accountable to their irritating electors than they are now.
I would love it if these emails were true – finally have something to nail these worms to the wall. But, I have some doubts. There was a spelling that was in US English, instead of UK English, such as “realize”, which would be spelled “realise” if generated on a UK computer. Also, the emails seemed to have the same “voice” as if written by the same person. This could be a hoax. I wouldn’t put it past Hadley creating these emails themselves, setting it up to be debunked, so they could hold up their detractors as nothing more than scam artists – it’s a way to silence the opposition. Maybe I’ve seen too many spy movies, with double agents, but I think, who would have the most to lose if this was proven to be a hoax? The answer – we would! The skeptics of man made global warming!
Leeme guess the comments on RC: “It doesn’t matter…”
Amazing that RC posted. Their is no choice now of course…I still think they will not survive this one. The tone of the postings sort of gives it away. They will cling to “Gallons Adams philosophy just to keep their jobs for the next couple of weeks….
Jimmy Haigh,
The science of what? Deception? Fraud?
Over at RC, this quote:
[quote]Yes, a great shame that private emails have been exposed in this way, and also very sad the way some people have used these to further their anti-science/anti-certain scientists agenda[/quote]
Seriously? Antiscience? This scientist is totally for science, when it is conducted with rigor.
I just posted this over at RC:
[quote] Karl Bellve says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
20 November 2009 at 1:16 PM
Asking people to delete emails, in an email, with the SUBJECT: line containing FOI is indeed a serious problem.
[/quote]
If anyone has a copy of the email a gentleman was discussing here last night regarding possible tax evasion, I believe it should be forwarded to the IRS for them to determine.
I just left my first comment on RC. I spoke to the moderator and respectfully explained my view. I told them that I agreed that hacking was unethical, but that people are scared about climate changes potential and become very curious when denied information that would explain the situation. I said that I thought as scientists more could be done to allow for rigorous testing of the data and that data should hold up to scrutiny no matter what. I asked about the reasons for not allowing others to see said data and why posts were constantly filtered if they did not agree with their view. I wondered if that was ethical to do as an unbiased scientist. I don’t think I was offensive or radical yet they did not allow my comment through. I told them that I used to believe them and warn others of global warming. But I looked into the science and found that it was not as solid as I was led to believe. I sort of wish I had taken the other pill before finding out about these people and could stop obsessing with climate change, because it takes up so much of my day. I am guessing you guys will not filter me. Just shows who is telling the truth. Truth and Science don’t need to be filtered and hidden.
Scott A Mandia. Sweetie.
The evidence is mounting. The chips are in. The chickens are coming home to roost. The cat’s out of the bag. (The metaphor is running out of steam.)
The question is, do you choose:
a) to examine the all evidence independently and arrive at your own, ideology-free conclusion; or
b) to support what government and their payees are saying, regardless of the evidence?
If you choose option b), I’m sorry to say that you will then be seen as a flagwaver rather than a seeker after truth.
I used to be a flagwaver myself, until I realised that the flagwavers were actually spouting utter bollocks, scientifically if not ideologically speaking.
Do try looking at the evidence sometime. You’ll find it immensely liberating, I’m sure.
(ps– the worst of it is, from your standpoint, that the people who stand to gain most from ‘carbon credits’ are — Big Oil!)
” George E. Smith (10:17:33) : ”
I am not sure how it works in the UK but in the US any email communications by a person acting as an employee of the government is public record. If this was sent in his capacity with CRU, then he would have no expectation of privacy.
I’ve mentioned on other posts that someone should research this whole dark stain on science and write a naming-names book (before these chameleons climb a tree of a different colour). These files, from the very place were a lot of the science has been corrupted should provide a good basis.
As a Texas Master Plumber, I am calling for the immediate firing of Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Mann and anyone else involved in this sorry affair. If James Hansen was not directly involved, he is still responsible for the misdeeds of Gavin. Let the British decide what to do with their miscreants.
Mike Bryant
“Espionage, whether military, or industrial or in this case “scientific”, is not exactly one of the better human traits.”
There were people who worked hard and risked their careers to secretly get the info to Winston Churchill that Germany was arming and amassing air power. I use this example because we are similarly about to be invaded by an enemy who would shackle us to repressive government and “sustatinable” living. It is extremely serious and the person who documented the fraud behind the “scientific consensus” deserves a hero’s welcome from every one us.
John (09:56:00) :
Of all the mails I went through this one starts to have the smell of a cover up.
Again, we don’t know if these mails are 100% accurate. A FOI request
will clear that up. In this case I would urge everyone to make a request for this mail under FOI.
The context ( I believe, CA is down so I can’t check) is the jesus paper. The jesus paper ( see bishop hill) was needed for chapter 6 of AR4. If you look at the mails in the July time frame you will see the authors of the chapter ( 6)
asking the authors of the paper if it will get published in time to be used
in the chapter. Its very clear they all knew about the deadline. Well, some very irregular things went on to insure that that paper could be referenced.
McIntyre got on the case after the publication of Ar4 and started to inquire about the paper and how it got referenced.
We are NOT talking about a science issue here. We are talking about scientists bending and breaking the rules of the IPCC to get a certain paper into the document. So, WRT scientific issues this is totally minor. its not about science. What it is about is the lengths these INDIVIDUALS will go to to persue their agenda. The document ( AR4) had a cutoff date. papers referenced must be published before a certain date. Say August 1, 2006.
Question: what do you do if there is a vital paper that won’t be published
until Sept 1 2006? what do you do?
1. write the chapter without the paper. follow the rules.
2. Mess about with the rules to get that paper in because dammit
this is important. screw the rules.
Now, I can surely sympathize with somebody “hacking” the rules of the IPCC
to be able to reference this paper. I understand their passion. I understand
that “it doesnt matter” in the end. its only one paper. its only one chapter.
So, it’s really just all about the character of the individuals.
Then comes the coverup. When McIntyre got on the trail of this, the person
who wrote this mail ( if its real) tell everybody to delete their mails.
One thing is clear throughout these 1003 mails. There is one individual
who consistently works to thwart the release of data and code. One individual who suggests that people delete files. One individual who says he would delete files before turning them over. One individual who convinced his FOI department to reject the requests.
One individual who said something to the effect ” why should I give you this data when all you want to do is find something wrong”
One individual who was happy one of his critics died.
There is also trouble in here for FOI officers.
Dear Mr Henry Chance
Our Gav is so sensitive about the accuracy of information so please don’t be too hard on him.
As a child he always liked those books “Spot the Difference” and he still does them, I am sure he mean’t no harm to that nice Mr Watts.
The idea that the emails are private shows how arrogant these public sector workers have become.
I’m pretty sure at worst, the hack could be considered civil disobedience.
BBC just released their wire:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
WSJ blog article now has the most comments of any past “Environmental Capital” posts that I can see.
I also have a feeling there are a lot of comments that have been submitted and not yet posted…
hopefully the editor/s will push this into a bigger article soon.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
B U S T E D !
These excuses from RC and the BBC are almost funny to read.
Some people will go to prison, but they will not be the people who downloaded these emails from the internet.
For those interested, HadCRUT temperature data is missing after 3/2009. Maybe they are “adjusting it”, or maybe the huge recent divergences from satellite are too obvious now and the present inconvenient situation has prompted Jones to “review” the data.
After much embarrassment from their horribly failed 2007-onward predictions, Met O has a lot riding on the next two months of temp data with their prediction of 2009 being in the top 5 “warmest years on record”.
Thank you Dr. TonyB for the link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896
You were way ahead of these leaked documents inre manipulating public perception!
This gives one entirely fresh eyes into all that WUWT and others have been accomplishing, and what they have been up against.
Rick K,
I don’t think it’s possible to condense this information on two slides – which is about the attention span of many elected officials.
As far as the “heavyweight” elected politicians, I have one yes or no question to ask them.
“Sir (or Madam) do you believe human caused CO2 emissions are causing or will cause world-wide catastrophic climate change? Please answer yes or no.” In those countries still lucky enough to have the right to vote, those who answer yes could find other work.
Our problem as a world is we have a bunch of “world wise” would be saviors running around trying to make a utopia they envision (while lining their own pockets usually) rather than taking care of the electorate who placed them in office. We need people to take care of the “home town” issues (no matter the country or nation that town is in) then worry about how we interact with one another.
Mike
Some naughty boy tried to post this on our Gavs religious web site, the things some people get up to, well I never.
These are not private emails they are prepared by public sector employees on public duties and if the contents are shown to be true they should be sacked.
It is unbelieveable that you, Professor Schmidt, would attack Mr McIntyre and Mr Watts both of whom have been on you and your colleagues trail for years.
Too Much Noise and not enough signal what sanctimonious hypocrisy.
The article shows you are in denial honorable men would resign, well no chance of that then?
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time”.
All together now “Who are the Deniers then”
Here’s an interesting one:
From: Phil Jones
To: santer1@llnl.gov, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann , Gavin Schmidt , Karl Taylor , peter gleckler
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince
them otherwise
showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were
dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school
– the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI
person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also
aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know
the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.
One issue is that these requests aren’t that widely known within the School. So
I don’t know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up the ladder of
requests at UEA though – we’re way behind computing though. We’re away of
requests going to others in the UK – MOHC, Reading, DEFRA and Imperial College.
So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be the first thing
you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI.
The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by
a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his
peers!
If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails
and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of
emails, so have very little – if anything at all. This legislation is different from the
FOI –
it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating !
In response to FOI and EIR requests, we’ve put up some data – mainly paleo data.
Each request generally leads to more – to explain what we’ve put up. Every time, so
far, that hasn’t led to anything being added – instead just statements saying read
what is in the papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such
response (via the FOI person) earlier this week. We’ve never sent programs, any codes
and manuals.
In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out in 2 weeks time.
These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next year we’ll
be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and amounts of grants,
papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of FOI requests you get
should be another.
When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of
people. They will start on another coming out in The Holocene early next year. Gavin
and Mike are on this with loads of others. I’ve told both exactly what will appear on
CA once they get access to it!
Cheers
Phil
At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear Tom,
I think that the idea of a Commentary in Science or Nature is a good one. Steve Sherwood
made a similar suggestion. I’d be perfectly happy NOT to be involved in such a
Commentary. My involvement would look too self-serving.
One of the problems is that I’m caught in a real Catch-22 situation. At present, I’m
damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he
requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m
convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would
have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations,
additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from
McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for
further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: “You
see – he’s guilty as charged!” on his website.
You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU issue, Tom.
During much of that time, we’ve had to do science in “reactive mode”, responding to the
latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred
Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I’d like to dictate my own research
agenda. I don’t want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy,
Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of my life interacting
with the likes of Steven McIntyre.
I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If they do not, I’m
fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere.
With best regards,
Ben
Tom Wigley wrote:
Ben,
Re the idea Michael sent around (to Revkin et al.)
this is something that Nature or Science might like
as a Commentary. It might even be possible to include
some indirect reference to the Mc audit issue. The
notes I sent could be a starting point. One problem
is that you could not be first author as this would
look like garnering publicity for your own work (as
the 2 key papers are both Santer et al.) Even having
me as the first author may not work. An ideal person
would be Tom Karl, who sent me a response saying “nice
summary”.
What do you think?
Tom.
—
—————————————————————————-
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-3840
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
—————————————————————————-
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
Ciara (10:49:05) :
Way to Go!
Now do you want to take the blue pill and “believe whatever you want to believe” or the red pill and find out how deep the rabbit hole goes?
Crosspatch said
“crosspatch (10:49:07) :
” George E. Smith (10:17:33) : ”
I am not sure how it works in the UK but in the US any email communications by a person acting as an employee of the government is public record. If this was sent in his capacity with CRU, then he would have no expectation of privacy”
If there is any reference to the CRU in his signature block (& there is) , then the email is “for & on behalf of” CRU …. ergo,… public domain.
Bob Tisdale (09:08:10) :
I just stopped by ClimateProgress to see how the crew there is reacting to this debacle. Funny thing, Romm has two posts today with a total of 1 comment. And yesterday, with a grand total of 7 posts, he’s got 51 comments. Where’s his readership?
You don’t get it. Most of Joe Romm’s posts get deleted. The moderation trash can. Most people stop posting if they get posts deleted. Same with Real climate. When people “discover” they don’t allow discussion from differing opinions, they leave.
From ipcc-tar-master.rtf
Last comment
General Comments
Executive Summary
This individual review paper focuses on IPCC’s three most essential modelling and core parameter errors. The impacts on all modelling results would be so tremendous that if the TAR would be corrected for these errors, there would hardly be any more justification for it. So this paper addresses only few individual TAR fallacies, but focuses on the nondisclosed flawed science it is based on.
Solar impacts
Taking into account the impact of solar variability on global warming, best fit studies have revealed that solar forcing is amplified by at least a factor 4. By leaving out this ‘Svensmark factor’ and using an exaggerated aerosol cooling, IPCC maintains a CO2 doubling sensitivity of 2.5 °C that is about a factor 3 too high.
Carbon cycle
Our global Carbon Cycle Model reveals a half-life time of only 38 years for any CO2 excess. With present constant global CO2 emission until 2100, the temperature would only further increase by 0.15 °C. Scenario IS92a would end up with 571 ppm only. IPCC assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than being available. Using a flawed eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Hardly coping with biomass response, limited fossil reserves and using a factor 4 temperature sensitivity, all this leads to an IPCC exaggeration factor of about 6 in yr 2100. The usable fossil reserves of 1300 GtC burnt by 2090, merely cause 548 ppm – not even a doubling. The WRE 650, 750 and 1000 ppm scenarios, projected until 2300, are infeasible. Emission reduction is absolutely useless: the realistic temperature effect of Kyoto till 2050 will be only 0.02 °C.
Radiative forcing
The additional IR absorption (being evaluated here for CO2 doubling) is the energy source for global warming. HITRAN transmission spectra – the fringes being by no means saturated yet – can be used to compute this absorption, mostly occurring near ground. A simple radiative energy equilibrium model of the troposphere yields an IPCC-conforming radiative forcing which is here defined as the additional energy re-radiated to ground. Coping with water vapor overlap on the low frequency side of the 15 µm band, the clear sky CO2 forcing is considerably reduced to 1.9 W/m². With vapor feedback and for cloudy sky the equilibrium ground warming will be about 0.4 to 0.6 °C only – a factor 4 to 6 less than IPCC’s ‘best guess’ for CO2 doubling.
The detailed paper titled “IPCC’s most essential model errors” is in HTML, with 16 figures at http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/moderr.htm. I am a known contrarian (see John Daly’s Website), and I suppose IPCC can hardly cope with my arguments. So as I basically do not consent with the TAR, please do not use my name within the listing of reviewers.
Peter Dietze, Germany, (Exp.)
“Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? ”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
While the emails cast these people in an unfavorable light, I will wait for Steve McIntyre and others to disect the code and attempt to verify the results previously published before I celebrate. People should not be surprised that jerks like this would eventually be shown for what they are (as human beings) but their reputations as scientists does seem important to them so finding out their results were inaccurate would be much more damaging. Them acting like petulant little boys is edifying, but it is not damning from a scientific viewpoint. Also, since I have never been able to get a post cleared on an AGW proponent site, let me say here that the biggest jerk of all in this AGW fiasco is George Soros who should be considered the greatest threat to this country since McCarthy with his attempts to tar anyone who disagrees with him as a danger while in actuality he is the one seeking to stifle opposing views. Go back to whatever country you came from Soros, you’re a disagrace to them as well.
Jay (10:47:23) :
“Truth and Science don’t need to be filtered and hidden.”
Sadly that is the status quo of some groups in certain scientific disciplines, with beliefs or greed overriding objectivity.
Even the Guardian
“Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
Today is the day that Michael Crichton’s excellent book “State of Fear” is moved from the Fiction to the Non-Fiction shelves.
The mining on those emails has just begun. They’ll find it harder to fend off the next round of critiques now that the knowledgeable are becoming convinced this cache is for real and thus worthy of analysis.
I want to say tho, that nothing I’ve seen so far discredits climate science. Quite a bit discredits specific climate scientists, however, and they should be held to account.
April C.:
“I’m pretty sure at worst, the hack could be considered civil disobedience.”
The Hokey Team, more than anyone, is claiming it was an outside hacker. Maybe was, and maybe it wasn’t. We don’t know. It could just as easily have been an employee making it look like a hacker. What we do know is that the Team is saying, “Look! Over there! It’s a hacker!”
We also know that once these workers retire, plenty of them say that CAGW is a lot of hot air. They were just not willing to say so when their job security, promotions and raises depended on keeping their views to themselves.
Publicizing incriminating emails would be very satisfying to someone who resented having to always parrot the party line, and even more so to someone who felt he wasn’t being well treated. Maybe someone didn’t get a raise or a promotion they felt they deserved.
It will be interesting if & when the facts come out. Until then, I’m skeptical about anyone who’s taken an absolute position on the source.
“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince
them otherwise
showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were
dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school
– the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI
person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also
aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know
the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.
“
0826209667-txt.
This e-mail is a request in 1996 to Keith Biffa for him to pay money in lumps not exceeding 10 000 dollars into a PERSONAL account of a Russian researcher for work on the Yamal chronology to AVOID BIG TAXES.
She is later invited to stay with Biffa for a holiday and to meet people and discuss future work. She is not required to present any scientific papers.
It seems Biffa paid for his Yamal tree proxies.
Hold the phone! Complete misunderstanding!
We have it from Gavin that the e-mails are merely instances of “scientists … engaging in ‘robust’ discussions.”
Bill Illis (09:15:16) :
The worst thing is the insinuation that they are fully prepared to just adjust the historical thermometre-based records without any justification.
Tom Wigley (who use to work at Hadley and is now tat UCAR) suggests to Phil Jones that the SST data from the 1940s just be adjusted down by 0.15C or so.
You could at least be hones about the illegally obtained emails:
o, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Note it says “if we could”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
Prepare to weep tears of pity… or reach for the sick bucket.
“The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is “value added” by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.”
Guys, you must read what they have to say about all this on RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
They admit everything! They don’t say “it’s all fake” or so!
Hmmmmmm, where is the best place to hide the truth?
In the middle of a field full of lies. Hide in plain sight! how much of this stuff do we know to be true and how much do we know to be flat out lies.
The sceptics MUST apply the same scepticism to this as to the climate alarmism.
The providence of this must be established first.
Ric Werme wrote:
BTW, the filename on the Emails is the time in seconds since what Unix calls “the Epoch”, the start of time in the Unix world […]
To verify whether the filenames are indeed Unix-style times (seconds since midnight on January 1st, 1970), I’ve just written a quick Python script to go through and compare the filename of each email to the timestamp recorded in the email message itself.
There are a total of 1,073 files in the “mail” directory of the leaked .zip archive. Of those files, 1,072 (all but one) had a filename that was precisely one hour before the timestamp recorded in the email’s “Date:” header, ignoring the timezone in the “Date:” header. E.g., picking a couple files more or less at random:
0969640598.txt:
969,640,598 seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 is 2000-09-22 11:36:38.
The email’s “Date:” header is “Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:36:38 -0700”.
1125085162.txt:
1,125,085,162 seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 is 2005-08-26 14:39:22.
The email’s “Date:” header is “Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:39:22 +0200”.
The only exceptions to this rule was 1197590293.txt: 1,197,590,293 seconds since the Unix epoch is 2007-12-13 17:58:13, but the “Date:” header of that email is “Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:58:12 -0800”. Only 0:59:59 off rather than exactly one hour — a difference of one second from the usual rule.
That one-second difference on a single email is a persuasive argument to me that these emails are real and not a convincing bit of forgery. A forger would likely have been consistent throughout — but if these are real, then the 1197590293.txt email arrived JUST as the server’s internal clock ticked over to the next second, so it got stored with a date one second later than its timestamp.
Thanks above for linking my PJM article.
While RC has responded with an “explanation” of just what Phil Jones really meant with his “hide the decline” comment… They have a credibility problem:
Author Phil Jones himself told TGIF (Ausi) ” … he had no idea what [h]e meant by using the words “hide the decline”. ‘That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?'”
Looks like damage control experts are hard at work at RC/CRU/Fenton Comm(1) spinning probable reasons for compromising emails. It would appear that the sheer volume and shameful content of the files will overwhelm any attempt to spin it away.
(1) http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
For those who are inventing ethical dilemmas…
I fail to see how the term hacking applies here in that what we have is science being done by supposed public servants being funded by the public. The public has every right to see and examine what they paid for, including any and all email, all data, EVERYTHING. There is no such thing as private emails at work. Certainly every email I have back and forth at my job is subject to scrutiny by those who pay my salary; is this magically different for those who have a different job than mine? Of course not.
Lurker surfacing with a few thoughts. I have been following this since it first broke and am exhausted, so I beg your forbearance should I babble.
I actually feel sympathy for people like Scott, and can relate to them in a way.
In my youth I was a deeply devoted supporter of Richard Nixon. (Yes, I know.) I refused to believe that he was a pathological liar and criminal. Even when it was plain; even after the tapes came out, I wouldn’t accept that a man I had admired so unquestioningly could be capable of such disgusting acts. It was a long time before I realized that I’d been had.
So many AGW believers simply want the world to be treated responsibly and with respect. They believed what they were told by people they respect and admire. This debacle will hurt them very deeply, and although as a “denier” I feel somewhat vindicated, I take no pleasure in their disillusionment.
As for the scandal’s name, I am sick and tired of “-gate”. I propose simply leaving it as “AGW”. In five hundred years, those letters will still represent malicious, fraudulent, crassly manipulative, cheap pseudoscience.
“And we would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids!”
Smokey, it could also be a foreign intelligence from a government willing to damage the credibility of the Europeans and US stand ahead of Copenhagen. Remember I in IPCC means Intergovernmental… and there is lots at stake: these scientists have been instrumentalized by governments. This is not only damaging for them but for their political masters.
It was clear from the start that IPCC models were all taking HADcruT emulation as their ultimate “proof”… and since Jones was stonewalling any request for info, the crux of the matter was there. Obviously the hack job instigator has understood this very well and known where to hit for maximum damage.
It may have been a nice present for Obama’s Asian tour return… and Brown’s last limelight dance at Copenhagen.
Posted by a mahijmid at 2:35 on the Climate Progress board.
It is the only post so far. I suspect Joe Romm will delete it because it disagrees with the dishonest claim Romm makes regarding CRU e-mails being “private”
“Under FOIA, these e-mails not only are not stolen, they are illegal to delete and are accessible to the public by law. Anthony Watts has 800 posts on this topic. I did post yesterday that they would claim the e-mail “were out of context”. All of this could have been prevented if over the years, CRU had complied with legal requests for information”
A Harley biker is riding by the zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.
The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, ‘Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I’ve seen a man do in my whole life.’
The Harley rider replies, ‘Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.’
The reporter says, ‘Well, I’ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist, you know, and tomorrow’s paper will have this story on the front page… So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?’
The biker replies, ‘I’m a U.S. Marine and a Republican.’ The journalist leaves.
The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:
U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH
That pretty much sums up the media’s approach to the news these days.
The information revealed might not be a how-to guide to cooking the books, but it reveals something even worse — how a belief took hold in the absence of scientific proof and then how the science was corrupted to support that belief system, rather than examining the myriad agents that have an impact on the climate and how they interact, amplify, or dampen each other.
There is no doubt that the climate has moderated over the past couple centuries while Western civilization thrived, but, as has been pointed out so often, correlation does not prove causation. We’ve just been along for the ride, taking advantage of a warming climate. And when the climate cools, things will get rather unpleasant and all the predictions of international strife will come true but not because of any imagined global warming. In a cooling world, desperate people will engage in acts of desperation.
I have only one thing to say: This is the most interesting Friday I’ve had in a long time. 🙂
““The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings [ you mean the raw data upon which their assertions and claims are based? so that they can be independently verified?] that is “value added” [ Value added??? RIgged? Fixed? invented?] by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.””
Yes isn’t it terrible that we expect that scientists adhere to the very MINIMUM standards of scientific method required for their data and conclusions to be considered robust.
This tells you all you need to know about the Alarmist religion, that they are happy for “climateologists” to simply make up information, so long as it promotes the alarmism!
That is not science! But this article in the Guardian is a tacit admission that climatology is NOT science.
Unless I’m completely mistaken, Phil Jones has been caught in an out-and-out lie (as well as strange breach of protocol/responsibility).
To wit, he claimed in an interview from yesterday (Thursday), that (a) he had learned of the alleged “hacking” of his computer files only five minutes prior to the interview and (b) the police had not been notified. On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt makes it plain that CRU was notified fully two days earlier, on Tuesday. Even giving the benefit of the doubt on either end with lags of several hours (and I see no real reason to do so), Jones was lying when he said he had found out about the file-release in the previous five minutes late yesterday.
As for not contacting the authorities, that is a strange and pretty clearly irresponsible decision. Would he have waited 24 hours to report the theft of his computers?
The only reasonable conclusion, IMHO, is that he was in a white-hot panic about what the release of the files represented for his career and person (including the possibility of prosecution) and could not bring himself to contact the police whom he, at least on some level, FEARED.
Just hit FOX
just a thought, a lot of people can hardly wait for MSM to bring this to light. Don’t count on it since they have been in the AGW camp for so long, they will put their own spin on it. Thankfully, we have the internet, where this BS can be brought to light and so and steady pressure on those responsible to come clean(ya, like they will admit)
jmo
ps. and thanks to those moderators who have been ‘busy!’
We know that Steve Mc has FOI requests to P. Jones for data and correspondence related to their information, the details of which, I don’t remember . Could this be a release of that data? This would be a good way to meet the letter of the law while deflecting attention away from the information.
First time posting here on WUWT.
I just wanted to say that I agree with
“Smokey (08:47:38) :
They should take this opportunity to explain their side of this scandal in a neutral, moderated and televised debate, in order to set the record straight.
If they have been acting ethically, they should welcome the opportunity to explain to the world what they really meant in these emails. Maybe everyone is simply reading them out of context, and there is an innocent explanation for what they appear to say.”
I am a warmer/luke-warmer but often check in here and at CA. I just prefer reading both sides of any debate. The best thing about smokey’s proposition is that it would save everyone a ton of time.
Tell all parties involved to bring their data together in the same place and let M+M, lucia + other proven independent analysts go over the data and methods used together. Sure it may take time but if you are confident in your work whats the harm? Instead we have had the longest most drawn out exchange ever between the dendros and skeptics.
The people in question who are involved have only brought this on themselves. After repeatedly overstating their case (as NAS/Wegman found) they should have expected more skepticism and been willing to accept oversight of their methods. By letting their egos get in the way and deigning to open a dialogue with skeptics they have only hurt their case and science in general. Good science stands up to criticism. With the release of this information they are in a bind.
As such I would hope that skeptic websites can make a concerted effort to make smokeys proposition (or some variation) a reality. Its like everyone has been playing poker but been too proud to lay their cards on the table. This is an opportuinity for skeptics to call all in. Time for these scientists to show some cojones.
I say all this as a “lukewarmer”. Please help make science more transparent by pushing for a dialogue/discovery process. I am so f-ing tired of reading about statistical analysis of dendro data. Lets just get this out of the way so we can spend energy improving our knowledge.
Cheers
Anthony Watts and I had a private email message exchange back in early October when the whole Briffa thing was trumped up and glorified at WUWT. I defended science by using a medical example and because Briffa was sick, Watts publically accused me of being insensitive – even though WUWT and CA were flaying Briffa and the credibility of temperature reconstructions.
In some of those emails, RC was discussed and Watts warned me:
Fair warning – this communication is private. and
As I said before this communications (sic) is private, share it with Gavin or anyone online at your own risk.
I will keep my promise and these emails from Watts will be kept to me.
Funny how Watts feels free to publish others’ emails.
[REPLY – Oh, for heaven’s sake. The emails are already out there from an entirely separate source. Besides, unlike HadCRUT, Anthony is not government subsidized and therefore his communications are not public property and subject to public scrutiny. ~ Evan]
Phil sure doesn’t like Steve
1076083097.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: “Tas van Ommen”
Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004
Cc: mann@xxxxx.xxx
Dear Tas,
Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about Law Dome
(yet), nor about any of
the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope)
that he won’t. I
had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature
data we use here
in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from
individuals and not
directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through
GCOS.
Denial can flow- both -ways,I love this whole debacle.I hope someone asks the Profit
on his latest scary book tour about this….
A couple of things.
1: You never put anything that could be even slightly construed as incriminating in an e-mail. Industry has been operating under that premise for years.
2: I would agree that the climate models and data should be public information. However, the correspondence should be kept private without a proper court order (whatever the British call it). We still operate under the rule of law, if you remember.
3: This group is too smart to fall into the data theft idioticy common on Star Trek and soap operas. A hacker who wants to steal files doesn’t delete them. They copy them to hide the fact that they have access (just like the spy places the file back where he found it after taking a picture). Often, the only way to know you’ve been hacked is to see the bandwidth usage or find your stuff on the internet. They can’t use this as an excuse to purge anything.
Last and most importantly:
4. None of this is trustworthy. Possibly any of the e-mails could be fake. It would be child’s play to include a hundred real e-mails and a dozen fake ones. Nothing can be trusted, ESPECIALLY the smoking guns.
Roger Clague (11:22:39) :
Yup!
Now go find the mail where scientists appear to pad a travel budget so they can take people skiing.
Times have sure changed!! In the 70’s, the New York Times was awarded prizes for publishing the Top Secret Pentagon papers. And, Nixon was thrown out of office for, among lesser offences, trying to identify Daniel Elsberg as the leaker. Now, some are saying that it was criminal to print this information. How convenient. I guess that it depends upon the issue and which side you are on.
This story is now a headline piece at the FoxNews.com home page:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
Ken Hall: “The providence of this must be established first.”
Virtually every other post here, at CA, and at Lucia’s has said the same thing.
There is nothing wrong with proceeding under the assumption that these emails are genuine. Statements by Jones and Mann, who went completely Nixonian, suggest they are indeed the real thing.
For those who may not remember or been around, the
Pentagon Papers? also involved “illegal” release of documents.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
And the headline is front and center on foxnews.com
“Do emails reveal that scientists claims on Climage Change are
BUNK?”
‘Hackers break into servers of a major British climate change research facility and purportedly uncover e-mails urging scientists to ‘hide the decline’ of temperatures, manipulate data and silence skeptics.’
Yeah, America sees it now.
Climate Scratch Fever, cat’s out of the bag.
Australia, perhaps your famous stars are with you, and you will be spared!
http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!842.entry
Re “hide the decline”, please note that climateaudit.org is up with an explanation article for that this morning, and to my eyes it really doesn’t differ materially from what RC offered for the context.
Bad choice of words? No question.
from email 1255553034
>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC.
One interesting area of study is the discussion of the santer and douglas paper and how they try to hold up the publication of the douglas paper by working with their friends at the peer reviewed literature journal.
Folks, this isnt so much about the science as it is about the INSTITUTIONS that are at work in “climate science”
So, when they pound the table about peer reviewed literature, when they point at that as the gold standard, YOU get to see behind the scenes at what that process is like.
you get to see them discuss which journals they have friends on. Watch them boycot journals, watch them game the system so that their critics papers get delayed, watch them craft each others lnaguage according to a media plan written by PR agencies.
Its a puppet show and the screen just fell down. THAT is the story. I will take a major journalist to cover that story.
What can you do? if you like that kind of story start a cataloge of all the mails that discuss working with editors of journals and getting stuff published. Also watch for people asking other people to provide them support so that it looks “independent” you’ll see that word in quotes in several mails.
“Karl B. (08:55:18) :
This appears to be done by one person with root access. Mail files are normally only readable by owners of those files. You could over ride that with root access.
Which means the “hackers” would be someone in an IT position, unless the root access was compromised.”
Operating system exploits can result in an intruder getting a root shell. I am curious as to what operating system this data was stored on.
Time to access the RealClimate website and read the blustering rationalizations for obvious deceipt – 3 seconds.
Time to access Climateaudit – “Internet Explorer cannot access webpage”
I wonder where the majority are going to find the truth?
G.L. Alston (11:31:22) :
You got that right. I think that Phil is likely to get into hot water for the emails that discuss FOI and measures to circumvent disclosure. This is a total abuse of the public trust. That and the fact that the dog ate his homework (the original data used to create the HADCRUT).
Henry chance: You replied, “You don’t get it. Most of Joe Romm’s posts get deleted. The moderation trash can. Most people stop posting if they get posts deleted. Same with Real climate. When people “discover” they don’t allow discussion from differing opinions, they leave.”
Oh, I get it. Understand it fully.
I’ve had my comments posted, then deleted a day later–sometimes it takes Joe a little while to comprehend what’s written, apparently. I’ve even had Joe keep one of my comments just so he could call me a name.
Has anybody been able to get into ClimateAudit? I haven’t been able to load the page since last night.
Get ready for the slashdot effect. First time they ever ran a story I submitted.
Bob Tisdale (12:03:08)
Romm is an easy clinical case for me to use to give examples of Freudian defense mechanisms. (there are 24)
He can put some one down; his logic calls that a victory in an argument.
Not completely on this topic, but I hope you find it amusing nonetheless. On the model of “The Family Stein”:
With those that cry “warm!”, I will differ.
There is Mann, there is Jones, there is Briffa.
Mike’s hockey stick’s junk,
Phil’s data did a bunk,
And Keith got caught out by a sniffer.
(I hope Steve McIntyre is not offended at my comparing him with a police dog. He never lets go!)
Yikes. Fox News is not being very careful with their story.
Almost certainly and insider did this
As so many have said, this dump of information by a hacker could be MIS-information. Yet it reminds me of a character in the Ayn Rand novel “Atlas Shrugged” (whose name escapes me at the moment).
The character went around the world committing espionage against communist/socialist governments. No private citizens were killed. And soldiers/sailors/government employees were given enough warning before the bomb went off to evacuate the premises.
I am reading this novel at the moment. Of course, there are some fantastic elements to it. However, the actions of the state as described in the novel sound so much like what is going on in reality these days.
[REPLY – Ragnar Daneskjold ~ Evan]
It’s the Hadley Particle Colluder at work. And the sceptics said it couldn’t be done.
Just had a quick scan through the emails in the file, not to look at content, rather to get a feel for consistency of language and the context of multiple mails.
So far I haven’t seen any major discrepancies. Although I noticed that the EAU climate unit and their pals across the pond getting more and more paranoid about the ’sceptic’ camp in more recent mails, as our uncooperative climate fails to warm as predicted by their obviously flawed climate models.
From this quick look I think it’s likely that the contents of the hacked file are true. This is a massive story and will have a major effect on the coming Copenhagen CO2 reduction treaty. My thanks to the mole/hacker/MI6 – whoever 🙂
Harold Vance (12:02:14)
” think that Phil is likely to get into hot water for the emails that discuss FOI and measures to circumvent disclosure.”
Actually, its a felony. I think Phil should stop talking to the press and get a lawyer. RealClimate has been implicated as an organ of the conspiracy. NASA has knowingly permitted its employees to run RealClimate during business hours. They should take the site down to reduce any further jeopardy.
Over at RC they are denying nothing regarding the authenticity of the file. The excuses are all over the map. One of the best, delivered without a trace of irony, is the charge that emails are being “cherry-picked.”
adam (08:15:17) :
Russian govt uses AGW as a chip in the game with West. Also, they probably hope to make some profit on Kioto “greenhouse gas trade”. So they don’t want to leave it, though they don’t believe it.
But there is no point for China and India in supporting AGW. They don’t want to slow down their growth anyway.
Not sure if this has been posted here previously, but here’s a link to where you can search the emails and data:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
Also, my source tells me that all emails where his name is on are 10% real.
Here’s the start of the smokescreen going up!
Obfuscation rules. OK!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
should have said 100% real, not 10% 🙂
Hmm.
Nothing to add but ‘wow’
Just want to be on this thread so I can tell my grandkids ‘I was there’
Found this at another site: search -able link – http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
Thought it might be of help.
Oh, I see why they wouldn’t use Steve McIntyre’s name. It wasn’t a joke but an attempt to evade the law. A way to escape compliance if Steve put in a request for emails about him. The bad old stuff they cast into the bit bucket. Or so they thought.
Well it is almost impossible to get rid of emails. They are on years of backup tapes. At least they were until today… Now that would be a crime!!!
So we should make a list of aliases they used. Here is one to start – “a certain Canadian”.
I’m sure ‘hide the decline’ means the exact thing now that it did 10yrs ago. ‘Hide’ isn’t a time sensitive word. It’s pretty much always going to have a nefarious meaning.
AGW’s practice *nefarious* science. Hansen et. al. are *nefarious* scientists. AGW has *nefarious* origins.
Science isn’t hidden. It’s not about hiding. Any scientist who practices to *hide* their results or data is no scientist. They’re an activist. Or lying. Seems those last two are synonymous these days.
rbateman (11:59:08) :
Wahoo! Fox finally grew a pair. Michelle Malkin has had the story since about noon.
Anthony Watts… This hacking is clearly illegal, and reposting information obtained from a felony act is highly reprehensible.
Careful. My karma on SD used to be Excellent, but it took a nose-dive to Troll when I replied to warmist propaganda on other threads. It’s been a battle but I’ve managed to get it back up to good ;).
In a post at Nature.com, Michael Mann has commented that he won’t comment, but he comments just the same.
“’I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails,’ says Mann. ‘However, their theft constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.’ Jones declined to comment on the matter.
“With less than three weeks to go until the start of the United Nations’ climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Mann doubts that the timing of the attack is a coincidence. ‘The deniers will probably do anything they can to distract the public from the reality of the problem [of climate change], and the threat that it poses,’ he says. ‘Cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes, stolen from private e-mails, is the best they’ve got.’”
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html
” MattN (10:44:05) :
Leeme guess the comments on RC: “It doesn’t matter…”
”
I would have thought that they would have said “It’s worse than we thought!”
Can I just remind everyone that RealClimate is run by Fenton, a PR company.
This is quite a news here in Finland, too! According to a Finnish tablod Iltasanomat (in Finnish http://www.iltasanomat.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/uutinen.asp?id=1776127), Atte Korhola, professor of environmental change at the University of Helsinki says that the mails and documents are real. The text reads, e.g.: “Professor Korhola knows personally the people mentioned in the mails. He has gone through the posts during Friday and says he is shcoked about how intentional the data manipulation seems to have been.”
In effect he repeats his suspicions about the state of the affairs in climate science of which he was worried in the recent TV interview http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/lindzen-and-mcintyres-finnish-tv-interview/.
Boss: Ok, so I want you to explain to me how this could have happened. Didn’t we have security procedures in place?
CRU IT security guy: Yes, all procedures and mechanisms were built to industry “best practices” with strict adherence to engineering standards.
Boss: So what happened?
CRU IT security guy: The front fell off.
….
Third part
You’re right if this email is real, than there is a fundamental problem that the author “Ben” doesn’t even understand.
“During much of that time, we’ve had to do science in “reactive mode”, responding to the
latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred
Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I’d like to dictate my own research
agenda. I don’t want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy,
Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of my life interacting
with the likes of Steven McIntyre.”
I don’t know what Ben is doing here but it sure is not science. If he had followed scientific method, there would be no difficulty providing the requested information and indeed it should have been public without a request needed. Further, if someone finds flaws, audits, your work that is a proper thing to do! You objecting to someone wanting to check you for reproducibility means you either do not have even a rudimentary understanding of scientific method. Either that or you are pushing a political agenda.
If it can’t be reproduced it isn’t science.
I am surprised and disappointed that Tom Wigley was involved in this, I will now have to question everything he has said over the years as well.
slashdot had a link to a mirror http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
The governments want to save the planet and tax carbon footprints (i.e. “redistribute wealth’)
The scientists who cooperate will find themselves well compensated with steady career advancement. Education institutes, the media and corporations that participate in the plot find their finances ever more solid.
Climate data is “fudged,” albeit it ever so carefully, as the emails demonstrate. Why, “it’s getting warmer,” while our bodies know the temps are actually dropping.
“Inconsistent regional data,” the complicit scientists haughtily explain. “Look, you fools, the ice caps are melting!” (In reality, ice at the poles is actually getting thicker, while the margins are undergoing a periodic millennial adjustment (‘perhaps’ solar in nature?) verified by sea core analysis).
Meanwhile, Al Gore wins a Nobel Prize and sets up a carbon trading enterprise that is making his the world’s first carbon billionaire.
Wow, are we ever gullible!
Spoof
In order for an individual to join the Team he would pledge the following: “I (name given) want to enter this secret organization to enrich my family and to protect my brothers.” “Long Live Team Science!” With my blood (a knife is used to place a cut in the index finger or band) and the blood of all New Scientists and the soul of my children. (The sign of the Hockey Stick is made) I swear not to divulge this secret and obey with love and hubris. I enter alive in this organization and leave only in death or dishonor!
Nice piece in the telegraph by James Delingpole.
Plenty of facts remain to emerge before we go spinning our climate change denier conspiracy theories, so stay tuned–things could get interesting.
Nice piece in the telegraph by James Delingpole.
Plenty of facts remain to emerge before we go spinning our climate change denier conspiracy theories, so stay tuned–things could get interesting.
Sorry didn`t post the link.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Haven’t yet seen a post comparing this brou-haha with the Lysenko scandal.
Maybe nobody from the biological sciences has logged on here.
And while I an not get to the front page of CA, if I attempt to go directly to a thread, I can read it. October Sea Ice for example.
Also folks have a look at how guys from harvard get nervous and how somebody recommends using NAS instead to get a certain view out.
I see two conspiracies here, one that may in fact be criminal.
One is to subvert the peer-reviewed literature in a knowing, systematic, organized manner. Probably not against the law, but it should be enough to wreck careers to try it.
The second, which may be against the law, is a conspiracy to delete data that is protected by law, and to deny access to it that is protected under law through a series of concerted actions.
Also, IMNSHO, Phil Jones needs to be frog-marched out of his office today, with a guard on either side of him, the keys and access to anything and everything having to do with this area removed permenantly.
By offering that he would rather see the raw temp data deleted than let Steve McIntyre have it, in my mind he implicitly made a threat that is both criminal in law and would also be a huge crime against science to actually do so or look the other way while others did so. Such a man can not be allowed to be left in a position where he might be able to carry out that threat in the future.
You sceptics are the conspirationists !
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-email-hacking
hahahaha
Sorry, that middle paragraph should not be there.
>>Yet it reminds me of a character in the Ayn Rand novel “Atlas Shrugged” (whose name escapes me at the moment).
Ragnar the pirate. He was a Norwegian. Odd that he didn’t win a Nobel for his efforts.
I’ve not downloaded the CRU files, but I’ve read most of the comments posted here. As someone who has followed WUWT closely for over a year, I can well understand the context of many of the emails, but I doubt if the mainstream media will run with much of it, even if you guys explain it ad infinitum. It is not very unambiguous, media sexy or even of interest to the public without lots of commitment by the press. I can see the odd commentator use it, but not the leader writers.
There are two angles that could be pushed at the media, maybe more since I don’t have the files.
One concerns the efforts to block the publication of anti-AGW papers. This could also explain the perceived lack of them in the public domain. It would be good if this could be backed up with examples of (hopefully high quality) papers that might get publicity as a result.
The second area that may find interest is that the last 10 years of flat or declining temperatures is worrying the alarmists. They don’t understand why it is happening. This is extremely important, since it shows that (a) the models are wrong, and (b) the CRU people (and all of us) don’t understand the climate well enough to make the sweeping claims that are driving the politicians of the world to make horrendous decisions.
The professionals who post here should have the skills to develop these arguments.
To answer Patrick M: No I’ve only managed a few times today, Climateaudit is largely blocked.
Dr DoLittle (12:28:43) :
Also, my source tells me that all emails where his name is on are 10% real.
Only 10% – hope that’s a typo!
Choosing whom you will associate with and allow to speak on your behalf based solely on whether or not a person holds left wing views:
Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for
> every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is
> Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s
> an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his
> day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts
> the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months
> ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all
> there is to know about the global warming issue. He’s not all bad as
> he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says
> that at the begining of his interviews to show he’s not all bad !
Also Internal admittance that their climate models are flawed and don’t match with observed results.
“…This trend has previously been shown to be inconsistent with simulated internal climate variability and with the simulated response to greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosol changes2,3, but other climate influences have been suggested as a possible reason for the discrepancy3. Here, for the first time, we compare observed Northern Hemisphere sea level pressure trends with those simulated in response to all the major climate forcings in eight state-of-the-art coupled climate models over the past 50 years, and find that the observed trend is inconsistent both with simulated internal variability and with the simulated response to combined human and natural climate influences. ”
“Overall we find that the observed Northern Hemisphere circulation trend is inconsistent with simulated internal variability, and that it is also inconsistent with the simulated response to anthropogenic and natural forcing in eight coupled climate models. This is therefore an aspect of large scale climate change for which current climate models are demonstrably inconsistent with observations: If we can understand and correct this bias this will lead to improvements in predictions of future climate change.”
Man. They are in full blown Defcon-1 lockdown damage control mode over there!
You can’t make stuff up this good!!!
The timing of this incident had nothing to do with copenhagen. There is a reason the last date in the email file is Nov 12. It has nothing to do with Copenhagen and is related to another matter entirely.
Collusion with Left wing advocacy groups, politicians, and sympathetic companies to all come out with a unified message:
“This was well picked up by the written press here.
Now more details have emerged, the proposal is even weaker than first
thought. We are faxing a press release out this afternoon to Japan-based
agencies and press with WWF?s reaction (see below). You might like to join
in the condemnation of what Japan is proposing and ensure that your country
flatly rejects the proposal.
Japan?s Special Ambassador, Toshiaki Tanabe, is on a world tour canvassing
for the support of other industrialised nations. After visiting Washington
DC he moved on to Hawaii a few days ago for an informal conference
including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Today’s Yomiuri
Shimbun gave front-page coverage to Australia?s outrage over the stringency
of the Japanese proposal!
Tanabe is moving to Europe for talks in the next few days. It is vital that
European governments reject the proposal in no uncertain terms and urge
Japan to at least support the EU standpoint. (Note: the WWF policies and
measures study for Japan identifies how to cut CO2 emissions 8.8% below
1990 levels by 2005 and 14.8% by 2010 – very similar to the EU position).
It would also be very useful if progressive business groups would express
their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if
Kyoto is a flop.
Best wishes, Andrew”
Many commenters, here, have expressed caution about the authenticity of the documents…understandably so. BUT judging from the statement and reaction at Real Climate the documents are AUTHENTIC.
So have at it and pick out the most damning e-mails and documents.
And remember this is just “one corner” of the AGW network… How many other e-mails and documents exist in other “corners” that undermine the legitamacy of the whole AGW network?
It looks like HOAX or BIG LIE are not too strong of words to describe what has been going on…for years.
There is also a PDF on how to manipulate the discussion of global warming in order to change minds and convince people. There is a lot more… In the leaked file there are 4,559 files in 104 folders. This file has been leaked to file sharing networks and is widely available now. I urge everyone to see whats been going on.
theduke (12:24:50):
The charge of “cherry-picking” is oozing a thick sludge of irony.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
So I guess Briffa has changed his password from YAD061?
Just curious if McIntyre is going to press harder for his FOI requests in light of this. I still can’t get onto Climate Audit. Is he having a DOS attack or something?
Dr DoLittle (12:28:43) :
Also, my source tells me that all emails where his name is on are 10% real.
Ahhh… does that mean they are 90% fabricated?
“With those that cry “warm!”, I will differ.
There is Mann, there is Jones, there is Briffa.
Mike’s hockey stick’s junk,
Phil’s data did a bunk, (? got sunk)
And Keith got caught out by a sniffer.”
Neil…9/10
” Harold Ambler (11:23:05) :
Hold the phone! Complete misunderstanding!
We have it from Gavin that the e-mails are merely instances of “scientists … engaging in ‘robust’ discussions.”
Fortunately we can read, the data is available and it does not walk away.
With every remark he buries himself deeper.
This is a lot of data over a long period of time and it will take some time to connect the dots and draw the final picture.
I am however sure that everything will be undertaken to perform damage control and stall for time. The EU has it’s President now and Copenhagen is round the corner.
This is a nice test to find out how much control our Governments have over the MSM.
Maybe you can try the Huffington Post a second time?
In their latest article came up with the question the next Presidential GOP Candidate would be a Climate Change Denier. They published a list of potential candidates with the remark “climate science denier” behind the names.
What thy still don’t get, is that we are not denying the “correct” science but that we deny there is any credible evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Venus is hotter than Mercury. We know for certain that enough CO2 drives a greenhouse effect. The earth’s history also supports this. The only question here is how much and how quickly. It’s possible that a heating effect due to CO2 has not appeared in the data because some other effect was recently trending in the opposite direction. When the opposing pendulum swings back the other direction, the effect might jump out of the noise at a startling speed. One is most quickly eaten by an unseen predator. Aren’t we supposed to know this, having survived this long? The other thing we don’t know is the magnitude of the calamity. Few scientists are trained in calamity estimation (despite adding a dire paragraph about the urgency of their pet program to the end of every funding application); I’d rather consult an economist on this matter. Any European out there north of Edmonton who enjoys their Seattle climate should think twice about a mass influx of freshwater Greenland ice melt into the great conveyor. The stakes are high. This issue is too important to degenerate into a he-mailed she-mailed astroturf-fueled mud fest. We already tried the model where prudence was portrayed as inimical to profit. This time around, we need to focus on shaping policy we won’t regret, for values of “we” including more than elite bankers. The zero-regret solution which extirpates the regretful is not my idea of fun times.
Dr DoLittle (12:28:43) :
Not sure if this has been posted here previously, but here’s a link to where you can search the emails and data:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
Also, my source tells me that all emails where his name is on are 10% real.
…………………
You mean 100% ???
50John Masher says:
20 November 2009 at 2:12 PM
Can you explain the multiple references in the emails to evading FOIA responses, for example as in “delete all email [on certain topic] and I will do the same”?
[Response: No. But I am not party either to those FOIA requests, nor the timing and nor do I know what happened or what the scope was. – gavin]
If nothing else ever comes of this, at least that pompous patsy admitted there was something he couldn’t explain.
Conspiring to shut out skeptics from the discussion:
I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board…
What do others think?
mike
As a native American English speaker I find absolutely nothing unusual about that sentence structure. I am in my 60’s so my choice of wording may not fit common usage by younger American English writers. I frequently phrase statements very similarly, and have seen the same sort of sentence structure repeatedly in government documents when I worked in state government.
Misspellings only indicate that the user was not using a program that did auto spell check, or was using a browser that did spell check but was in too much of a hurry to notice a flagged word, or simply was more interested in the idea than trivial errors (some of us really don’t care if an occasional word is misspelled if the meaning is clear, as opposed to the typical grammar nazi approach that assumes all sorts of negative stereotypes based on spelling and grammar ).
You also need to realize that there are many “schools” of thought in English usage and, there really is not “right” when it comes to common correspondence. Even the major usage manuals disagree on some topics. People parrot the English usage they learned in school. I used to work as a planner in a state government agency and would write a document, carefully proof read it and then give the draft to 3 different people for comments. I would typically get back 3 totally different proofs on sentence structure, logic, phrasing, word use and grammar and punctuation.
A lot of well educated people (myself included) do not spell well in quick correspondence because we are composing stream of consciousness, and our brain is about 20 words ahead of our fingers. I also frequently miss even obvious misspellings when doing a quick proof read, because your brain sees what you expect to see, not what is actually there, when the composition is fresh in mind. Only a few minutes later do I re-read it and find several obvious spelling and grammar errors that I completely missed on first reading.
Do not put too much weight on spelling, grammar or sentence structure errors. Many technical people (as opposed to English majors) are very sloppy in off hand compositions like email.
Larry
Just toook another visit to (un)Real climate
Michael mann and Gavin Schmidt seem to run the blog.
One is a state employee and the other is a federal employee. Both are named and participants in the e-mails from the CRU. Both are on the clock at their jobs and cheating their employers. There are ethical issues in doing that.
You do not run a business on the side when you are a full time salaried employee for the government. I am sure they cheat on exopenses also since that goes with the territory.
When we do honesty testing on workers, it usually began with post it notes, office supplies and escalated over the years and sometimes was full blown embezzlement and major conflict of interest activity. The highest use of computers for porn on the job is government workers. When bankers go bad, stock brokers enter larceny or scientists go off on tangent is a common pattern of breech of fiduciary responsibility.
I noticed in the earlier photo of the Met Office all the windows. Makes sense as how else can they tell what kind of weather they’ve got? Now this corrected photo of CRU so reminds me of the State Science Institute (as described in Atlas Shrugged).
As to allusions to the Pentagon Papers, this is far bigger than that event or the petty hanky-panky in which Nixon was engaged. This covers a broad, seemingly popular mass movement, and is international in scope involving multiple agencies. How many billions of dollars, pounds, and euros have been spent in support of this movement and all the agencies exposed from this hack?
Time now for lots of political posturing. Congressional hearings? Perhaps. Mostly to decide who is to be discredited (thrown under the bus), while Gore & friends try to salvage what they can and save the Earth.
Stephen Brown (12:29:04) :
Here’s the start of the smokescreen going up!
Obfuscation rules. OK!
and some are buying it….read post 125.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1386#commenttop
More smoke screens? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
“”” Ian Watson (11:09:43) :
Crosspatch said
“crosspatch (10:49:07) :
” George E. Smith (10:17:33) : ”
I am not sure how it works in the UK but in the US any email communications by a person acting as an employee of the government is public record. If this was sent in his capacity with CRU, then he would have no expectation of privacy”
If there is any reference to the CRU in his signature block (& there is) , then the email is “for & on behalf of” CRU …. ergo,… public domain. “””
Well I don’t disagree with any of that. I’m fully aware that any e-mail correspondence that goes through my work computer is openly accessible to my employer, including anything which is personal to and from friends and relatives. I routinely delete personal ones after reading, if they don’t contain stuff I may want later; knowing full weel my employer has access to them. I never delete any company traffic; even total garbage stuff, like the server so and so is down, and we’ll have it up soon sort of nonsense.
But public domain does not mean any member of the public can break into your or my office any time they feel like it, and get on my computert to look for stuff that might be public domain.
I’m not arguing that the information should or shouldn’t be available to those who pay for it; I support that idea. Stealing it is another issue; and the person who wrote about “inventing ethical dilemmas”. Well to me, a dilemma is problem with two solutions; neither of which is acceptible.
I certainly have no ethical dilemmas related to any of this; nor do I have any responsibility for anybody else’s ethical stance on it; including the person who wrote that; I only have to meet my own standards, and only I have to meet my standards. I don’t care what anyone else’s standards are.
Personally I like this email because it smacks of honesty *shock*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for confirming that you understand that the science is not “settled.”
Source:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1053
Drudge now linking second “Climategate” article:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
The UK first gave the world Piltdown Man.
… now it appears, they’ve done it again.
Meltdown Mann
1000 emails…..I do that easily in one year’s time at work. Who knows how many thousands have been either deleted or missed.
Paul K – extorting tax payers form trillions of dollars instigated by fraudently presented data should also be a felony.
Re publishing the email: Cry me a river, build a bridge & get over it.
You’re on Brian Micklethwaite’s blog now:
“… it will be yet another illustration of the variant of Parkinson’s Law of Custom Built HQs that says that the better a new and snazzily modern building looks, the crappier is the stuff going on inside it …”
LOL.
“This hacking is clearly illegal, and reposting information obtained from a felony act is highly reprehensible.”
That is amusing, and first you don’t even know if the person that released it had authority to do so.
But , then Deep Throat was illegal, also when someone releases data from inside a firm that is secretly polluting some river or any other political deal. Corruption is many times discovered by illegal means or someone that violated their legal oath but not the moral oath. If the person that released the documents thinks that science is not being served by Hadley CRU but the oath he/she made was for science process honesty is the release of evidence illegal?
are you guys for real?
if you think analysis of a mathematical series and mentioning “hiding a decline” erases all the research related to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming you should be taken to a psychiatric ward.
#1 – out of context
#2 – doesn’t mean anything
Hell, I’ll do my own made up calculations today. Does that mean that global warming doesn’t exist? hell no.
Global warming is real, and no about of digging up silly emails is going to make that fact go away.
God, you people are like children. go read a book and become informed.
I’m no Sherlock Holmes, but it seems to me the approach to validate the email-data’s authenticity would be a comprehensive time-line reconstruction. If the emails can be lined up with external events, it would pretty much rule out “doctored” data. No one has the time to construct a hoax to that extent.
Having said that, I recommend a cautious and measured response to this. While I hardly find it credible that legal action can follow now that the data is part of the public domain, even a successful defense can be costly. Hopefully, multiple entities have stored it for posterity, because we can rest assured that the original data no longer exists as of last night. They will continue to argue that the data is out of context while assuring that there is no context in which to put it.
Because I know Gav won’t post this at RC… here is the copy:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Gavin, mate, buddy… Given the following email (perhaps it is fake, but let’s assume for the purposes of this post that it is not):
From: Gavin Schmidt To: Tim Osborn Subject: latest Date: 28 Sep 2009 17:59:04 -0400
Hi Tim, I know Keith is out of commission for a while (give him my regards when you see him), but someone needs to at least give some context to the latest McIntyre meme.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Q5ZGExZTc3ZTlmMTA5OTdhOGRjNzdlNmU4N2M4ZTg=
None of us at RC have any real idea what was done or why and so we are singularly unable to sensibly counter the flood of nonsense. Of course, most of the reaction is hugely overblown and mixed up but it would be helpful to have some kind of counterpoint to the main thrust. If you can point to someone else that could be helpful, please do!
Thanks
Gavin
The email from you would seem to indicate that you understood neither Briffa’s or McIntyre’s work at the time, but that doesn’t stop you from being able to assess that McIntyre is clearly promoting “a flood of nonsense.” Was that an objective scientific opinion? McIntyre’s work is up on the web for all to see, with data and programming… why are you unable to assess it, but instantly able to realise it’s lack of worth?
No doubt you will “moderate” this comment much the same as every other comment I have posted respectfully at this site, so I took the liberty to cross post this to reveal your bias…. again.
Have a nice day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let’s see if my fourth attempt at a polite post at RC makes it …. LOL I even bid him a good day 🙂
I can only hope that this hack opens the floodgates and makes other people more inclined to speak the truth about the garbage that has been stewing behind closed doors at the likes of CRU, Hadley, IPCC etc
Paul K (12:38:22) :
“Anthony Watts… This hacking is clearly illegal, and reposting information obtained from a felony act is highly reprehensible”
What is reprehensible is the collusion, distortion and fraud that these e-mails document. Attempting to denigrate the release of this information is reprehensible. I’m getting sick and tired of self-styled masters-of-the-universe flouting the standards of honor and decency and then using them against us. Illegal and immoral are not necessarily the same thing.
SHELL INTERNATIONAL
Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watt (CA, WUWT) met with Robert Kleiburg (Shell International’s climate change team) on July 4th primarily to discuss access to Shell information as part of Watt’s PhD study (our initiative) and broader collaboration through postgrad. student project placements (their initiative), but Robert was also interested in plans for WUWT What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.
1. Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the CA, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the CA proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.
2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.
3. Robert seemed to be more interested in supporting overseas (developing world) than home/Canadian studentships, presumably because of the credit abroad and their involvement in CDM. (It is just possible this impression was partially due to the focus on Watt’s work in the overall discussion but I doubt it.) It seems likely that any support for studentships would be on a case by case basis according to the particular project in question.
4. Finally, we agreed that we would propose a topic to this year’s MSc intake as a placement with Shell and see if any student expressed interest. If this comes off we can run it under the CA banner if it would help.
I would suggest that Robert and his boss are invited to the CA launch at the very least (assuming it will be an invite type affair). Question is how can we and who should take this a step further. Maybe a meeting at Shell with business liaison person, Mike H if time and myself if time? I’d like to/am happy to stay involved through the next stage but then will probably have to back off.
We didn’t cover the new renewable energy foundation.
Steve McIntyre
11 September 2000
Is your blood pressure up a bit?
now go read FOIA\documents\uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc
The is how the Shell document actually reads
SHELL INTERNATIONAL
Mick Kelly and Aeree Kim (CRU, ENV) met with Robert Kleiburg (Shell International’s climate change team) on July 4th primarily to discuss access to Shell information as part of Aeree’s PhD study (our initiative) and broader collaboration through postgrad. student project placements (their initiative), but Robert was also interested in plans for the Tyndall Centre (TC). What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.
1. Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.
2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.
3. Robert seemed to be more interested in supporting overseas (developing world) than home/EU studentships, presumably because of the credit abroad and their involvement in CDM. (It is just possible this impression was partially due to the focus on Aeree’s work in the overall discussion but I doubt it.) It seems likely that any support for studentships would be on a case by case basis according to the particular project in question.
4. Finally, we agreed that we would propose a topic to this year’s MSc intake as a placement with Shell and see if any student expressed interest. If this comes off we can run it under the TC banner if it would help.
I would suggest that Robert and his boss are invited to the TC launch at the very least (assuming it will be an invite type affair). Question is how can we and who should take this a step further. Maybe a meeting at Shell with business liaison person, Mike H if time and myself if time? I’d like to/am happy to stay involved through the next stage but then will probably have to back off.
We didn’t cover the new renewable energy foundation.
Mick Kelly
11 September 2000
One more thing. If the parties involved in these communications were using government grants funded by tax-payers on computers paid for with those grants while being compensated for their time and efforts by same, then the emails are NOT private. As anyone working for a large corporation will tell you, what you send from your desk at work is not personal, whether you are ignorant enough to assume it or not. It is the property of whomever paid for it.
Any reaction over at any of the peer-reviewed journals?
Again; I mistyped :-). It should have said that the emails were 100% correct, not 10% !
Just wanted to offer to anyone having trouble getting any comments through moderation at the RC thread that you’re free to post them over at An Inconvenient Comment…and I’m sure RC Rejects would be happy to have them, too.
The fat lady is warming up in the wings. Emperor al looks up as the thread hanging the sword of damocles is severed by HadleyCO2N and spears him in the eye. A doof is in order and we dance and urinate on the unmarked graves of the AGW protagonists. the games up girls.
First Obama says dictionaries lie and now Gavin?
STEPHANOPOULOS: “I don’t think I’m making it up (that you’re going to raise taxes). Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: ‘Tax: a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.’”
OBAMA: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”
RC
Article: Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
Response: lol….
Trick:
“a cunning or deceitful action or device; “he played a trick on me”; “he pulled a fast one and got away with it”
“Something designed to fool or swindle; ”
“flim-flam: deceive somebody; “We tricked the teacher into thinking that class would be cancelled next week””
[Response: Wrong. Wrong and wrong. – gavin]”
HADLEY
The tea
Just got thrown
Into the sea
AGW Doublethink
Will shrink I think
No party hardy
At Copenhagen
AlGore lost
His rhythm
Obama lost
His wallet
HADLEY
DR (13:33:01) :
See the following
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Ben,
*SNIP*
> The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data
> Protection Act request sent by
> a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific
> credibility with his peers!
> If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go
> through my emails
> and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago
> I deleted loads of
> emails, so have very little – if anything at all. This legislation
> is different from the FOI –
> it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor
> credit rating !
*SNIP*
> Cheers
> Phil
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Snipped and spaces removed for clarity. Phil is Phil Jones, director of CRU. Clearly he is in the habit of deleting work-related emails.
I work for government and find this kind of behaviour very disturbing… all our emails are archived specifically for good record keeping, transparency and FOI requests. Consequently I am reasonably careful what I say in any work-related email correspondence – I am very surprised at the loose tone in these emails. Everyone in government knows that you don’t put anything on paper (or electronic record) that you would not be comfortable being released under an FOI request.
The only emails I delete are the jokes and other non-work related emails. Yes, we are actually allowed to use our internets for limited personal use. It says so in our policy documents.
“….It would also be very useful if progressive business groups would express
their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if
Kyoto is a flop…”
I love this left wing code word “progressive”, as if the march to socialism was somehow going forward !
It is a mark of shame that the MSM have adopted this distortion of language at the behest of the left.
NZ admitted they are real ,they wont talk their way out of this one .good work guys for getting onto this .
I think we’ll find these are proxy emails, and are not actual emails of the persons involved.
I will attempt to run a re-construction and post the graphs later. I’m assuming I may have to use IM, Tweets, Facebook posts, and other proxies to fill in the gaps.
If someone has relevant and meaningful ideas and would like assist in submitting a paper, I’m welcome to them. But I just don’t want to spend the rest of my life interacting with the likes of Gavin.
I am still trying to help our Gav but for some reason the message is not being passed to him. Thank you for letting me use this as a post box:-
Our Gav
You say
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. End of duplicitious rubbish.
But your mate and cohort says he can’t remember what he said.
Next you will be saying there is no cover up at the Not Real Climate Site.
God helps those that helps themselves but God help those who get caught. When is one of your mates going to resign?
One complete very interesting email
thehadleyhack.blogspot.com
Now we know it isn’t a consensus AL.
Excerpt:
Among the motivations
are increased and continued grant funding, university
advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon
control advocates such as Gore
RC is spinning so fast dirt is flying everywhere. I’d say that’s proof the email and documents are real. I don’t give these guys credit for being as smart as some of you guys are willing to. I think they thought they were safe to speak freely. As for the hacker, well Al Gore promoted civil disobedience. He got it. But for all we know it could have been an inside job from someone tired of the nonsense and who wanted to keep some self respect.
McIntyre has posted an article by Jean S at climateaudit.org which is terribly overloaded.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
PR Guy (12:22:31) :
“NASA has knowingly permitted its employees to run RealClimate during business hours. ”
Is this true? I’d have a hard time believing this is the case, as the government is strict about how work hours are recorded. I would hope (and expect) that the RC activity was performed “after hours”.
Steven Mosher: don’t keep us guessing! What is it??
>>Man. They are in full blown Defcon-1 lockdown damage control mode over there!
Word. And if you make any comment that challenges them they immediately delete it.
The big loser in this fraud is science and scientists. These guys are acting like criminals and casting a pall on what has always been a highly respected profession. Regardless of your position on AGW these guys should be repudiated.
I don’t think it will take long to know: people who want to check out various files and quotes will likely find either sniffing admissions (yeah, I said it, but…), denials, or silence.
It’s too elaborate and massive to be all hoax. It has the chaotic meaninglessness of truth. (Meaningless because so far it just feels like stuff we all knew already.)
IMHO hoaxes, vandalism, and even well-planned scams don’t spend the time that went into this. More like the couple that built a neat-looking balloon in their back yard, then thought, “Hey, we should let this baby loose and see which way the wind blows…”
The bulk of this belies such a serendipitous attitude.
The file, FOI2009.zip, is showing on bit torrent servers: Google search results: http://www.google.com/search?q=FOI2009.zip&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.mininova.org/tor/3168330
If you have a torrent client you can download it.
–
“Stealing it is another issue”
We agree on that. I do not support the notion of breaking in to a system or circumventing measures to get and distribute data in an unauthorized fashion. We also don’t know the details of how the information was obtained. The use of the word “hacked” is pretty loose these days. Was the directory in which those files were located freely accessible to someone who probably shouldn’t have had that access? I have no idea how exactly the files were obtained so I am not going to jump to any conclusions.
But regardless of our position on stealing, here we are. The data is “out there”. Some would like to place the notion in our heads that the mechanism by which it was obtained should somehow influence our judgment the validity of the data. That doesn’t wash.
The information is now out and about and what we see is a rather organized effort on the part of various “scientists” to influence opinion by trumpeting some viewpoints while taking active measures to suppress other viewpoints, make analysis of their work by outside parties more difficult, deliberate covering up of internal conversations about problems with their work that they discovered, etc. We see them react to disagreement with manipulation, deception, and obfuscation rather than simply tying to get to the bottom of it all and reach a scientific conclusion.
They show not only a strong investment in their conclusion of AGW and willingness to protect that conclusion by any means, they also show a strong connection to and affection for those who would use their conclusions to effect policy and so it would follow that the furthering of the policy goals is important to them and any flaws found in their work risked not only damaging their scientific conclusions, but their personal political conclusions as well. They were very sensitive to “political damage” done by such sites as CA and anything published that cast any shadow of doubt on their conclusions, particularly MBH.
I can understand how a human being would have a great investment in a body of work that represents a large part of their career. But when I see them appearing to be more interested in how that work is used as a lever to accomplish other goals and how they are so interesting in protecting a level lest the policy goals escape them it causes me to place the word “scientist” in quotes. At that point they are not scientists but are policy activists and when one is using science to validate a policy that one believes in, the science can get spun in the process.
This bunch had long been accused of doing that sort of thing and here we have evidence of them coordinating behind the scenes to get just the right spin on things and taking measures to ensure than any alternative interpretation or opinion is suppressed. That isn’t what I learned to be science. It is “science” and they are “scientists”.
So the puppydog doesn’t drown afterall. Phew! that’s a relief.
Well done to the moderators, coffees on me.
Ian
Lemme see if I understand the argument about releasing these “illegally obtained” emails. The emails appear to reveal rampant fraud and criminal conspiracy, as well as violations of the law (FOI). The fraudulent materials in the emails have been used around the world to justify trillions of actual and proposed taxes, onerous and expensive regulations, and economic distortions in the lives of hundreds of millions.
Yet we are told that those who received the hacked files should have SUPPRESSED them, apparently to protect the perps.
SNORK!!!
Scott A. Mandia (11:47:42) :
I will keep my promise and these emails from Watts will be kept to me.
Funny how Watts feels free to publish others’ emails.
Surely, even you can’t be so dense as to consider the two to be one and the same?
But, perhaps I’m wrong.
“Folks, this isn’t so much about the science as it is about the INSTITUTIONS that are at work in “climate science”
……………
Its a puppet show and the screen just fell down. THAT is the story. I will take a major journalist to cover that story.”
I bet this puppet show is in operation in other scientific disciplines.
It could have been an elaborate hoax, but the response from realclimate condemning posting private correspondence as unethical and the admission that these discussions took place seems to give these emails an authenticity that seems undeniable.
Regarding the non-UK spelling of “realize”: some of those e-mails were from an American, Mann.
If this story is true, kudos to the hackers. I invite them to focus on other universities – expecially those that receive millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. You’ll find a lifetime of scandals there.
Clark Baker
LAPD, retired
I have talked to several people who appear on the leaked email traffic. All of them say that the emails are exactly what they wrote and corresponded and have in their own inboxes. Seems like strong evidence for the authenticity of the leak.
Difficulty in reading the downloaded emails? Aside from using http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
‘Google Desktop’ is excellent for searching or reading them.
Well those that are putting up those smokescreens should realise that this was only a random selection, is there more? Could well be because we have no idea how much is still out there. A next batch that is going to be release (don’t know where and don’t know when) will blow these smokescreens away.
About this hacker/mole, it sure is someone who knows what he is doing and what he his handling, so what i suspect that there is more and that this is going to be released on later time. And that this well might be the reason why the Team and others have been rather quit about it.
The proverbial stake through the heart of the climate-vampires has yet to come, this was only the cross and the garlic to see how the squirm 🙂
As for leaking these documents and e-mails, Kain Spaink vs Scienctology in the Netherlands is a good example where judges ruled that a greater cause was more important than the question if the documents where published illegally.
I wonder if anyone who has loaded the .zip on a linux box might run a grep for the regular expressions “carbon dioxide” and “co2”
I’ve seen precious few mentions of the wonder gas while I’ve been flicking through the archive.
Makes me wonder how much the main protagonists really believe in the awesome power of 0.039% of the atmosphere….
Steve (Paris) (12:33:46) :
“Nothing to add but ‘wow’ Just want to be on this thread so I can tell my grandkids ‘I was there’
I got in the first comment on the thread!
–Kilroy
From another thread I present to those here interested in CRU my Central England Don’t Panic! graphic which points out a second scandal common to alarmist science, namely the actual…(roll call)…TEMPERATURE!
http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg
And yet, those pesky glaciers keep getting smaller, and the Arctic will soon be free of ice in the summer. Go figure.
Once again kids, every single major scientific body on the planet is in consensus that climate change is happening, and that humans are at least partially responsible.
A few sketchy emails do not a wide-spread conspiracy make. Keep it in your pants until more is known. You guys don’t want to blast off too soon on this the way you do with your wives, the poor things.
Indiana Bones (11:30:21) :
(1) http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
An amazing link (figuratively and literally).
#Glenn 20/11 (10:16:41) :Has anyone seen any real evidence that the first release of the file, as well as the day of the hack, was prior to yesterday?
SEE: The greetings from Russia came on Tuesday, 17th , 09:57 PM at:
Open Letter On Climate Legislation Posted by Jeff Id on November 13, 2009
#10 FOIA said November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
This is a limited time offer, download now: http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
#19 FOIA data mirror said
November 20, 2009 at 12:59 am , http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/
Paul (13:31:16) :
Meltdown Mann
Now that is the best laugh i have had all day…
And if i didn’t laugh i would have to cry having read some of the leaked emails….
A Google News query returned 40+ news stories on this, including NPR, so this is not going away anytime soon. Politicians and many companies are going to be backpedaling like crazy by Monday. http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=dbSZek58qWLz0oME7-GPMkyCfdVxM
I’d bet money that Obama’s staff is already working up a teleprompter speech about it.
Has anyone seen the email from greenpeace in the documents folder? I thought it was… Interesting to say the least.
“Hi Mick,
It was good to see you again yesterday – if briefly. One particular
thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?
My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?
All the best,
Paul
—————
Paul V. Horsman
Oil Campaigner
Greenpeace International Climate Campaign
Greenpeace”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=43&pp=25
“At 02:45 14/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear folks,
You may be interesting in this snippet of information about
Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to
open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels,
PhD needs re-assessing?
Michaels’ PhD was, I believe, supervised by Reid Bryson. It dealt
with statistical (regression-based) modeling of crop-climate
relationships.”
Pat received his Phd in climatology in 1979, according to CATO. It is now 30 years later.
This email clearly documents Tom’s willingness to participate in and carry out tactics so well known to the skeptic community, in this case attacking the person instead of the message.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, Tom. Don’t be surprised if you get your rear bit half off as a result of these revelations. Twerp.
John (14:34:19) :
You are quite wrong in every one of your “facts” and my wife is still happy with me. Bugger off, punk. You’re not as smart as you think you are.
Re MSM interest;
If quantity/quality of comments on:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
are anything to go by, this is likely to go large. I reckon that MSM managers will not be able to resist the competitive power-play involved in derailing the world-wide Green/Climate-Change/AGW/Watermelons political agenda, which is based on lies and bulls**t; (which is the MSM’s stock-in-trade after all)
TROLL ALERT:
John (14:34:19) :
And yet, those pesky glaciers keep getting smaller, and the Arctic will soon be free of ice in the summer. Go figure.
Once again kids, every single major scientific body on the planet is in consensus that climate change is happening, and that humans are at least partially responsible.
A few sketchy emails do not a wide-spread conspiracy make. Keep it in your pants until more is known. You guys don’t want to blast off too soon on this the way you do with your wives, the poor things.
Here’s an interesting one, 1056478635.txt:
From: “Mick Kelly”
To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@hn.vnn.vn)
Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000
—-boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_-
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
Mick
____________________________________________
Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-xxxxxx Fax: 44-1603-xxxxxx
Email: m.kelly@xxxxx
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
_________________________________________
Why are a number of e-mail participants refusing to comment?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
Because they have talked to their lawyers and are preparing for criminal prosecution (just kidding…kind of)…
And that’s where they belong…in the slammer!
Oops, forgot to censor an e-mail address there. Mod please help.
Reply: I already did by deleting the post as I told people I would. Same with phone numbers. ~ ctm
HEY AL GORE . . . WHATS NEXT ???
WATCH GORE SUE THEM FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARATER ! ! !
John (14:34:19) :
And yet, those pesky glaciers keep getting smaller, and the Arctic will soon be free of ice in the summer. Go figure.
Once again kids, every single major scientific body on the planet is in consensus that climate change is happening, and that humans are at least partially responsible.
Really, Johnny? That’s nice. Now, go back to your sand box at RC, where your toys are. There’s a good boy.
I got in the first comment on the thread!
–Kilroy
OK, your were first on this thread, but it was Steve Mosher who found the original on Jeff Id’s site and publicized it while Jeff was out trying to murder Bambi in the Upper peninsula. Steve deserves a lot of credit.
Robert E. Phelan (14:40:35) :
John (14:34:19) :
“You are quite wrong in every one of your “facts” and my wife is still happy with me. Bugger off, punk. You’re not as smart as you think you are.”
Actually he is right about the substantive issues, except for the unproven claim about the Arctic. Most glaciers are getting smaller, most if not all major scientific bodies have claimed climate change is happening with humans being at least partially responsible, and a few emails do not make a wide-spread controversy.
Problem is that all glacial loss is not attributable to warming, most skeptics also agree to climate change happening and humans in some part being to blame, and there are thousands of emails to weed through.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning.
– Churchill
For someone to have produced the document “The Rules of the Game”, there must be institutional bias involved; this document is meant to guide people “in on the trick” in PR spin. It was developed by someone on the taxpayer’s dime.
It’s well worth a read; we have seen these techniques played out time after time. Now, when used, a good journalist will say “Yes, but that is just spin, as you have been trained”.
You know I couldn’t stop myself from reading – almost to the point of feeling sick of the whole thing. One thiing is clear to me. The actions, motives and self-serving tactics displayed in these emails are not those of principled scientists.
For a blog post I looked up the definition of Scientific Method (OK this is from Wikipedia, but it is fine):
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Yup, these guys do not deserve to call themselves scientists.
Verity.
“I … would write a document, carefully proof read [sic] it …”
Ok I’m gone for 5 to 10 hours. You guys can try and slip your stuff past Mom while I’m away.
A link to Delingpole in The Telegraph for those who’re interested.
There’s possibly 200 MB of this data, according to Gavin via Revkin’s story. What else don’t we have yet, I wonder?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
“The intruders sought to create a mock blog post there and to upload the full batch of files from Britain – nearly 200 megabytes’ worth.”
It’s now in the New York Times, folks. See here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
If the Times is on to it, that means the situation has blown up. It’s unsalvageable for the warmist camp. This is truly an historic day.
John-
You know what’s interesting about your comment? Not the content, standard left wing talking points signifying nada. Nope, it’s the fact that it was allowed to stand here. Try posting something as snitty at RC and see how long it lasts.
Then see if you can tell me why the difference is significant.
[REPLY – Well said. ~ Evan]
People would do well to read what the CRU has to say about it.
They predicted your reactions to this
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Long story short, you are all happy to jump on a bandwagon when a sentence is taken out of context.
From the comments at RealClimate:
> GW has always been more about the idea then actual science.
You could say the same thing about garden pixies.
> The idea of GW will be little diminished and in the weeks and months to come new science will be brought forth to bolster flagging confidence.
So that’s where science comes from! It’s just “brought forth. Poof! New science!
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1853#comment-142121
This is going to snowball (NPI). First, more of the honest scientists now will be willing to come forward. Then those who are scared to death that they will be implicated will come forward in hopes of not being brought down with the ship. You could see this coming. It is what happens when people believe they can do whatever they want with impunity. It never quite works out like that.
The attack on Corbyn is no more than professional jealousy. He consistently betters the Met Office forecasts and since he runs a commercial business he is under no obligation to release his data or his methods.
There are quite a number of UK businesses that swear by his forecasts even as the swear at (or even sneer at 🙂 ) the ‘official’ ones.
UK (especially NW England and SW Scotland) has just taken a very severe pasting forecast over two weeks ago by Corbyn (he also forecast a North Sea storm surge but I’m not sure if he was right on that one). I didn’t see any mention of it that far ahead from Jones’ cronies.
Jackstraw-
You are so very right. This website is about Democracy. I posted three times to RC with one or two simple questions about the FOIA and about missing data and I was blocked all three times. All this while the moderator, Gavin, was posting about how they don’t moderate opposing viewpoints, they just filter “Noise” and “”Junk”. We all owe Anthony big time for his “UNPAID” efforts!
James F. Evans (14:51:59) :
You maybe are not aware of the significance of the Guardian picking up this story. This is the leftiest, greeniest, bourgeois paper in teh UK and widely read by members of the government and other bien pensants.
OK Maybe you are 🙂
Wow, also the NYT. This is astonishing. Well done you Russians 🙂
paul t (15:15:26),
That’s a big explanation for a single word. If the word “trick” was all that this was about, you might be able to convince me it was innocent.
But when some of these alarmists get literally tens of millions of dollars shoveled into their pockets, while opposing points of view are marginalized or completely shut out, then I view the “trick” word as simply another brick in the wall of corruption. Taken with everything else, it paints a convincing picture of fraud in the climate science clique.
Tamino was used for sock-puppeting?
Say it ain’t so, Joe.
John (14:34:19), you must spend a lot of time over at Climate Progress because you’re starting to sound a LOT like Joe Romm. “Pesky” is one of his favorite words, “Go figure” is probably his favorite expression, and he loves starting sentences with “Once again, …”.
Moreover the idea that “the Arctic will soon be free of ice in the summer” is his mantra and he even has a bet on precisely that topic.
If it wasn’t for the vulgarity of your final sentence I would think that you posted under the wrong name.
Glenn (14:55:09) :
You’re mostly right, but I’m just not inclined to take anything from some punk reading his answers off the cuff of his shirt. Life is so simple when you are young. Rose bushes and trolls need trimming back. If the young jack-a-napes is interested in learning about glaciers, I’ll be happy to instruct him. Anthropologists are just fascinated by what is emerging from the ones retreating in the Alps, for example. Without context, his “facts” are wrong. We are not dealing with just a few e-mails and they are not from inconsequential figures. When dealing with bad puppies, you just whack them on the nose with a newspaper. They’ll either learn or get put down.
Fridays are my exhausting days. It’s only one class, but I suspect student services and the registrar got together and decided “OK, it’s Phelan’s turn to get all the ADD kids.” Don’t let them know, but I’d die for my students. John the punk-troll may be brighter, but he’s not nearly as worthwhile.
Darrell (15:18:21) : From the same Real Climate thread:
I see a problem when it comes to suggesting that the “skeptics” need to publish in the peer-reviewed literature (which is something that I continually push as well), all the while working to try to prevent them publishing in the literature. I can pretty much guarantee that several recent papers that I (and co-authors) have submitted to the peer-reviewed literature would have been accepted had they carried different authorship. And I would bet that this is not only limited to my co-authors. I grow more suspicious that submitted papers that include particular authors are red-flagged for ‘special treatment.’ For a long time I denied (to myself and others) that this was the case, but recent experience has me thinking differently. I hope that I am wrong. Today’s information has done little to reassure me.
Bishop Hill has a superb round-up of the current findings:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
Matt Beck (15:07:12) :
Word gets around. AGW has fallen off it’s soapbox.
What will be done with this leaked information?
Amazingly RC did post my comment and the response. A third is pending. I can only imagine that Gavin Schmidt is allowing them up there because he knows the emails are real. If they were fake he would be in full blown denial mode… wouldn’t that be ironic?
So, Gavin Tamino it is! As an expat Brit myself, may I say how disgraceful this man is?
paul t (15:15:26) :
People would do well to read what the CRU has to say about it.
They predicted your reactions to this… Long story short, you are all happy to jump on a bandwagon when a sentence is taken out of context….
Actually, if it was me falsifying data, colluding with colleagues and villifying skeptics, I’d make the same claim. Gotta admit that their prediction of our reactions were more spot-on their predictions of climate….
re Harold Ambler (11:40:28) :
That is an interesting accusation but I can’t find the response by Gavin. If the time line was clear it would (maybe) cause a severe dent in this part of their story, it would really be interesting if there was a sharp divide.
Robin Munn (11:29:17) :
Clever forensics. 🙂
I like the addressee list. It’s a “Who’s Who” of the global warming scam. Can we spell conspiracy?
Why was this story on the main page of foxnews.com now there is no story at all?
First off to all the, wait it could be fake retards. !BS! Just like their research. They were told to “make the data fit and we will keep you in the money” (FACT). There is currently a huge push to manipulate economies worldwide based solely on the ‘fear’ of global warming. That said, if you can manufacture the ‘evidence’ (cough), you can also make billions with that simple lie. Real scientists do not worry about swaying anything. They present the facts to the best of their ability and THAT”S ALL.
[snip]
Rhetoric mode ON
These e-mails show we are dealing with a cabal of conspiring scientists with an agenda.
Rhetoric mode OFF.
Robert E. Phelan (14:53:57) :
I got in the first comment on the thread!
–Kilroy [Roger Knights]
“OK, your were first on this thread, but it was Steve Mosher who found the original on Jeff Id’s site and publicized it while Jeff was out trying to murder Bambi in the Upper peninsula. Steve deserves a lot of credit.”
Good heavens, I wasn’t trying to take credit from people like him! I was just joshing with the commenter who said he was making a post here in order to be able to show his grandkids, “I was there.” I.e., I was just saying that my “Kilroy was here” graffito was more prominent than his–which of course doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
paul t (15:15:26) :
Long story short, you are all happy to jump on a bandwagon when a sentence is taken out of context.
I’ll see your bandwagon, and raise you one manipulative, disinformation
bus tour.
http://www.readthehook.com/images/issues/2007/0617/news-globalbus.jpg
How deep goes the the AGW Conspiracy?
The “hacked” scientists are directly linked to Real Climate.org, so how do the lines go from there… to AL Gore, President Obama to……Government leaders world wide, UN IPCC, Club of Rome. The entire conspiracy is aimed at World Government, including the new President of the EU. Hear his statement about World Government here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comment/eu_president_wants_copenhagen_to_give_us_global_management#63675
Thanks to the excellent link provided by Indiana Bones (11:30:21), we connect some of the dots :
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
RealClimate.org whois record: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/SlKvYU2BmjI/AAAAAAAAAPM/gN4PfaVZriQ/s1600-h/RealClimateWhoIS.gif
Registrant Organization – Environmental Media Services
Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Discover the Networks)
EMS’s founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore’s Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. […]
EMS officially served as the “scientific” branch of the leftist public-relations firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications) used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including biogenetic foods, America’s dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. […]
EMS also produced many stories condemning the Bush administration’s environmental policies. Among these titles were: “Bush Administration Obscures Truth About Toxic Cleanups”; “President Bush Signs Fatally Flawed Wildfire Bill”; “Earth Day Event To Highlight Bush Administration Assault On Environment, Public Health”; “Bush Administration Report Card: ‘F’ on Protecting Children”; and “National Environmental Groups Launch Campaign to Defeat President Bush.” EMS claimed that the data contained in its press releases constituted “the latest and most credible information” provided by “top scientists, physicians, and other experts.” These “experts” included officials of Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Activist Cash)
EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994. […]
It’s called “black marketing,” and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged “story ideas” for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These “experts,” though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It’s a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don’t consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous “spin.”
Fenton Communications (Discover the Networks)
Foremost public relations firm of the political left. Past clients have included Marxist dictatorships in Central America. Represents environmentalist groups, pro-Democratic political action committees, labor unions, and the anti-war movement.
Founded in 1982 by activist and public relations veteran David Fenton, Fenton Communications (FC) is the leading advertising and public relations firm for advocacy groups on the political left, with locations in Washington DC, New York, and San Francisco.
FC serves as an “umbrella” for “three independent nonprofit organizations” which it co-founded. These include: Environmental Media Services, which manages publicity efforts for environmental groups; New Economy Communications, a social justice group; and the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death penalty lobby.
FC expressly refuses to represent “clients and projects that we don’t believe in ourselves.” Among the clients and projects that FC has worked for are Marxist-Leninist regimes in Central America and Africa, environmental groups, labor unions, and anti-war organizations. In addition, FC has offered its services to pro-Democrat political action committees and law firms, as well as to political campaigns against the death penalty and gun-ownership rights. […]
Equally noteworthy has been FC’s business partnership with environmental groups. In 1988 and 1989, FC helped one such organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), promote misleading claims about the dangers of Alar, a pesticide then in use by the apple industry. On the basis of NRDC’s study of Alar, itself based on exaggerated probabilities rather than concrete empirical data, FC launched a media campaign that stoked consumers’ fears and captured the interest of television news programs, daily newspapers and daytime talk shows, fueling a backlash against apple growers. By some estimates, the apple industry suffered $200 million in lost revenue as a result of the FC campaign.
By contrast, FC and its client prospered. David Fenton subsequently boasted that his firm had “designed” the media campaign “so that revenue would flow back to NRDC from the public,” noting that FC had gained “$700,000 in net revenues from it.” Fenton Communications today cites the Alar campaign as a significant contribution to the “national debate” on pesticides. […]
Joining forces with the Environmental Working Group, FC has also engineered media campaigns exaggerating the dangers posed by pesticides in tap water and baby food.
In 2003 FC created an ad campaign targeting the automotive industry for the Evangelical Environmental Network. The controversial ads alleged that consumers who bought sport utility vehicles were, in effect, supporting terrorism by using large amounts of fuel imported from the Middle East. […]
Arlie Schardt, a senior consultant at Fenton Communications and Chairman of Environmental Media Services, served as Al Gore’s national press secretary during his first presidential campaign.
David Fenton (ActivistCash)
David Fenton has turned leftist activism into big business with his firm Fenton Communications, the single most easily identifiable nexus of anti-consumer activism in Washington, DC. Fenton and his staff masterminded the mad cow scare campaign, the organic marketing craze, the phony Alar-on-apples food scare, and more. He’s very good at what he does, and groups like the Center for Food Safety, Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Organic Consumers Association, and SeaWeb are all happy to pony up big bucks to give their radical messages the Fenton touch.
Fenton started out in the music biz, directing public relations for Rolling Stone. He entered the activist fray in the anti-nuclear movement of the late 1970s, co-producing the 1979 “No Nukes” concerts headlined by Bruce Springsteen and Bonnie Raitt. From there, he went on to found his own activism-centered PR empire, Fenton Communications, in 1982. Within that umbrella are “three independent nonprofit organizations” all co-founded by Fenton: the Death Penalty Information Center, New Economy Communications (an anti-globalism outfit), and Environmental Media Services.
Fenton Communications Launches Green-Tech Division (Reuters)
Fenton Communications has been deeply involved in environmental issues since its founding in 1982. The firm publicized the first reports of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, helped environmental NGOs at the Kyoto Global Warming Summit, and worked with Vice-President Al Gore to publicize the issues.
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
“Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) created a website, realclimate.org, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce their worrying.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
This is for those who you who still doubt there is NO conspiracy.
Michael (15:48:43) :
Why was this story on the main page of foxnews.com now there is no story at all?
Big Brother?
Well, this is a milestone, is it not, Anthony? A “normal” post broke a thousand comments for the first time.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/Hadley_CRU_Files_(FOI2009.zip)
DOWNLOAD IT HERE
WOW! Over 600 posts since last night. This is certainly creating a bit of a stir.
Commenters above state that Tamino’s identity was revealed. Can someone provide a link?
I have a dream
That we consider that co2 is more we have better it is
That we use CFC again and have cheap non toxic and more efficient by 15% gas
That we stop “passive smoking” and go back to “it’s the dose that make the poison”
That “s”cience get is “S” back again
Lucien
Roger Knights (15:52:42) :
Roger, I apologize. I knew you were not trying to steal anyone’s thunder. Just that Steve Mosher did get this snow-ball going and it seemed like a good spot to put in a mention. And your Kilroy persona HAS been every where…. often all at the same time.
Even if we don’t say it every time, hats off to the moderators, outstanding job.
All of us have a high respect for your efforts in this is a history making event.
In reference to my last posting:
Just to be clear, the people involved in the AGW conspiracy are all enemies of our current States. They threaten our economies, our jobs, our assets and our future.
If these evil minded thugs are finished, our States don’t exist any more and all of us will have lost their freedom and our civil rights.
Now for those of you who have made moral remarks about the use of the hacked data!
Please bring matters into perspective!
They have moved it down to the Science Tech section — this happens frequently with tech related items.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
Thanks to CJ for the Bishop Hill link. It condenses the emails to a readable page:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
I was absolutely floored that:
A) The New York Times wrote an article about this at all.
B) The NYT wrote an article about this within 24 hours.
C) The NYT wrote an even-handed article about this, seemingly lacking an agenda or viewpoint.
Hooray!!!
Craig
[REPLY – Perhaps Brother Revkin noticed the email in which his bona fides were brought into question? ~ Evan]
paul t (15:15:26) :
Long story short, you are all happy to jump on a bandwagon when a sentence is taken out of context.
No, but you, being on the AGW bandwagon seem only too happy to have bought their predictable, lame spin hook, line and sinker. Don’t look now, but your bandwagon’s wheels have fallen off and it’s heading for a cliff.
gul·li·ble – adjective easily deceived or cheated.
Also, gul·la·ble.
Oigin:
1815–25; gull 2 + -ible
Related forms:
gul·li·bil·i·ty, noun
gul·li·bly, adverb
Synonyms:
credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green.
Remind you of anyone? Try a mirror.
We are starting to see the 5 stages of grief. The AGW faithful have a very sick child and they are reacting exactly as would be expected. The first stage is *denial* and we have already seen several examples of that reaction. This should go on for a a little while before they move on to *anger*. It will be interesting to watch this play out.
Paul t,
Yeah, OK I can go with you once – twice – 10 times with your “Cherry Pick”,
But after that I begin to get a bit suspicious – the data points are piling up…
I think you need to push away from the computer and get some coffee.
Mike
This sounds all too plausable. We all know hackers are on the prowl dishing out their own kind of justice. We all saw Stephen Conroy’s site go down and the PMs on protest. I’m willing to bet there is at the very least a hand-full of “anonymous” hackers who have cottoned-on to the CRUs reckless indifference to the publics right to know. And if the files are that numerous, what would be the point in someone spending the enormous amounts of time and effort it would take, when they’d have to have an inside knowledge of the CRU and it’s members and staff as well as an in depth knowledge of the subject matter. It’s very unlikely.
>Roger Knights (14:23:32) :
>I bet this puppet show is in operation in other scientific disciplines.
I’d bet $20 that something similar is to be found regarding embryonic stem cell research. Too much money chasing too little science, as with AGW.
Outstanding job by the moderators. Hope they will be able to get some sleep in a couple of days. I’m off to drop a bit in Anthony’s tip jar.
We could argue the science with these people until hell freezes over. It won’t make a damned bit of difference. The bottom line is that this whole charade has been nothing more than political and social warfare. It is about time the rest of this world wakes up form their hypnotized ignorance of common sense and revolt against those who seek world domination….
http://www.mofizixgr4fix.com/?p=376
What I wouldn’t give to be in Copenhagen next month.
I believe the philosopher Conan said it best when asked what is best in life.
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their ManBearPig.
Ok, maybe I took some liberties with that last part.
The 2/2/2005 email (buried in a 2/3/2005 email) that purports to be from Jones to Mann where Jones says “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” to my mind, goes far, far beyond the crime of deleting emails. Unless Jones can convincingly deny that email, I can’t be comfortable with him in a position of responsibility where he could actually carry out such a crime against science.
First, thanks to Anthony and all the moderators
Second, the corruption is just as bad as we thought
Third, the revealed information is better than we thought
Corruption in gov’t and science is the real story.
Roger Knights –
Thanks for the explanation on the UK vs US spelling thing.
I looked at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX news sites, and no one has picked up this story yet. It is on the Wall Street Journal blogosphere, though.
Regurgitating what I said at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/msm-catchin-on/#comment-12213 :
Harrabin’s post http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm probably shows the outline of the coming PR response: “it’s embarrassing but not really damning”. For that reason, climate skeptics would be well advised not to focus on displays of rudeness or self-pity in the leaked documents – that is to play into the hands of the harrassment-by-FOI and “normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists” apologias. You should try to direct the limited attention of the media to the most tangible smoking guns, especially clear and undeniable cases of fraud and deception. You should provide the background information to help non-climate-mavens to (as much as possible) understand and see for themselves exactly why the chosen excerpts prove unjustifiable misbehaviour. And you’ll have to do it all fairly quickly, before CRU’s spin wins by default and before the attention of the media wanders again.
@ sean (16:04:20)
“At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster [snip – no outing!] did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which
got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he’s already done some of the initial work in debunking
this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I’ve heard back from him, and we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike”
Found Here. Do control F and search for Tamino
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=987
What will happen now that this information is in the public sphere? What will be done with this information?
Justin & John,
It is you two who are gullible. You invoke melting icecaps and glaciers. First, not all glaciers are melting, some are increasing in size. The are mainly driven by local microclimate, not “global climate”. The ice caps, as seen at Cryosphere Today, have been increasing in size since 2007 (total sea ice area):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
If you include water vapor, the dominate greenhouse gas, humans account for 0.02% (2/10000) of global greenhouse gasses. If you think that’s significant alongside solar forcing, you’re delusional.
It’s wonderful to see the contortions the CAGW camp went through to push their unscientific agenda finally exposed to the light. Now watch the cockroaches scurry around…
I love the smell of auto exhaust in the morning…it smells like victory! =:-D
(THANK YOU to whoever bravely leaked this info!)
CP Joe is up to a whopping 23 comments on his posting of this news story (4 or 5 are from dhogaza!). So why is it that WUWT is supposedly neck and neck with Climate Progress in those internet awards?
I notice in the emails that Mann is quick to suggest legal threats against critics. Could this be the same Mann who wrote “the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud.” I think we should be told.
Motl´s blog has some excellent excerpts from the emails:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html
[snip]
Confirmation then that all the crud over cru hiding temperature data is just that – crud. Cru do not have permission to distrubute!!!!!
Madman I missed that. Got a link?
Kindest Regards
************************
Roger Knights (14:23:32) :
“Folks, this isn’t so much about the science as it is about the INSTITUTIONS that are at work in “climate science”
……………
Its a puppet show and the screen just fell down. THAT is the story. I will take a major journalist to cover that story.”
I bet this puppet show is in operation in other scientific disciplines.
************************
A scarier question is how many “social engineers” occupy the British government and might actually help these guys out of a jam?
Google lists the story as picked up by NYT, Fox, Guardian, BBC, Wired, Register, WSJ blogs the journal Nature, Science mag blogs, Times Online, Examiner, Grist, DailyTech, Slashdot, NRO and many others, including RealClimate and scienceblogs.com
AirVent, Lucia, CA, WUWT, Pielke Jr & Sr are not mentioned.
Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html
“A link to the Russian server first appeared on 19 November on a relatively obscure climate-sceptic blog. The server was shut down just hours later, but the stolen material had already been distributed elsewhere on the Internet.”
Amazing that such news could be spread so quickly from a “relatively obscure” source.
*****************************
anonym (16:33:58) :
Regurgitating what I said at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/msm-catchin-on/#comment-12213 :
Harrabin’s post http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm probably shows the outline of the coming PR response: “it’s embarrassing but not really damning”. For that reason, climate skeptics would be well advised not to focus on displays of rudeness or self-pity in the leaked documents – that is to play into the hands of the harrassment-by-FOI
*************************
It can hardly be called harassment when the information should have been published long ago. It’s more like scientific obstructionism.
geo (16:30:02) :
The 2/2/2005 email (buried in a 2/3/2005 email) that purports to be from Jones to Mann where Jones says “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” to my mind, goes far, far beyond the crime of deleting emails.
———————–
Agreed.
Was the data requested by ¨the two MMs¨ ever released to them?
Ecochemist says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
20 November 2009 at 7:56 PM
Gavin,
I hope you guys will come clean soon. I do appreciate your (finally) allowing differing views post even if it has to come through in such a personally troubling way for you.
First off, I never wish anyone ill will, however I will admit I am not exactly rooting for you at this point. I just wanted to make that clear so you understand where my opinions lie.
Second, I think that you can try to explain away a “trick” all that you like, however I think most reasonable people can understand what is going on. A “trick” used in science is putting the data into the proper context. I work with marketing people who are utterly useless when it comes to science. So I must essentially use “tricks” to put my data into proper context. I do not have to use “tricks” to change the outcome of my results.
Third, I think it is difficult to ignore several things found in the emails. They range from tax evasion (don’t deposit more than 10k at a time!) to outright bullying of the peer review process.
Fourth, and this is the point I would like you to address adequately. Yes, I said adequately and by that I mean without your usual snark and with absolute sincerity. It would appear that in the context of these emails that there is a combined effort to withhold information from those who may want to challenge your findings. Let’s not be childish and ignore it and play word games… it is now a fact. There also seems to be an aligned effort to stifle the efforts of science contrary to your opinions and findings. This may be by influencing the peer review process or controlling reviewers and editors. So, what in your opinion, can be done to ensure that there is a proper debate of the science and facts in an open and public way? I’m sure that being a man of integrity you feel that raw data should be supplied as well as all supplementary data in order to recreate results. So surely you would support complete and open debate on the subject. You don’t have to worry about being wrong. Most scientists… good scientists… are wrong most of the time. It is not about right or wrong, but more about the work you do. There is a value in climate science and most citizens have no problem offering a few bucks to support it. Do you think there is a too closed off circle tied around Michael Mann as was shown in M&M? It would surely seem that he makes a compelling point. This is why in my science-based line of work we sometimes need to go to outside independent sources. So, with all of that said, what do you think can be done to make the system better so that the people can be sure that the science from here on out is completely truthful and able to be replicated?
Thanks.
Alleged CRU emails– searchable
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
sean (16:04:20) :
Commenters above state that Tamino’s identity was revealed. Can someone provide a link?
[SNIP. Sorry, no outing. ~ Evan]
ALL YOUR CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE BELONG TO US
“It doesn’t add anything usefull. I mean, the data will either prove IPCC or the sceptics right. If you can wait another 10 years, and you should be able to do that, nature itself will prove your case.”
“Let’s just move on and stick to the science.”
I (and many other skeptics) been trying to “stick to the science” for a few years now and inevitably in discussions the warmists fall back on the “consensus” argument; the “peer review” argument; and various ad hominems. Sorry, but the warmists have made their bed and now they must sleep in it.
JMHO.
Standard recovery procedure in most IT organizations after a Hack, is to do a complete rebuild of the effected servers, and restore from safe backups prior to the hack, as it is impossible to be sure some trojan has not be hidden in the server, without doing a complete reinstall of all the operating system software.
I suspect that is what is going on.
Larry
More:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513195
“Trevor, I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree
with Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…”
– 0959187643.txt
Haha, who said there’s no such thing as a free lunch, especially when paid for by Esso (ExxonMobil).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked E-Mails
Friday, November 20, 2009
Something a little more on topic here:
“From: Kevin Trenberth To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Draft paper on Chinese temperature trends Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008”
“However, UHIs are evident at both London and Vienna, but do not contribute to the warming trends over the 20th century because the city influences have not changed much over that time.”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=35&pp=25
“That much”?
“London’s UHI was first ‘discovered’ at the turn of the 19th century by Luke Howard, who is widely known as the man who named the types of clouds. Over the course of 9 years he noted an UHI effect of approximately 2oC (warming) during the night and -0.2oC (cooling) during the day. By the middle of the 1960’s an average difference of 4-6oC in nocturnal temperature between the central city of London and its surroundings was evident. More recently urban climatologists have noted extreme UHI intensities in excess of 7oC. For example during the August 2003 heat wave, the UHI intensity reached 9oC on occasions.”
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:RJ1uKoOo3swJ:www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/climate-change/docs/UHI_summary_report.rtf+london+uhi&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Lets see if RC can smooth over this one:
From: Phil Jones To: “Tas van Ommen” Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18 Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004 Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Tas,
Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about Law Dome
(yet), nor about any of
the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope)
that he won’t. I
had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature
data we use here
in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from
individuals and not
directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through
GCOS.
I wonder what “hid” means in Statistician-speak?
P.S. The whole global warming thing has always reminded me of the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax.
P.P.S. I hope Senator Inhofe has his staff drafting subpoenas.
http://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&source=hp&q=climate+scientists&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dntl978l4pqqM5M&ei=iz8HS5zLGtPTlAeQqM2FBA&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQqgIwAA
Charles, my apologies, but now I am afraid you are gone. You did not delete the post, but no matter. The e-mail in question is in the public domain. I will repost properly censored just in case it gets cleaned up later on. The content, I think, is rather important:
Here’s an interesting one, 1056478635.txt:
From: “Mick Kelly”
To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000
—-boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_-
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
Mick
____________________________________________
Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-xxxxxx Fax: 44-1603-xxxxxx
Email: m.kelly@xxxxx
Web: xxx
_________________________________________
Ninh is Dr. Dr. Nguyen Huhu Ninh, Chairman, Center for Environment Research, Education and Development (CERED) in Hanoi, Vietnam.
IGCN is the Indochina Global Change Network (Dr. Ninh involved).
Query: what is “Simon’s Institute”? The The International Research Institute for Climate and Society and Dr. Simon Mason?
NO DENIALS so far… many hours have passed.. and one, at least, has admitted it’s real emails from CRU (don’t quite remember who but it’s in the headlines)..
no doubt about it. These people are happily conspiring to nudge, tweak and shade the data toward saying what the global masters at the UN want it to say..
damning, damning..
From the WUWT thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/correcting-the-surface-temperature-record-for-uhi/
timetochooseagain (19:48:30) :
“This is grossly misleading 1. No idea why Vienna and London are thrown in (hey, small, unrepresentative sample much?)”
Because Trenberth told Jones it would be a good thing to say?
“So I urge you to redo the abstract and be especially careful of the wording.
You might even start with: The Urban Heat Island (UHI) is a real phenomenon in urban settings that generally makes cities warmer than surrounding rural areas. However, UHIs are evident at both London and Vienna, but do not contribute to the warming trends over the 20th century because the city influences have not changed much over that time.”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=35&pp=25
Robert Wood of Canada said
“For someone to have produced the document “The Rules of the Game”, there must be institutional bias involved; this document is meant to guide people “in on the trick” in PR spin. It was developed by someone on the taxpayer’s dime.
It’s well worth a read; we have seen these techniques played out time after time. Now, when used, a good journalist will say “Yes, but that is just spin, as you have been trained”.”
Yes and they also developed:
The Delphi Technique — http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm
“The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is “…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out.” The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools….”
The USDA tried this technique on farmers within the last year or two and were caught at it, therefore “The Rules of the Game” comes as no surprise since it is from the same bunch of no good slime.
The USDA also had the gall to tell its staff to address farmers at the “sixth grade level”
So if you fell like you are treated like a mushroom you are not alone, it is now government policy.
Just found this juicy excerpt:
IF WE ONLY PLOT THE FIG FROM CA 800 TO
1400 AD, IT WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT, FOCUS ON THE MWP ONLY – THE TOPIC OF THE BOX – AND
SHOW THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY PERIODS WHEN ALL THE RECORDS ALL SHOWED WARMTH – I.E., OF
THE KIND WE’RE EXPERIENCING NOW.
Here’s the link to the whole e-mail chain. You won’t be disappointed. If you are a scientist, just be sure to keep something close by to vomit in…
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=552
1255553034: Wigley to Michael Mann
>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
>>>
>>> Tom.
1123622471.txt
“The use of “likely” , “very likely” and my additional fudge word “unusual” are all carefully chosen where used.” – Keith Briffa
I’ve been reading the emails and it looks like they use Keith to get the “prose” just right where they need vague enough wording.
Looking for the Jones et al paper mentioned in
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/a-new-paper-has-appeared-urbanization-effects-in-large-scale-temperature-records-with-an-emphasis-on-china-by-jones-et-al-2008/
I found the AGU server down. Funny.
From Pielke above, part of the Jones paper abstract:
“We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time.”
The conclusion:
“With the first issue, there is a clear UHI influence in temperature records from centrally-located sites in London and Vienna of 1.5° and 0.3°C, respectively. The effect of this excess warmth (due to the city being there) however is irrelevant to temperature trends, for the periods studied.”
I’d really like to see the paper to find out what documentation there is on these claims.
One poster states the obvious: “Once again kids, every single major scientific body on the planet is in consensus that climate change is happening, and that humans are at least partially responsible.”
Well, duh. We can recall images of the quaint cliff dwellings in southern Colorado and elsewhere in the American southwest and know that over a 1000 years ago the climate changes they experienced destroyed their ability to feed themselves.
As silly as it sounds, the climate is always changing. The issue is not and never has been about climate change. It has been about the question of what extent human activity has caused changes that are dangerous to our welfare and the ongoing function of the ecosystem we depend upon.
But the very fact that the issue is now “climate change” tells me that those who hope to use human caused changes in the climate (AGW) now see how pitifully weak their position is. So, they have broadened this into a worry about something that we should not worry about. And we only have to connect a few of the many dots to see that almost every solution offered by almost every worry-monger involves, not repairing the climate, but destroying liberty and prosperity.
For who is interested, here are the links to MSM publications today including the NYT:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/cru_climate_hack/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/emails_cru_east_anglia_climate.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/11/an-anonymous-hacker-has-broken.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzY5ZDI4MjFmYjEyYjVhNGIwZjlmNDViNDdmMWJhNTY=
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
dublds (17:36:21) :
Just found this juicy excerpt:
[snip for brevity]
“Here’s the link to the whole e-mail chain. You won’t be disappointed. If you are a scientist, just be sure to keep something close by to vomit in…”
Yes, the more I read the queasier I feel.
You left this out:
“P.S. We agreed in Beijing that we should definitely ask Tom to be a CA”
Any thoughts on what a “CA” is? Climate Alarmist?
Karl B. (09:36:25) :
“@ Adam Grey
You know what bothers me the most, which you apparently missed?
It is asking fellow colleagues to delete emails, in an email, with a subject line containing the letters “FOI.”
Let me know if you don’t think that isn’t egregious.”
Karl, what is egregious is self-proclaimed skeptics jumping to conclusions based on skethcy data. The context of these emails are not known, for the most part. any half-rate skeptic would reserve judgement until things became clearer, instead of proclaiming this that or the other. the stoush over the mneaning of the word ‘trick’ is just another example of contributors here being more interested in shoring up their predispositions than applying the sort of objectivity real skepticism demands.
I don’t claim to know the context of the deletion suggestion. The general comments of the emails I’ve read corroborates that the authors trust their science is right and have no need to distort it, and that skeptics/denialists are wrong. There are emotional comments and perhaps some are ill-advised.
Here’s potential context for FOI resistance – from one of the emails.
“One of the problems is that I’m caught in a real Catch-22 situation. At present, I’m
damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he
requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: “You see – he’s guilty as charged!” on his website.
You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU issue, Tom.
During much of that time, we’ve had to do science in “reactive mode”, responding to the latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I’d like to dictate my own research agenda. I don’t want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of Steven McIntyre.”
This totally comports with what is said in public – that McIntyre, Douglas etc do bad science in bad faith and dealing with them is not worth the effort.
Whether or not this has anything to do with the suggestion – certainly shoddy form idea per se – of deleting emails, I don’t know, but neither do you. You may be satisfied that this is damning, but how much skepticism informs such an opinion? Rather, eager denialism presumes.
Roger Knights (14:24:55) :
Regarding the non-UK spelling of “realize”: some of those e-mails were from an American, Mann.
——————————————-
Pedant’s corner:
“Although only “realize” is correct American English, “realise” or “realize” are usually both seen as acceptable in British English.
I imagine though that “-ize” is gaining ground as spell checkers tend to be, as a default, American English.
Someone British is likely to argue with the spellchecker over words such as “colour/color” but they may not bother with “-ize” words even if they would hand-write them with an “s”.
This is from Science’s Instructions to Reviewers; but all journals have the same policy.
Conflict of Interest: If you cannot judge this paper impartially, please notify us immediately. If you have any financial or professional affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, please describe those in your confidential comments.
Confidentiality: We expect reviewers to protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and ensure that it is not disseminated or exploited. Please destroy your copy of the manuscript when you are done. Only discuss the paper with a colleague with permission from the editor. We do not disclose the identity of our reviewers.
From: Phil Jones
To: Tim Osborn , “Tett, Simon”
Subject: Re: Bristlecones!
Date: Fri Jul 29 16:30:35 2005
Cc: Keith Briffa
Simon……………….I have reviewed the CC paper by Wahl and Ammann. It reproduces all the mistakes MM have made, so they know how and why their results have been achieved. I can send you the paper if you want, subject to the usual rules.
Phil Jones, June 2005 “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
“This is for those who you who still doubt there is NO conspiracy.”
Here is more…
Another PR man who worked for Al Gore is Stan Greenberg, husband of Rosa Delauro (D-CT)
“…He is also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming….” http://tpm.apperceptive.com/profile/Stan%20Greenberg
Greenberg Carville Shrum who directed Campaigns in 60 countries (including Tony Blair in the UK) and was responsible for the Bolivia fiasco. Stan Greenberg “…specializes in research on globalization, international trade…” http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Stanley_Greenberg
“ Greenberg’s work for private sector organizations – including major corporations, trade associations and public interest organizations – focuses on managing change and reform…. Greenberg has conducted extensive research in Europe (particularly Great Britain, Germany and France), Central and South America (Argentina and Brazil), and Africa (South Africa). He specializes in research on globalization, international trade, corporate consolidation, technology and the Internet. For organizations, Greenberg has helped manage and frame a number of issues – including education, school financing, American identity, the economy, environmental regulation, international trade, managed care, biotechnology, copyrights, privacy and the Internet….
Greenberg has advised a broad range of political campaigns, including those of President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore, Senators Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman and Jeff Bingaman; Governor Jim Florio and gubernatorial candidate, Andy Young; former Vice-President Walter Mondale; and a number of candidates for the U.S. Congress. For many years, he served as principal polling advisor to the Democratic National Committee.
“Greenberg works jointly on private sector projects with prominent Republican pollsters in the United States – including Fred Steeper (pollster to former President Bush), Bill McInturff and Linda DiVall – to bring a bi-partisan focus to public issues….” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stanley_Greenberg
And How about the money trail???
“But the entry that really sent my Democratic strategist friend ballistic was the one for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat. La Rosa–tied for #48 on the Richest list–gets the lion’s share of her wealth from her husband–Clintonista pollster and campaign strategist Stan Greenberg. Says Roll Call, “DeLauro’s primary asset is a 67-percent stake in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., a Washington-based firm run by her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Her share in the company nets the Representative $5 million to $25 million. She has a partial stake in two other polling/consulting firms. The first is Greenberg Research, of which she and her husband own 100 percent, and Sun Surveys, in which she owns a 60 percent stake. Neither of these is as lucrative as Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, however.”
My bud the political warhorse snorted, “Hell, she first ran for Congress she didn’t have a dime–I was one of her biggest contributors. And Stan Greenberg, who worked for me back when he was starting out, used to have holes in his socks!” Noting that Congressional wealth is usually closer to the higher than to the lower estimates on the disclosure forms, my dour Democrat gasped, “That means they’re making around $50 million! These people shouldn’t be running Democratic campaigns!”
So, if you want to know why the national Democrats seem, in this campaign, to have a tin ear where touching the hearts and minds of the working stiffs is concerned, think about this: the three partners in the Democracy Corps–Greenberg, James Carville, and Kerry’s chief message-shaper Bob Shrum–are all multimillionaires. And yet their counsel–preferred in an endless series of free Democracy Corps memos distributed to the party elite well before and during the presidential primaries, whose content (or lack of it) they helped shape–is taken as gospel by Democratic liberals feverish for victory. Well, as the old Texas populist Maury Maverick Jr. used to say, “a liberal is a power junkie without the power.”
http://www.mlive.com/forums/farmington/index.ssf?artid=624
The information released from CRU just confirms a lot of other information I have pieced together and the picture is not pretty.
I’d love to see global warming not be true, but I don’t think these purloined e-mails even come close to proving what you think they do.
Since all sources point toward the hacked emails being legit we can soon move on from that to “what’s next”.
It’s clear that Jones, Briffa and Mann are center figures and should be in serious trouble. If I was the Dean at Penn State, i would get Mann in my office and have him explain himself before i kicked him off the planet in a hurry.
What do you think will happen, if anything at all?
What the… I took a day to work around the house. First day in ages I didn’t come to WUWT and this breaks!
I look forward to going back and reading all the posts.
Whistleblower protection and medals to the hackers.
What is a scientist without integrity? Once your reputation is damaged, who will give your work any credence?
I sincerely hope that taxpayer wealth stops flowing to these people. They helped create a vast empire of industries that drained billions of dollars, pounds, euros, yen, etc. from various economies.
As a former engineer, I am embarrassed for these “scientists”.
Sweet Jesus!
BTW, kudos to the moderators. I noticed the incredible number of posts! Great work.
‘Lameman’ here…and i think you folks are missing the biggist story.
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
That is the story! Everyone, EVERYONE can understand that!
That is the line that causing Phil and Mann nuts!
[I emailed the story to PSU at about 6am this morning]
Yes, there is the science story, which few people will understand..but this email EVERYONE will understand:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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
“The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
Why?
Because there is a natural tendency to “circle the wagons”.
Sadly, this circling of the wagons in scientific circles probably goes on far more than most people know about.
@James F. Evans
Perhaps it will be like the scientific establishment supported Piltdown Man or eugenics… 😉
The AGW Conspiracy is crumbling bit by bit.
This revelation is but one aspect.
Circle the wagons as they will. These people have made me the fool for the last time. I will no longer even listen to them because they gave up their objectivity. Tarnished scientists are former scientists in my book.
Good riddance….bad rubbish.
Bulldust (15:41:17) : “Amazingly RC did post…” Not amazing at all. This is Gavin’s move-on moment. Like Yamal he will raise the noise level on the email discussions so that good points get buried. Then he will move on and censor all further discussion. With Yamal he needed more censorship right from the beginning because the evidence was so damning. While these leaked emails are damning, there are lots that he can easily and gladly explain to add to the noise.
Let the corruption continue to be exposed…..all of it…..
What is being said on CA and WUWT are probably the least of their worries. They have a lot more to worry about in their own academic circles now with having a lot of the talk about their fellow academics exposed.
What people were saying about whom behind their backs and what was being said about other institutions and various projects, etc. is going to do them a lot more long term career damage than anything we say here.
paul t (15:15:26) :
If we were talking about one sentence, and not a concerted effort to keep contrary papers from being published in order to keep one’s own research on top, then perhaps you would be correct. Unfortunately, from what I have read, there has been a concerted effort to do just that. On top of a discussion that seems to have broken tax laws, but I am no CPA, so I can’t say for sure.
There is also the issue of secrecy concerning the data. Why purposely delete the data when you are so VERY aware of FOI requests concerning it? The removal of data is what did Arthur Andersen in, and it is conceptually no different here. Actually, I take that back. Because this data is nothing more than temperature data, and it is, to be generous, weird that they are so concerned about it getting ‘in the wrong hands’.
When you read between the lines, that is what many of these emails seem concerned about, and there is much hand wringing about the data being public. Now what is the good reason for that? I would appreciate no more slippery answers, since I have highlighted the most concerning part of this ordeal.
Justin
“are you guys for real?
if you think analysis of a mathematical series and mentioning “hiding a decline” erases all the research related to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming you should be taken to a psychiatric ward.
#1 – out of context
#2 – doesn’t mean anything
Hell, I’ll do my own made up calculations today. Does that mean that global warming doesn’t exist? hell no.
Global warming is real, and no about of digging up silly emails is going to make that fact go away.
God, you people are like children. go read a book and become informed.”
Holy crap man, are you KIDDING ME HERE?!?!? Can you not READ? It’s ALL a lie. They lied about the whole thing. They MADE IT UP.
You got rocks in your head or what?? READ THOSE EMAILS!!!
Dr DoLittle (18:16:40) :
“Since all sources point toward the hacked emails being legit we can soon move on from that to “what’s next”.”
My predictions? The institutions (CRU, GISS, Penn State, NOAA, LLNL, etc.) will likely close ranks with the scientists involved and let them keep their jobs, but it may not matter. Their reputations will be stained in the public eye as the various dots are connected. They can and will reemerge in the scientific community, but never again will they have the influence and standing they once held. I suspect a lot of their colleagues will defend them, but some will disassociate themselves so as not to get entangled in this mess. I’m reminded of the current scandals involving ACORN – although ACORN still functions today, no one (politicians at least) wants to be associated with them!
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=485
At 14:35 21/01/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply.
The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so
they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code
would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written
one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
Sorry I won’t see you, but I will not come up to Norwich until
Monday.
Let me fill you in a bit (confidentially). You probably know the panel
members. We were concerned that the chair would be a strong person.
It is Jerry Mahlman — about the best possible choice. Richard Smith
is the statistician — also excellent. Dave Randall, too — very good.
As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen — but at least he is a smart
guy and he does listen. He may raise his paper with Gianitsis that
purports to show low climate sensitivity from volcanoes. I will
attach our paper that proves otherwise, in press in JGR.
Preparing the report has been a good and bad experience. I think
I had the worst task with the Exec. Summ. — it tied up most of
my time for the past 3 months. The good has been the positive
interactions between most of the people — a really excellent bunch.
I have been very impressed by Carl Mears and John Lanzante.
At meetings, John Christy has been quite good — and there were
good and positive interactions between John and Roy and the RSS
gang that helped clarify a lot. Outside the meeting, in the email world,
he has been more of a pain. He has made a lot of useful suggestions
for the ExSumm — but he keeps accusing the AOGCMers of
faking their models (not quite as bluntly as this). In the emails there
are some very useful exchanges from Jerry Meehl, Ramaswamy and
Ben detailing the AOGCM development process. We will be
writing a BAMS article on this in the summer — much of what happens
in model development is unknown to the rest of the community. The
‘faking’ idea prompted me to write a tongue in cheek note — also
attached. As far as I know, John will not raise this particular issue
in his dissentin views.
To accommodate dissenting views, the report will have a “dissenters’
appendix”, with responses. You will get this at some stage — the
deadline for dissenters to produce is Jan 31, and we will not finish
our rebuttals until mid Feb. The dissenters are John C, and (far worse)
Roger Pielke Sr. All of the rest of us disagree with these persons’
dissenting views. Roger has been extremely difficult — but the details
are too complex to put in an email. On the other hand he has made
a number of useful contributions to the ExSumm and other chapters.
Suffice to say that he has some strange ideas (often to do with the
effects of landuse change) that are interesting but still, in my view,
speculative — but testable.
We have yet to see the dissents — and it would not be ethical for
me to say any more than I have already.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Adam Grey (18:02:00):
“Karl, what is egregious is self-proclaimed skeptics jumping to conclusions based on skethcy data.”
Earth to Adam Grey: scientific skeptics have been asking questions regarding these issues for years without getting adequate answers, if they get any answers at all.
You’re right, it is sketchy data. So far. But there are a hell of a lot more answers in these emails than have ever been provided before, to skeptics or anyone else. You have it backward: these emails are the answer, not the question.
These emails show that there is big, big money flowing into the pockets of influential people, in return for their endorsement — even if they have to massage the data to get the answers their benefactors want. We can see how they routinely connive to get preconceived answers, rather than accepting the answers an unbiased planet is giving them.
Plenty of that big money is provided by organizations and foundations with an agenda. And that agenda is not pursuing scientific truth. It is orchestrated propaganda, designed to provide a disinformation campaign intended to alarm the populace.
You can see it throughout the emails. These climate alarmists whine about receiving straightforward requests for cooperation. They know that if they provide their raw data and replicable methods, their CO2=CAGW hypothesis will very likely be promptly falsified. So they stonewall.
But the Scientific Method requires falsification, if at all possible, as its primary tool for arriving at the truth of a hypothesis. And the essence of cooperation is openly providing all of the raw data and the methodologies upon request that were used to reach their hypothetical conclusions. Instead, they stonewall those requests. Their emails prove it.
These alarmist prima donnas are paid a salary by the taxpayers for science — but at the same time they are being paid by others with a climate alarmist agenda.
You can not serve two masters. One will always be shortchanged. In this case it is the taxpayers, who expect honesty. They are the ones being shortchanged. When the alarmists delete emails that were paid for as the work product resulting from taxpayer funding, how is that any different from being paid by the public to build a bridge, and then destroying that bridge to cover up their malfeasance? Especially if they had pocketed big bucks by an outside foundation to destroy the bridge?
Finally, I note the subtle [and not so subtle] threats of legal action. Do you seriously believe that Michael Mann is going to instigate a lawsuit, or tolerate a lawsuit being filed by one of his cronies, which would require plenty of nosy pre-trial discovery, and months of sworn depositions from everyone even remotely involved?
If so, you have little understanding of human nature. Because most people will not lie under oath, even to protect a co-conspirator. Perjury is still a felony that would destroy a professional’s reputation and employment, likely cost prison time, and invite countersuits. And it has become pretty clear with these emails which side is doing the coverup.
“I imagine though that “-ize” is gaining ground as spell checkers tend to be, as a default, American English.”
Yes, it’s possible a Brit used that spelling. But aren’t versions of MS Word that are sold in the UK set by default to UK English? Or, if not, wouldn’t they be set thus by the site administrator who installed them for his employees?
Best Story Title Yet,
Wrecking CRU: hackers cause massive climate data breach (The Register, UK[/i])
Nothing to add, except I admire all of immensely.
You are real scientists.
The Greatest Scientific Swindle of All Time
Some commenters think that efforts to evade FOI requests is among the most damaging findings in the emails.
“Dave,
“Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA, Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn’t get any additional comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith should say that he didn’t get any papers through the IPCC process.either. I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn’t get any. What we did get were papers sent to us directly – so not through IPCC, asking us to refer to them in the IPCC chapters. If only Holland knew how the process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland.
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments.”
(from Phil)
“Dear Caspar,
I hope everything’s fine with you.
Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process. We are not sure what our university’s response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or that we retained any that you may have sent. However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you sent to us as confidential.”
(from Tim (cc Keith & Phil))
Ok boys, let’s get our stories straight and make sure there are no wild cards…
more at
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=36&pp=25
I guess we will see who the frauds are now:
Alleged CRU Emails – 1169050678.txt
From: “Michael E. Mann”
“Phil,
I’ve seen this junk already. Look at the co-authors! DeFrietas, Bob Carter: a couple of frauds. I dont’ think anyone will take this seriously…
Do you have any advance knowledge you could pass along that would help us gear up to do something on RealClimate? I assume that there will be no surprises in the paleoclimate chapter, but I haven’t seen the final draft. Any hints you can drop would be great…
thanks,
mike”
I almost think if the person who released the raw data is apprehended, that no charges would be filed. The reasoning is that if this went to court and all the scientists and data are subpoenaed, the truth would be laid bare by a proper defense attorney. Wouldn’t it fun to have access to all the files, travel vouchers, everything. This would be true for any lawsuits brought. Look at it as an opportunity to look at everything.
I say raw data as someone has then analyzed it and selected pertinent items. An American word processor could have automatically changed words like realise to realize. The analyzed data was published in Russia to kill any trails. Does anyone believe a casual hacker accomplished this?
There’s a whole load of people who think this guy did a good thing, and also understand that (s)he took one hell of a risk.
Just in case (s)he happens to be caught, I would happily promise $10 for a defence fund, no worries. If enough people do, (s)he will at least have a chance when the brownshirts kick down the door….
Incredible stuff!
I think it explains quite a bit;
We know Mann got busted re: hockey stick
What’s-his-face said “Why should I give you the data when you’ll just try to prove me wrong” or words to that effect.
gore won’t even debate on the subject, and not just because he’s a dolt!
I can’t cite, but know that several aspects of the theory have been de-bunked.
There are methods available, (I’m sure most of you know of them better than I, I’m just starting this research) that can address this climate change business ie: pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to simulate a volcanic eruption, inducing a slight nuclear winter.
Or barges adrift in the oceans, kicking up sea spray to add water vapor (the #1 green house gas!) to reflect the sun and cool the ocean, thereby preventing further release of CO2 from the oceans. Please, if anyone has good info on these techniques provide some links.I have only caught brief explanations and haven’t researched them myself yet.
But it occurred to me that these and other techniques aren’t being used or discussed b/c they don’t transfer wealth to the third world or destroy western economies!
Speaking of that topic, didn’t some African nations just walk out of a conferrence, saying that the $ wasn’t enough, that they had a minimum amount in mind, but wouldn’t reveal the amount?
And why did copenhaggen suddenly announce that they had low expectations? They passed it off on the US not having any cap & trade legislation pending, but the timing now seems curious.
It may be just a hoax, but my gut tells me these libiots will stop at nothing to install a global government and socialist world order. I know that sounds condpiratorial, but I think that shoe fits, based on what I’ve learned so far.
over
Phil,
Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are …
“Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.”
and
“Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was not possible to select stations on the basis of …
“… station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times” [THIS IS ITEM “X”]
Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above selection method could not have been applied (but see below) — unless there are other “hard copy” station history data not in the DOE report (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.
What is the answer here?
The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn’t make the hard copy information available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist — if it did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?
Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers — so where does it come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched. ITEM X really should have been …
“Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”
Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation” OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start? Perhaps it’s not too late?
—–
How about an e-mail about fraud???
From: Tom Wxxx To: Phil Jxxx Subject: [Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:37:07 -0600 Cc: Ben Sxxx
id n457EfQ5005459
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I *am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.
Best wishes, Tom
P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples’ troubles might make him happier about his own parallel experiences.
At RC, a comment by Scott A. Mandia — 20 November 2009 @ 2:39 PM
“I posted a few comments on WUWT but I am sure that they fell on deaf ears….”
No Scott, your comment was listened to and answered here. There were good answers for some items on your laundry list of AGW catastrophes and proxies and you chose not to answer why sea level was the same or higher in the MWP, etc.
Sure some posters here have wrong notions, and you are welcome to present contrary arguments or present and defend your own ideas. But to go back to RC and say nobody listens to you here was false in this case and false in general. When you make that claim there, you are just part of their spin and PR which appears to be their main purpose.
What a load of old bollocks. Imagine – there you are, a conspirator in what would be one of the biggest hoaxes of all time and you incriminate yourself in an email like this?
Grow up, FFS
It’s been a rough few years.
1. I used to believe in the cant. I started checking it out because a good friend did not, even though he had no data to justify it. I set about finding data to prove the AGW theory to him.
2. I found a lot of conflicting information. I looked further. I wavered. I went back. I wavered again. A month of hard digging led me to the conclusion that it was an unsubstantiated theory at best, a hoax at worst.
3. I grew more and more frustrated an the misleading and erroneous claims of what AGW had done and would do. All the ‘would do’ scenarios were based on ‘has done’. None of the ‘has done’ scenarios was without fault, and many (like sea levels) seem outright fraudulent.
4. Frustration grows, and disbelief grows ever stronger. The more I think and talk about it, the more tenuous it all seems. If even half of what was claimed was true, the AGW theory had no legs, and yet the media were screaming ever more shrilly. Now government were really, really trying to take my money to …. well, I’m not quite sure to do what. ‘Fix’ something (as if taxing anything ever ‘fixed’ anything but treasury coffers). I had no choice, and the money would plainly NOT be used in any effective way.
5. Someone lets the cat out of the bag. All the prominent scientists who have been tirelessly investigating this area and finding ever increasing fault with the ‘science’ have been proved correct. It is true, the evidence is in. The debate is over, and the books were cooked.
6. Hopefully Copenhagen will be a cold and desolate place in December….
Only one thing left to say:
“Game over”
Has hit the Daily Mail in the UK (a tabloid) …
Hackers ‘expose global warming con’: Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre massaged temperature data.
A little googling in regard to Steven Mosher ‘s cryptic post somewhere above :
Nov. 12 1912 – The bodies of the Scott expedition were found in Antarctica .
Nov. 12 1994 – Al Gore signed the Kyoto Treaty
Also , something happened in Germany in 1933 .
Sorry , but I’m tired ,after having followed this for the last 24 hours . Hopefully , the data will prove to be as juicy as the emails .
Just posted this on RealClimate.org. We’ll see if it goes through.
Dan Basica says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
20 November 2009 at 10:54 PM
Gavin,
I give you credit for moving me firmly to the skeptic side for your ramblings on why scientists should not follow basic software development practices and the scientific method (release data, code, build environment, document procedures, etc.).
See your comment 89.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/on-replication/
How can you and your fellow alarmists now deny what the skeptics have been wailing about all along? You cheerfully claim to McIntyre and others that the code and data has been available all along (but they just couldn’t find it!), but then Phil Jones and others are doing their very best to make sure neither he nor anyone else ever get ahold of it. What am I to believe?
If I had any reason to believe you or anyone else on the alarmist side, I just lost my patience
Ctm and the rest of the crew, How are you holding up to being Slashdotted? But now I fear for the property values that all those Slashdotters have started moving in! 😉
“How did the Crowley and Bauer studies that are shown in the figure (using EB or EMIC models) get the smaller cooling magnitudes indicated there? Only by using a subset of the forcings – Crowley basically threw out the solar changes (and had a lower sensitivity model), Bauer et al. used a large aerosol effect and still needed a large deforestation warming to bring her results in line with the Mann et al. reconstruction (in fact, it was done specifically for that reason). ”
– 1105653626.txt
Eric (skeptic) (19:35:19) :
“At RC, a comment by Scott A. Mandia — 20 November 2009 @ 2:39 PM
“I posted a few comments on WUWT but I am sure that they fell on deaf ears….”
I just posted this at RC:
“When you howling wolves realize that the meat you think you have been thrown is made of rubber, are you going to spit it out, or keep telling everybody that it tastes really good?
These files are an embarrassment just as the Briffa scandal was shown to be on CA.”
Wow, has anyone read 080214_SUNYA_draft.pdf?
What do you make of this?
I’ve been following this most of the day (thanks for killing my productivity guys).
Tentative conclusions. If this is not a hoax:
1) Yes, some of these guys were clearly conspiring to evade Freedom Of Information requirements. I don’t know if they stepped over legal lines, but if they didn’t they came close enough they would be wise to hire lawyers, and they had better not have actually destroyed data sought in those requests.
2) Yes, at least some of them were maneuvering to keep opposing views out of peer-reviewed journals and then claiming that the fact that those views were not in peer-reviewed journals made them not worthy of consideration. The obvious intellectual dishonesty of doing that doesn’t seem to have registered.
3) Yes, they (at least some of them) are acting as advocates rather than scientists. The mindset was clearly that a global warming crisis caused by CO2 was a given and that their job was to nail down the details, protect that conclusion against skeptics and convince the public, not ask scientific questions about whether or not the fundamental belief is valid.
4) Clearly, RealClimate will not allow a debate that they could lose. You don’t get an honest debate there because any effective opposing points of view are moderated out of existence, simply because they are effective.
5) The people involved in these e-mails are not a single monolith, and it would be wise for skeptics not to treat them as such.
To me the most damning things so far are (1) and (2).
The “ADAM second-order draft.pdf” document is interesting too. It pretty much lays out how they would use “climage chage” to regulate the global economy and ensure a perpetual source of funding for themselves. Basically, the entire world economy was going to be controlled by climate “scientists” using the fear of us all burning ourselves up to manage practically every aspect of life. If you control energy, you control the entire economy. Generally, the output of an economy is directly proportional to their energy consumption.
” Greg S (14:07:53) [19.11.2009]:
Probably still a crime to have hacked into CRU’s systems…”
A [root source/DRM] hack into any corrupt/corrupted/corrupting system exposing a crime is a laudable and legitimate public service with blanket immunity from prosecution and is always afforded investigative impunity?
Interesting reading about the “ADAM” project. Document: ADAM_Second_order_draft.pdf
I agree with Alec, we need to improve the signal to noise ratio in this argument. The press needs a single items to grab onto. They won’t understand the scientific arguments. The key element that we should focus on is the efforts to obstruct FOI requests. This is a felony. If these guys get indicted for obstruction, then everything else will come under scrutiny.
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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
Hi Mick,
It was good to see you again yesterday – if briefly. One particular
thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?
My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?
All the best,
Paul
Squidly (20:06:05),
I’ve been following the Wei Chyung Wang climate peer review fraud [alleged, I suppose], for quite a while. Haven’t heard about any resolution though.
The funny thing is that this whole “energy conservation” problem is manufactured. We could build a few dozen nuclear plants in this country and have an electricity surplus. Rates would plummet, there would be no reason to “conserve” when it came to electricity. You run the plants at maximum efficiency and keep dropping the price of the power until demand catches up with supply.
But instead we have a situation where it is impossible to build a power plant of any sort, we can not exploit domestic sources of conventional energy, we can not build nuke power and so we are held hostage to a manufactured energy problem.
Build nukes, recycle fuel.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/Hadley_CRU_Files_%28FOI2009.zip
These are the legit files, I ran a virus scan on it and unarchived and all seems fine.
Glenn (17:52:08) :
…
“P.S. We agreed in Beijing that we should definitely ask Tom to be a CA”
Any thoughts on what a “CA” is? Climate Alarmist?
Co-author.
This whole episode makes me think of the following:
A mile-wide asteroid crashes into the helpless earth. But the media don’t want to believe in asteroid impacts, so they simply don’t report it as news.
The Big Ignore actually beats The Big Lie in the propaganda stakes!
From Mann to Jones,
Now why would SteveM go running to the WSJ if he discovered the problems? Surely he’d try to publish a rebuttal first.
However, if the problem was malfeasance…
DaveE.
On “realize” vs “realise”, in fact British academics will usually write “realize”. This is called “Oxford spelling” which is a legacy of that the English did spell it that way til the 1960s. English peer-reviewed journals require the use of Oxford spelling.
Paul Coppin (20:46:36) :
Glenn (17:52:08) :
…
“P.S. We agreed in Beijing that we should definitely ask Tom to be a CA”
Any thoughts on what a “CA” is? Climate Alarmist?
“Co-author.”
Party pooper. (:
I don’t suppose ANYONE is surprised at the few, and I mean VERY few, MSM news items about this.
For the most part, they are down on the “hacker”, and don’t even bother discussing any of the revelations. I was especially disgusted by the way some are quoting RC, and they’re all describing RC as some innocent “forum where climate scientists gather”, as if it was anything other than a propaganda outlet.
Oh well. As usual, one of the most important things to happen in a long time has just happened, and the few people who even hear about it will get the backward spin.
In A.D. 2009…
Socialism was beginning
What happen?
Somebody set us up the Mann
Main screen turn on
It’s you!!
All your email are belong to us
You have no chance to survive make your time.
For me, the most damning evidence is that the players aren’t arguing minute details among themselves. The communications are about how to agree, how to stay on the same page, how to appear as a solid front. Scientists normally argue over every minute detail, they never agree completely.
“James F. Evans (18:21:34) :
“The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
Why?
Because there is a natural tendency to “circle the wagons”.
Sadly, this circling of the wagons in scientific circles probably goes on far more than most people know about.”
As a general principle, the above statement would apply. But this is CYA time, big time, and that will work around the globe to achieve exposure and some retribution.
In official circles, there are de facto rules to CYA. If subordinates have done something that is an embarrassment, you try to “sweep it under the carpet” if you can. But there is an exception, if there is a strong possibility that such an effort will fail, then you don’t do it (otherwise you go down too because of your cover up). Instead, in those cases, you hang the miscreants out to dry and say how shocked you are that they could ever have behaved in such a dastardly manner.
In this instance the powerful parties at risk are the top executives of the universities involved. They might like the problem to go away. Unfortunately the information is now so widely disseminated and there are so many competent and credible jurisdictions with a reason for getting involved and pursuing the matter that you can neither block them all nor predict the outcome. In such a situation, CYA for those top uni execs, who were not directly involved in these actions, says don’t risk yourself by getting involved in blocking. Show that you are good guys by letting openness prevail.
As an example of the jurisdictions outside the UK, the US Senate has yet to consider cap and tax legislation, but it is on the agenda. On the Republican side there are a number of staunch opponents. Once they have a chance to go through the details of this treasure trove, they are going to be using it in their opposition to cap and tax. But that does not mean they are limited to the material now in the public domain. Some of it may well provide a basis for obtaining all the related correspondence from the US institutions involved, all of which depend on federal funds. Who knows what else that will reveal, not just about the academics at those US unis but about the UK ones also.
In Australia, the government is trying to get its own version of cap and tax approved. The leader of the opposition wants to work out a deal but a large and vocal section of the opposition has gone public saying no deal. It is quite possible they will now say “A huge amount of information has been produced that suggests academic fraud may underlie the whole basis for the government’s proposed legislation. There is no way that legislation should be approved until this has all been thoroughly and impartially investigated.” Not sure the leader of the opposition has much of a rejoinder to such an obviously reasonable position. But equally, rather than acknowledge a loss, it gives him a stick to beat the government with if they try to push through the legislation.
And there are lots of other jurisdictions where some official may take it into his head to pursue an issue on tax or some other potential offence suggested by the material so far released.
I have no idea where any of that might end up. But that is equally true of the heads of the unis involved. For them, CYA says, now the genie is out of the bottle, make sure it doesn’t bite me — everyone else had best look after themselves.
CodeTech (21:09:47) :
I was especially disgusted by the way some are quoting RC, and they’re all describing RC as some innocent “forum where climate scientists gather”, as if it was anything other than a propaganda outlet.
When you see that, post this link.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
My first thought was that some of the more outlandish documents contained in the archive simply happened to present on their servers, but had no real association with CRU. However, Adobe indicates the document “ADAM second-order draft.pdf” is authored by “f037”. The following e-mail in the archive is from “f037”:
1084017554.txt
From: f037 To: Aiguo Dai Subject: denial or delusion? … Aiguo’s response Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 07:59:14 +0100 Cc: , , , ,
Dear Aiguo,
You’ve done a great job in putting this together so quickly and clearly. I have a couple of additional comments to make on it, but can’t do so until Tuesday. You (we?) might also like to think of the reply being multi-authored, including Phil, Pete, Kevin, Joe and myself.
I must say that when I first read this paper a couple of weeks ago I wrote it off as so bad (so, so bad) that it didn’t even deserve a response. To pretend that the Sahel drought didn’t happen (i.e., a pure artifact of wrongful use of rainfall data) is the most astounding assertion, almost on a par with holocaust denial. Try putting that proposition to the millions of inhabitants of the Sahel in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, many of whom died as a direct consequence and whose livelihoods were devastated. Adrian Chappell may never have visited the region, but I know Clive Agnew has (many times) – and he should know better. I did my PhD research in the region in the early 1980s and I know exactly what the rainfall conditions were like and how much oridinary people suffered as a consequence. My PhD was on rainfall variability and local water supplies in Sudan and I visited and talked to many villagers in the region.
Anyway, Phil first suggested that a corrective reply was needed and I can see the value of doing so, especially with IPCC AR4 approaching. It just seems to me such a shame that such poor science is being done by some people – in this case I don’t think there is a deeper motive on the part of Chappell and Agnew than pure delusion and incompetence – and, worse, that a journal like IJC will publish it.
Thanks again for your efforts,
Mike
This is apparently Mike Kelly at CRU. Also, here is an interesting term that arises: “CRU5”
CodeTech: There is a lot to digest. We are still experiencing the fog of war.
Scratch that. That is Mick Kelly. Mike Hulme?
CodeTech (21:09:47) :
The tone on “Climate Change” was down quite a few notches when they reported on the flooding in the UK. Smarting from the leak, no doubt.
Now, I feel for the people who had no warning. You see, I look at it like this: Had the climate scientists been paying attention to the strange warm water tongue reaching further into the Arctic on the Siberian side of things plus the inkling of a stronger current (that higher ocean level off the US East Coast) instead of blathering on top of the AGW Soapbox, they might have warned the residents along the way to expect some flooding.
The flooding surely happened.
So, next time, do keep in mind that the null hypothesis now = emails indicate cover-up and reeking of altered datasets, is on the other foot.
Scenes of H.R. Haldeman, John Erlichman and AG John Mitchell dance in minds everywhere.
truth has never had anything to do with the church of climate change co2 is plant food and at such small amounts 300/million compared with water vapor and methane it’s always been about stealing and control of free people slice a green and it’s red inside the fascists can’t stand the idea that state control always fails so rewrap the crap and try again al gore tear down that fake chart
Glenn (21:03:10) :
Paul Coppin (20:46:36) :
Glenn (17:52:08) :
…
“P.S. We agreed in Beijing that we should definitely ask Tom to be a CA”
Any thoughts on what a “CA” is? Climate Alarmist?
“Co-author.”
Party pooper. (:
LOL! Sorry! Thought you were actually asking…!
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=39&pp=25
Phil Jones to Ben Santer on March 19, 2009:
“In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London’s UHI and the effect that it hasn’t got any bigger since 1900. It’s easy to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park), but that is where the measurements are from. Heathrow has a bit of a UHI and it has go bigger. I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS.”
Whiner. With one urban site! But on January 1 2009, he had two:
“I’ve just submitted a paper on the UHI for London – it is 1.6 deg C for the LWC. It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. The paper shows the UHI hasn’t got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park and Rothamsted).”
I haven’t found any paper that Phil might have got published specifically on London UHI in the last century. But there doesn’t seem to be anything in the news about the disappearance of Rothamsted.
Seriously, in this series of emails (url above) a timeline of Jones attempts to show and publish no London UHI change through the past century. I don’t believe this is a motivation separate from any other, but a plan to use it against his more global claim of global warming, likely tied to his claims about China. Seems similar to his idea of changing data on ocean temp “blips” ( see Ric Werme (19:43:43)).
CRU was NOT hacked! This was an insider/whistleblower leak.
” The proper way to address this sort of “data secrecy” issue, is to convince the owners/possessors of the information, that it is in the best interest of science for them to make the data available; and that to not do so without a very good reason, simply brands their published “output” as “suspect”.”
This assumes that the data-possesors are interested in ‘the best interest of science’.
Anyway, in these postmodern times, we know that there is no absolute truth. Truth is what brings the grant money in.
April E. Coggins (21:11:59) :
I think this is what threw me off at first April. When I first read a few of the emails I kept thinking “This is not the way professionals talk.” But when you compare this with the kind of commentary you see from the likes of Scott Mandia and Gavin Schmidt here or at RC you start to realise that the emails are, in fact, quite mild compared to their braver blog persona’s.
But, apart from the shock at the “collaboration” you point out (no wonder they get “peer reviewed” so easily), I keep coming back to the sheer lack of professionalism displayed in the emails and keep shaking my head in dismay.
I imagine they may be in damage control or ducking for cover for a while. I can only imagine the emails that are flying around now LOL… or perhaps they have learned their lesson and are using the phone instead.
No reply yet to my previous comment at RealClimate.org still awaiting moderation a few hours later. So here’ another.
Dan Basica says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
21 November 2009 at 1:03 AM
Gavin,
You imply the emails released are a just a few and out of context. Ok, I’ll buy that. Then release the rest of the correspondence so we can make up our own minds on how they fit into the context of things.
Let me know when you’ve posted these so we can have a look and see that we jumped the gun on these “out of context” emails.
George (19:43:36) :
What a load of old bollocks. Imagine – there you are, a conspirator in what would be one of the biggest hoaxes of all time and you incriminate yourself in an email like this?
Oh Georgie boy, you of all people should know “it’s not a lie, if you really believe it’s true”.
From the Daily MaIl article
“Spokesman Dave Britton said the two organisations had to turn down numerous Freedom of Information requests because they did not hold the copyright to the data.
‘There is a feeling we are hiding something,’ he said. ‘But we are not, we just can’t release the data.’
He said that is was unclear whether some of the documents had been tampered with, adding: ‘We are not concerned about the robustness of the science we are pushing but we are worried about it being interpreted out of context.’ ”
“The science we are pushing….” Like heroin?
Files in WikLeaks: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009
Will University of East Anglia’s CRU try to catch and prosecute the hackers?
The discovery phase will be very interesting. Data that has been denied to skeptics for years may finally be available.
I recently posted the following on the Real Climate web site: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-5/#comment-142510
People can check the UN IPCC’s methods for themselves using the links below. Note that articles 1 through 5 (below) cannot be sensibly refuted since McLean simply uses UN IPCC data on UN IPCC processes for producing UN IPCC reports. The data was obtained from the UN IPCC itself.
Apparently the UN IPCC released the data because it feared FOIA action. To my knowledge the UN IPCC has not released data on the production of its earlier reports prior to 2007. Rather, it has sought to prevent release of data on its reporting processes.
A. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_corrupted.pdf
and
1. http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
2. http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
3. http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/23573.pdf
4. http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/McLean_ipcc_review.pdf
5. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean-disband_the_ipcc.pdf
Given the culture created for the UN IPCC by UNEP and given the political and limited purpose of the UN IPCC, e-mails such as those uncovered by the CRU hack are to be expected. Such e-mails, if true, seem completely in keeping with the UN IPCC’s culture, purpose and methods. That tends to support the credibility of the CRU hack, as does the opening comment on this thread entitled The CRU hack.
It’s clear from McLean’s latest paper (A above) that the UN IPCC uses a diverse bag of dishonest and unscientific tricks to produce its reports and to ‘justify’ its unfounded and false core claim that humans were responsible for Nature’s latest modest natural global warming that ended around 1998 (or 2002, if you prefer).
The con appears to have started in Villach, 1985 when the UNEP fabricated a consensus and Bert Bolin apparently wrote the 1985 report. Bolin’s report subsequently became the foundation for the UN IPCC’s first report after the UN IPCC’s foundation in 1989. It’s all there in black and white including well-researched quotes and data.
After writing the Villach 1985 UNEP report Bert Bolin went on to become the UN IPCC’s first chairman. It seems clear that the UN IPCC adopted and refined the UNEP’s own methods of falsely promoting unfounded climate alarm.
It will now need much strength and courage from advocates of ‘human warming’ to challenge their own beliefs and admit they’ve been misled by the UN IPCC. It will need much true forgiveness from climate realists sceptical of the UN IPCC. Instead of blame, climate realists (sceptics) need to truly forgive advocates of ‘human warming’ because many were duped by a very clever scam that hijacked their inherent care for the environment.
I suggest we all need to focus our energy on restoring scientific credibility and understanding all aspects of climate. And on appreciating Nature’s immensity, power, beauty, grandeur and majesty.
I hope that now, instead of continuing to be diverted onto a fabricated non-problem (‘global warming’), we focus our attention, creativity, energy and resources on addressing real environmental and humanitarian challenges.
Malcolm
For those of you who want a fast download, many alternate links are provided at this site:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009
JER0ME (19:44:11) :
It’s been a rough few years.
1. I used to believe in the cant. I started checking it out because a good friend did not, even though he had no data to justify it. I set about finding data to prove the AGW theory to him.
2. I found a lot of conflicting information. I looked further. I wavered. I went back. I wavered again. A month of hard digging led me to the conclusion that it was an unsubstantiated theory at best, a hoax at worst.
3. I grew more and more frustrated an the misleading and erroneous claims of what AGW had done and would do. All the ‘would do’ scenarios were based on ‘has done’. None of the ‘has done’ scenarios was without fault, and many (like sea levels) seem outright fraudulent.
4. Frustration grows, and disbelief grows ever stronger. The more I think and talk about it, the more tenuous it all seems. If even half of what was claimed was true, the AGW theory had no legs, and yet the media were screaming ever more shrilly. Now government were really, really trying to take my money to …. well, I’m not quite sure to do what. ‘Fix’ something (as if taxing anything ever ‘fixed’ anything but treasury coffers). I had no choice, and the money would plainly NOT be used in any effective way.
5. Someone lets the cat out of the bag. All the prominent scientists who have been tirelessly investigating this area and finding ever increasing fault with the ’science’ have been proved correct. It is true, the evidence is in. The debate is over, and the books were cooked.
6. Hopefully Copenhagen will be a cold and desolate place in December….
Only one thing left to say:
“Game over”
————–
Good post. Sums up my own experience and conclusions.
If it has only been days since the file servers were found to be compromised, how could anybody generate the huge volume of material in such a short time? Nobody can. It only goes to support the undeniable fact that all that material is real.
And for a copy of the letter I sent to Bob Ward through the editorial board (check out his denial in the guardian.co.uk which is a real joke):
Please forward this to Bob Ward re: “This climate email-hacking episode is generating more heat than light”
Dear Bob…
I hate to tell you, old boy, but your Anthropogenic Global Warming Ivory Tower has just collapsed.
And on top of that, I’d issue a retraction to your story referenced in my subject line.
Why?
Heads will roll on this one, dear chap.
Your blokes at University of East Anglia, particularly Phil Jones, and Michael Mann at our own Pennsylvania State University will be charged as felons and kicked out of science.
They have become the laughing stock of climate science.
And you know what?
You are in bed with them.
Your professional integrity is in the toilet with theirs.
Pretty funny. And pretty sad, too.
Apparently you aren’t a scientist.
And apparently you aren’t a thinking man.
Thanks for listening!
Galen Haugh
Never mind the hacked emails – I’d like to see the emails between this lot over the last couple of days.
THIS ONE GOES DIRECTLY TO TUNING THE IPCC:
Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David
I pulled a copy of the ZIP file, scanned it for viruses, etc. (found none), extracted the files and started looking.
The first thing I looked for was passwords. Found five (5) examples of internal user ids and passwords in plain text! Is it any wonder that they got hacked?
You would think that these supposedly intelligent people would use at least a minimum of common sense in respect to security, but no!
How does a user id of “steve” and a password of “tosser” strike you?
Have these people ever heard of strong passwords? Have they ever been told that you “never” place passwords into clear text!
Are the politicians turning on the scientists? The pro-global warming politicians have been hiding behind the scientists, feeding the scientists money to keep up the charade. When all is lost politically, the scraps are fed to the dogs. We are the dogs.
Not surprising to see that old chestnut trotted out — “out of context”. That’s what a guilty person says after he’s been caught and exposed saying or doing something embarrassing and/or illegal.
Wonder where we’ll be in the next week or two – communications being funneled through a number of attorneys?
Oh what a tangled web they weave! etc. etc.
@ Smokey
These emails show that there is big, big money flowing into the pockets of influential people, in return for their endorsement — even if they have to massage the data to get the answers their benefactors want. We can see how they routinely connive to get preconceived answers, rather than accepting the answers an unbiased planet is giving them.
Plenty of that big money is provided by organizations and foundations with an agenda. And that agenda is not pursuing scientific truth. It is orchestrated propaganda, designed to provide a disinformation campaign intended to alarm the populace.
You can see it throughout the emails.
I began by saying to Karl that there is nothing skeptical about leaping to conclusions with sketchy data. I now ask you to cite the emails that ‘prove’ exactly what you are saying. Which emails, for exampe, reveal what organizations and foundations provide funding for disinformation campaings? Who paid? Who received? How much was spent? Where are the unambiguous emails showing connivance to arrive at preferred answers?
Cite the full email, please, and any attached to it, so that we may not be misled by out-of-context quoting. Thank you.
It makes me wonder if other files have been hacked and the hacker is waiting for an opportune moment to release some more.
Chez Nation (06:44:24) :
It is human nature to monkey with data
used car salesman do it all the time
Perfect reference to Al Gore!
euan mearns (08:13:00) :
The BBC have this story, missing the whole point of course
Of course. They do it intentionally because of their political paradigm.
I wonder if these people get tired of pushing their politics all the time?
I read with some interest an article posted over at ICECAP, authored by Andrew Revkin. Two things caught my eye. The first was that the tone and balance was somewhat different to Mr. Revkin’s traditional alarmist writing. I speculate that this may be because he was basically referred to as a “useful idiot” in the leaked emails. The second thing was that Gavin Schmidt indicated that the leaked files may have been known to him as early as Tuesday when a hacker attempted to upload them as a false post at RC. This makes the slow RC response even more interesting.
Ed (08:38:36) :
Professor Michael E Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate,
Popular?
The Guardian has a different definition popular than the dictionary does. They needed to specify ‘the segment of political left that has interest in global warming’. It’s popular among them, I guess.
The Guardian needs to get out more often.
Alas, my post providing links to McLean’s articles didn’t last long on Real Climate – it was moderated off.
Malcolm
I’m up past my bedtime. Passing through the channels I came across the show Red Eye. They brought up the CRU hacker story in the opening.
Interesting , with regard to the BBC and their relevant UEA/CRU item is that Richard Black is nowhere to be seen. I look forward to his view, when he emerges from behind wherever he is hiding/cowering?/sitting.
Good time to remind people of this poll.
April E. Coggins (23:05:11) :
Are the politicians turning on the scientists? The pro-global warming politicians have been hiding behind the scientists, feeding the scientists money to keep up the charade….
Bingo April. Listen to Waxman’s words.
AEGeneral (09:10:16) :
In the words of Dennis Green:
“They are who we thought they were.”
Wish I had thought of this!!!
Aha, Keith Briffa’s original receipt of the Yamal 18 in 1996, including the data if anyone knows how to parse a .arj file.
0844968241.txt
From: “Tati*na M. Dedkova”
To: k.br*ffa
Subject: Rashit
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 96 13:24:01 +0500
Dear Keith,
enclosed are data concerning Yamal chronology.
1 – list of samples: 139 subfossil samples (checked only),
covered time span from about 350 BC and 18 samples from living
trees (jah- from Yada river, m- and x- Hadyta river, por- from
Portsa river);
2 – general chronology (1248 BC – 1994 AD). I have some little
doubt about 360 BC – may be it is false. It was found that
in chronology I sent you before 155 BC was false ring;
3 – ring widths of living trees from Yada and Hadyta;
4 – ring widths of living trees from Portsa. Some of them didn’t
include in chronology, because were not measured at that time;
5 – ring widths of subfossil trees. Zero means that ring didn’t
find on sample.
I don’t send description of collection sites, deposits and etc.
for the present. Some details you can find in our article
(Shiyatov,…., Loosli). By the way, do you know something about
its fate?
Please, inform me if you have any questions about these data.
Sincerely yours,
Rashit Hantemirov
begin 644 data.arj
M8.HH`!X&`0`0“*;FU-*(9M32B$…
geo (09:32:32) :
Ah, so Michael Mann is now having fantasies of sending Anthony, Steve, and others to jail for allowing these stolen emails to appear on their blogs.
I seem to get that impression too.
As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical…cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
P Walker (19:46:16) :
Nope. you won’t find it by looking. It’s unfair, just wait. It will make some things clearer.
A google on “Hadley CRU hacked” gives 57,800 links in the past 24 hours.
From: “Thomas.R.Karl”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: FW: retraction request
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400
Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang
“Thanks Phil,
We R now responding to a [b]former TV weather forecaster[/b] who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases. We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
Regards, TOm”
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
MattN (10:44:05) :
Leeme guess the comments on RC: “It doesn’t matter…”
The even use the word ‘robust’….AGAIN!
engaging in ‘robust’ discussions
That’s what they are calling their fraternization. How unimpressive those at RealClimate are.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
Robert E. Phelan (14:53:57) :
The crutape letters.
jones = screwtape
mann = wormwood.
hat tip to cs lewis ‘the screwtape letters’
Harold Ambler (11:23:05) :
Hold the phone! Complete misunderstanding!
We have it from Gavin that the e-mails are merely instances of “scientists … engaging in ‘robust’ discussions.”
Yes, that statement is robust in something.
Patrick M. (12:04:22) :
Has anybody been able to get into ClimateAudit? I haven’t been able to load the page since last night.
It’s a little slow for me but I get in every attempt.
Do you use Firefox?
Dr DoLittle (12:29:29) :
should have said 100% real, not 10% 🙂
You had me raise an eyebrow for a second.
“GeoffS (22:58:02) :
“Never mind the hacked emails – I’d like to see the emails between this lot over the last couple of days”
Apparently Phil Jones was seen leaning out a sixth floor window at CRU trying to grab some pigeons…most secure form of communication in current climate
James F. Evans (18:21:34) :
“The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
Why? Because there is a natural tendency to “circle the wagons”. Sadly, this circling of the wagons in scientific circles probably goes on far more than most people know about.
This is the same guild solidarity that (I suspect) motivated the NAS to give Mann only a wrist-slap. They couldn’t bear to side with an outsider against one of their own. This is an example of how social reality or “consensus reality” overrides real (scientific) reality. It happens in all hierarchies, especially those that have power and social prestige. “Satan” tempts them to do as they please, to throw their weight around, and to put the good of their organization and its members first.
=========
Regarding realize vs. realise, here is a one-sentence snippet from Fowler’s Modern English Usage fairly long entry on the topic, under the heading “ize”, recommending “ize” for use in the UK:
“the Oxford university Press, the Cambridge University Press, The Times, and American usage carry authority enough to outweigh superior numbers.”
At some point you have to seriously wonder… Just what kind of people, with what kind of moral code would try to pull an epic, abusive scam like this? Where do they come from?
(pardon the late night reverie)
Paul K (12:38:22) :
Anthony Watts… This hacking is clearly illegal, and reposting information obtained from a felony act is highly reprehensible.
That’s all? That’s the best you could come up with? That’s really it?
It might be best for the trolls to stay under the bridge for a while. I’ll throw you all a bone : RealClimate says the emails are ‘robust’ scientific discussion. Talk amongst yourselves.
Bob Tisdale (12:41:10) :
“’I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails,’ says Mann. ‘However, their theft constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.’
I’m still wondering if deceiving the public by altering data is a crime.
just a thought – how to do science ..
http://www.lhcportal.com/Portal/index.htm
CERN – the guys who bought us the world wide web; do all their science in public.
What is so special about AGW research that it has to be done behind closed doors ?
What possible reason is there for doing publicly funded science in secret ?
Of course; if it isn’t science you’re doing; but propaganda; then of course you do it in secret.
Two great (and very different ) news items on the same day !!
LHC is running
and
the purveyors of scam science have been exposed; CRU emails seem to confirm AGW is a scam
PS: I believe it was a realization by the CRU team that, if push came to shove, or even if it didn’t, the scientific establishment would be in its corner and would give it the benefit of the doubt in all disputes with outsiders, that encouraged them to behave so high-handedly. I suspect their continual dismissal of critics as not being properly peer reviewed, or not being published properly, or not being climate scientists, or being “out of it” in some other fashion, was largely an attempt to knee-tap scientists’ establishmentarian reflexes and evoke the biases inculcated by science-groupie propaganda, which implies that “science” has a perfect self-correcting truth-finding mechanism in place and that anything extra-mural is prima facie no good, or at least improper.
“Science” needs to climb down from its high horse and pay attention to its responsible critics (like academics involved in Science and Technology Studies—i.e., the sociology of science), especially the reform proposals of constructive critics like Henry Bauer. (E.g., he’s suggested that there should be a “science court” where disputed or fringe issues could be debated and evaluated by expert panels.) My own main suggestion is that scientific funding agencies should be split up into half a dozen competing smaller agencies, to encourage more long-shot funding (such as DARPA backs) and to discourage the development of monolithic groupthink.
wikiwonk (13:15:20) :
Venus is hotter than Mercury. We know for certain that enough CO2 drives a greenhouse effect. The earth’s history also supports this.
This sounds like Wikipedia ‘science’ created by a radical green Wikipedia editor.
I have a pretty good guess who you are. And all I can say is your call to urgent action brings on the urge to yawn.
Did the Russian hacker (FOIA) had contact with RealClimate? ___# Konrad (23:52:42) : 21/Nov/
Was it before or after they dropped the link at the AIR VENT (13/11) posting: „Open Letter On Climate Legislation“ Comment #10. Who was slow? Who was quick?
__The Russian hackers FOIA, appeared on Tuesday 17 Nov., 09:57 PM, at “The Air Vent” here: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/; FOIA said November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm,
__wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19 opened this thread on 19. Nov. (first comment:. 13:30) ;
__and The Air Vent here: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
__The http://www.examiner.com November 19, 9:42 PM, : The FTP link first appeared on a blog called The Air Vent.
__TGIF, http://www.investigatemagazine.com, Nov.20, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
“Have you alerted police?” “Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.” Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.
___# Konrad (23:52:42) : 21/Nov/
Gavin Schmidt indicated that the leaked files may have been known to him as early as Tuesday when a hacker attempted to upload them as a false post at RC. This makes the slow RC response even more interesting.
Is there more it would be good to know?
I seem to remember a certain blogger objecting to a video containing being placed online as it contained a small amount of copyrighted material.
I am sure that in their haste to get these almost certainly illegally obtained private correspondences in front of a wider audience posters have not bypassed the usual due diligence checks to ensure they are not inadvertantly breaching anyone’s copyright (breach of privacy goes without saying).
Business letters can be protected by copyright and forwarding them to others can be an infringement, the High Court has ruled. The decision could have implications for email communication because the same principles will apply.
In a dispute over roofing slates, the High Court said that a business letter can qualify for copyright protection. Experts say the protection will as easily apply to business emails, which could change the way email is used in business forever.
Struan Robertson, editor of OUT-LAW.COM and a technology lawyer with Pinsent Masons, said: “Emails can be protected by copyright too. Just because it’s easier to forward an email than a letter does nothing to weaken that protection.”
Not every letter or email will enjoy copyright protection, which is reserved for works which involve original skill or labour and which do not involve copying the work of another person. Originality in this context does not require the work to be an original or inventive thought; it only requires originality in the execution or expression of the thought. However, where existing subject matter is used by an author, independent skill must be applied to justify copyright protection for a resulting work.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/15/email_copyright_infringement/
Clark Baker (14:25:30) :
If this story is true, kudos to the hackers. I invite them to focus on other universities – expecially those that receive millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. You’ll find a lifetime of scandals there.
Clark Baker
LAPD, retired
I’d like to see everything from GISS since January 1988.
Dr DoLittle (14:25:49) :
I have talked to several people who appear on the leaked email traffic. All of them say that the emails are exactly what they wrote and corresponded and have in their own inboxes. Seems like strong evidence for the authenticity of the leak.
The best piece of confirmation will be the actual emails at CRU and from all others involved. They may have to be turned over some day. They will still be on harddrive even if they’ve been deleted. 🙂
PPS: Another reform I suggest would be to create a board of overseers, chosen more or less at random from the membership of scientific societies, to oversee their boards of directors and executives, and to counteract, like a balance wheel, activities of extremist/activist infiltrators.
Without lots of institutional reform, “science” is liable to become just another professional “conspiracy against the laity.”
The University’s statement on copyright is here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/strategies/infregs/copyright/ownership
The UEA owns the copyright of any intellectual property produced as part of an employment there. This includes, among other things, computer software.
So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.
Matt Beck (15:07:12) :
If the Times is on to it, that means the situation has blown up. It’s unsalvageable for the warmist camp. This is truly an historic day.
It is that big. I was up way too late last night following this and now way too late tonight. But it’s been fun.
There is no damage control that can fix this for the warmists. They’ve been claiming consensus among scientists all along. But now we see it is fraternization among scientists. Many of us many of us knew it all along. Now the public has the smoking gun to prove it to them too.
Presumably if the uni or anyone else wants to prosecute people over the release or reproduction of this material, the uni will have to confirm the material released is accurate. Do you suppose they really want to do that in the public domain?
The court case could get very interesting and very embarrassing for the uni, not just for the email writers.
dublds (17:14:22) :
Lets see if RC can smooth over this one:
RC has not been able to smooth over anything at a high caliber in the past. It’s still the same people now as in the past. They won’t give an impressive effort now—as we can already see.
These emails are a true testimony to the arrogance possible of concerted action taken based upon the unexamined belief. To quote Joan Baez you can justify it in the end.
brazil84 (17:17:08) :
P.P.S. I hope Senator Inhofe has his staff drafting subpoenas.
He will have to put together a good case first—and he’s got plenty of material with which to do that. This thing is a no-brainer.
The BBC have removed all blog comments on their site .
DaveE (20:47:48) :
From Mann to Jones,
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.
Now why would SteveM go running to the WSJ if he discovered the problems? Surely he’d try to publish a rebuttal first.
Sometimes we project ourselves into our opinions of others—Michael Mann thought Steve M would have run to publicity right away….I’m just saying.
“Phil Clarke (02:47:31) :
The University’s statement on copyright is here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/strategies/infregs/copyright/ownership
The UEA owns the copyright of any intellectual property produced as part of an employment there. This includes, among other things, computer software.
So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.”
Screw that! They can try put us all in prison, but that won’t work will it.
Mods, snip at will.
Presumably if the uni or anyone else wants to prosecute people over the release or reproduction of this material, the uni will have to confirm the material released is accurate. Do you suppose they really want to do that in the public domain?
Dr Jones already did.
Phil Clarke (02:47:31) : “The UEA owns the copyright of any intellectual property produced as part of an employment there. This includes, among other things, computer software.”
Are deliberately corrupted scientific data or codes of any type classifiable as “intellectual”?
Are E-mails that conspire to corrupt scientific data, codes or processes classifiable as “intellectual”?
Just wondering.
Nev (01:48:17) :
“GeoffS (22:58:02) :
“Never mind the hacked emails – I’d like to see the emails between this lot over the last couple of days”
Apparently Phil Jones was seen leaning out a sixth floor window at CRU trying to grab some pigeons
I’m hoping he isn’t having thoughts of anything else as he is leaning out that window.
I think the Earth’s temperature has just gone up a couple of notches! Sleep well AGW crims and traitors – the truth is catching up with you. I just can’t wait to see you publicly humiliated and your lives destroyed.
Phil Clarke (02:30:00) :
You made no conclusion. Is your implied conclusion that whoever it is in Russia where these where (it has been put forth) hacked be extradited to face charges that may not even be valid in the first place?
Or is your intended conclusion that anyone who has forwarded, or even handled in any way, these emails be subject to criminal prosecution? Is that your hope?
So now we all have been introduced to the concept of pal-reviewed-literature. I wonder what the next big leap in science would be?
Jim (16:55:34) :
“It can hardly be called harassment when the information should have been published long ago. It’s more like scientific obstructionism.”
It’s not true, but it doesn’t have to be true: it has to be plausible enough to be an effective media smokescreen.
Phil Clarke (02:30:00) :
Business letters can be protected by copyright and forwarding them to others can be an infringement, the High Court has ruled.
This is not a US ruling. You are expecting a lot of extraditions to take place here.
But also you failed to emphasize the only pertinent point :
but the judge found that enough was added that was new to qualify the letter for protection as a literary work.
Nothing has been altered in these emails or documents.
You really are grasping at straws in this. Once a troll always a troll, hey Phil?
Squidly said
Wow, has anyone read 080214_SUNYA_draft.pdf?
What do you make of this?
The Division for Research received an allegation against Wey Chyung Wang, for fabrication and
misrepresentation of research results…”
Yes, The “Wang Story” is probably well worth following in these e-mails.
Isn’t it nice to know that Wang, “the Chief Scientis”t of the “Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program” is considered “a rather sloppy scientist” and “had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents” and ” there was a report… explicitly stating that no such documents exist.” ”
I posted an e-mail and (mixed it up badly) I found when I searched for fraud. Here it is again.
From: Tom Wxxx To: Phil Jxxxs Subject: [Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:37:07 -0600 Cc: Ben Sxxx
id n457EfQ5005459
Phil,
Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are …
“Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.”
and
“Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was not possible to select stations on the basis of …
“… station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times” [THIS IS ITEM “X”]
Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above selection method could not have been applied (but see below) — unless there are other “hard copy” station history data not in the DOE report (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.
What is the answer here?
The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn’t make the hard copy information available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist — if it did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?
Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers — so where does it come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched. ITEM X really should have been …
“Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”
Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation” OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start? Perhaps it’s not too late?
—–
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I *am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.
Best wishes, Tom
P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples’ troubles might make him happier about his own parallel experiences.
Phil Clarke (02:47:31) :
So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.
I haven’t seen anyone claim that the emails and documents are theirs. Have you?
That’s the beauty of all this, why is is such an unbelievable story—it really is all the work of the circle of scientists who are behind the ‘science’ of global warming. It is all theirs. And you, unknowingly, are making it crystal clear it is really theirs. You are beyond the point of questioning if these really are from them or not.
Thank you for acknowledging that it is all theirs and not a fabrication from a skeptic-denier ; and thus can’t be altered in any way for fear of criminal prosecution.
You know it is all real. And no one other than them is, or would, claim it is theirs. So any possible copyright infringement is out of the questions.
Have a nice day.
Malcontent (03:07:04) :
Do you suppose they really want to do that in the public domain?
They may have to. There is no way out of this either way for them. The more time goes by the more they will see just how badly they have been hurt by this.
The Titanic didn’t sink immediately. But it certainly did. And the extent of the blow unfolded over a period of time, not all at once.
…can anyone say ‘Enron’?
Gene Nemetz (04:33:53) :
The Titanic didn’t sink immediately. But it certainly did. And the extent of the blow unfolded over a period of time, not all at once.
That is actually a good comparison, a ship in the middle of night running into an iceberg. Not many noticed it at first hand, but those who should know certainly did and they did realise rather quickly that the ship was doomed and that it would sink in a matter of a few hours(1).
So who is the Thomas Andrews (the designer of the Titanic who died with the ship) of the good ship AGW? Who is going to break the news to the rest of the passengers and crew aboard the AGW? Do the officers realise that the ship is lost and that it is all a matter of time now?
I’ve compiled some of the best phrases in my blog (in Portuguese):
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html
Bishop Hill has a good compilation also:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
I believe we should create more compilations, so journalists can get at them faster.
Ecotretas
Um… I take it people haven’t really had time to look through the files properly then? I mean, the stuff posted here as examples of a ‘vast hoax’ is a bit pathetic. 1 E-mail talking about a ‘trick’ used to hide a decline… to be honest, without knowing what the ‘trick’ is (adding in real temperatures? doesn’t sound like a trick to me) it’s hard to even construe that as disingenuous.
I mean, seriously…. is this it??!
Forgive me if this has been covered, but upon thinking about it, I doubt this is the work of an outside “hacker”, unless the archive had already been prepared by insiders, or unless it’s a complete dump of a specific computer. Somebody knew where the bodies were buried — generally too much to expect of outside “hackers” unless they were really, really motivated to do lots of research (and remember, time is the “hacker’s” enemy).
It’s not just the quoted emails that are damaging. There are many documents the mere presence of which show a serious conflict of interest in what is supposed to be a publicly funded science body. There are Greenpeace-related docs, plus a doc on “Communicating climate change” which is basically a handbook for how to propagandize effectively. It recommends employing fear only very sparingly (thankfully).
My fave so far is email 1048799107.txt entitled “Formation of Earth Government for the good of all.” It goes on about how a nice lefty Earth Government will be formed that controls all nations. Why are scientists subscribing, in their official capacity, to this kind of political brainwash?
I urge all readers to search and download from one of the mirrors. It’s your duty to remain an informed citizen. It’s our tax money they are spending on these so-called research centers that are in fact taxpayer sponsored political advocacy groups for extreme left wing dogma.
What’s most laughable, but perhaps positive in a way, are the repeated attempts from people caught with their hands full of cookie dough at damage control through invoking copyright and privacy laws. Besides being further “evidence” of a sort as to the veracity of this data, it’s clear that if copyright can be used to protect people in such monumental idiocy as this, the COPYRIGHT LAWS MUST BE CHANGED IMMEDIATELY. Where they get the idea that scientists should have a right to refer to privacy in such a situation, I don’t get, but it’s monstrously stupid and irrelevant.
Regarding the data itself, it has been commented that the interesting part is that there is no sign of any great conspiracy. I never thought there was one. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, and all that. What has happened shouldn’t surprise anyone. With sharply expanding budgets during the late 80:s, the climate orgs started to attract those who had a very ideological agenda rather than a scientific mindset. These people were all ready to bend the truth they found by simply asking only the questions they wanted. The IPCC goals are clear: Find support for AGW. After that, the people starting their careers in climate science found that they could only get funding if their research supported AGW. It became extremely important to people to stick to the approved road. Eventually, the politicians found the AGW useful for adding huge new taxes and regulations, and they threw in their support, but on condition that further interior weeding progressed so as not to be criticized. From the politicians, they got their major two gifts: Keeping the raw data secret, and a media advantage compared to the critics.
In short: You don’t need a conspiracy to turn an entire field of science into an ideological church of kumbayah. You only need money and human nature, as always.
Much of science’s credibility has been squirreled into the ridiculous notion that CO2 causes catastrophic warming. Many have jumped aboard this gravy train.
Nice work if you can cook the books, however it appears that another bubble has burst.
“The UEA owns the copyright of any intellectual property produced as part of an employment there. This includes, among other things, computer software. ”
Bullsnip!!!! Dammit…. if the American people don’t own every jot and tittle and every hard drive that this pyramid scheme has one fingerprint on, then it’s time to start a new government and a new science based on rooting out corruption…
I noted this which reflects the discussion about making data available in response to an FOI request; (probably draft document – not found in an e-mail)
(quote)
Options appear to be:
1.Send them the data
2.Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3.Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
(end quote)
WOW,
Try searching the word ” confidential “
Those against whiom there is evidence of deliberate complicity in fraud for gain, such as jones & those recipients of emails who did not go to the police, should face trial for fraud. Anybody else in any organisation regularly connected to the CRU should be considered, under the reasonable man doctirne to either know they were engeged in fraud or that they ought to have known if competent. In either case none of them can ever again claim to be a scientist & no reputable scientific institution should hire them or have any of them as a member.
CodeTech (21:09:47) :
I was especially disgusted by the way some are quoting RC, and they’re all describing RC as some innocent “forum where climate scientists gather”, as if it was anything other than a propaganda outlet.
More to the point, the authors at realclimate.org are the very same people who are the authors and recipients of the bulk of the emails released by the whistleblower.
They would hardly be likely to offer anything but a well spun defence on RC would they?
What I would like to see is a segment (if not entire show) on Glen Beck discussing this with Sen. Inhofe. Break it down into sub-toptics where the various illegal activities are discussed. Then have a few climate scientists like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen provide their opinions that the science has ALWAYS been overstated.
I think that would get the word out. Anyone have Glen’s ear?
Phil Clarke (02:47:31) :
“So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.”
No one need worry about this happening.
1. The file, and quotes from it, are turning up all over the place and it is impossible for them to try to prosecute everyone.
2. The last thing UEA and the rest of the AGW scammers want is all that incriminating stuff being put under a microscope in a court of law.
I’d have to say the game is far from over. These folks will just shift from warming to sea ice reduction or ocean acidification or some other cause du jour. The new meme will be that “CO2 may not cause warming, but the oceans will become acid and there will no longer be any sea ice” or some similar incarnation involving another unforeseen, CO2-induced problem.
Svempa (05:41:00) :
“…
Regarding the data itself, it has been commented that the interesting part is that there is no sign of any great conspiracy. I never thought there was one. …”
Ah, but there is. Its one thing for the ideologues to climb on and dip their wicks in the trough as is human nature, quite another when they conspire to manipulate, divert and exclude information and others from participating, and that’s what is documented in the emails. We don’t know yet how deep the conspiracy goes. Do a review of the history of the CRU, look at the rest of the players. What has happened here is that the conspiracy got so big and so pedestrian that nobody thought to watch over their useful idiots (Jones et al), with the result that all players will sooner or later, be pulled into the spotlight. Shredders are shredding and hard drives are being purged all over the world this weekend, there can be no doubt.
Scott A Mandia:
“When you howling wolves realize that the meat you think you have been thrown is made of rubber, are you going to spit it out, or keep telling everybody that it tastes really good?”
An apt illustration of the desperation many who have bought these lies must be feeling now. Mr. Mandia, grow up.
[SNIP – No outing, dammit! ~ Evan] is Tamino.
1248877389.txt shows the connection, with Tamino’s e-mail address.
The reference “…Gavin Tamino…” is missing a ‘,’. It should be “… Gavin, Tamino…”
The Canadian Model is showing up with a giant western European Low 8-10 days out that would bring heights down to 522mb & Snow to the UK, perfect timing for the BBC!
What is most interesting about this information is, I do not get the impression they really understand what is going on.
They are just writing papers, putting together data, manipulating it to serve their purpose, playing petty university politics, putting much more effort into suppressing dissent … to push the AGW cause.
But they do not know what is going on with the climate.
Gavin runs GISS’ models and I don’t see the in-depth knowledge in the emails that would be expected. They are still trying to figure out how the ENSO impacts the climate. UHI is still up in the air. Sulfate Aerosols is still a guess.
The lack of a clear (any) message about what is happening in the climate is more disturbing than anything else.
Deleted files on a hard drive will continue to exist only until other file content writes over that data, then the original deleted files (all or a portion) will be lost. Only tape backups made at the time they were existing files will have copies; a tape backup generally does not copy deleted files (all or any part).
The Daily Mail (UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html
This is on the inside front page and prominent.
Apologies of already posted on. There is also a story about the BBC sending 35 staff to Copenhagen to cover the hot air talks.
Interesting that for both pieces, the comments are 95% supportive of the sceptical view.
Cheers
Paul
crosspatch said
“The “ADAM second-order draft.pdf” document is interesting too. It pretty much lays out how they would use “climage chage” to regulate the global economy and ensure a perpetual source of funding for themselves. Basically, the entire world economy was going to be controlled by climate “scientists” using the fear of us all burning ourselves up to manage practically every aspect of life. If you control energy, you control the entire economy. Generally, the output of an economy is directly proportional to their energy consumption.”
Yes that is exactly what Kissinger said: “Control oil [energy] and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”
And that is the plan.
The UN through the IPPC is making a grab to control energy and the UN and the WTO through the Agreement on Ag is making a grab to control food. Congressman Henry Waxman is planning to deliver it up to the UN with a nice neat bow in a one, two punch.
The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 and The Food Safety Enhancement Act HR 2749 have both passed the house. Folks this may be the last thanksgiving for us in the USA before all the various steps taken by the UN and the WTO leads us to famine. The grain traders (WTO) have already made sure there are no more grain reserves left so we are one bad harvest away from a catastrophe. The new worldwide UN/WTO regs have been slowly killed off our farmers. In India farmers are suiciding at the rate of one every eight hours…..
Now add in a very quiet sun…..
The truth will always out.
AGW is dead, long live AGW.
Bill Illis (06:51:45) :
The lack of a clear (any) message about what is happening in the climate is more disturbing than anything else.
Bill, one thing that struck me was how little the wonder gas actually gets mentioned. It’s as if when talking amongst themselves, the pretence is dropped.
Whether or not this episode is the catalyst for change, it has cemented in the minds of millions that the existing science cannot be trusted and therefore we should not proceed with costly legislation. Whoever hacked those computers has saved us billions if not trillions of dollars in wasteful spending.
Any news on when Phil Jones will resign – I figure that it will probably happen over the weekend (these things usually do)?
Lets face it – manipulating data, collusion to control journal peer review process, withholding data and deleting correspondence in order to cover up aforementioned criminal activities from FOI.
If Phil Jones does not resign this weekend then it is surely going to go right up the political food chain to the actual people who control these sad excuse for scientists. My thinking Phil Jones will need to be the fall guy and higher ups will simply express surprise and outrage that all this was going on under their watch….
10 to 1 Phil Jones resigns this weekend …any takers?
***********************
William (13:46:16) :
I’m no Sherlock Holmes, but it seems to me the approach to validate the email-data’s authenticity would be a comprehensive time-line reconstruction. If the emails can be lined up with external events, it would pretty much rule out “doctored” data. No one has the time to construct a hoax to that extent.
Having said that, I recommend a cautious and measured response to this. While I hardly find it credible that legal action can follow now that the data is part of the public domain, even a successful defense can be costly. Hopefully, multiple entities have stored it for posterity, because we can rest assured that the original data no longer exists as of last night. They will continue to argue that the data is out of context while assuring that there is no context in which to put it.
*********************
I don’t know about Britain, but the US has laws concerning records retention. Does anyone know if Britain does?
I can’t find this story on Fox News or CNN. That’s a pity. I wonder why?
JER0ME (19:44:11) :
The responses to the “Hacked E-mails” story in the Daily Mail make for interesting reading. I reckon that 90% are from AGW/CC ‘deniers’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html
George (19:43:36) :
What a load of old bollocks. Imagine – there you are, a conspirator in what would be one of the biggest hoaxes of all time and you incriminate yourself in an email like this?
It’s a mistake to see this as a pure hoax or fraud with Mann, Hansen and the rest concocting a ludicrous scheme, recruiting trusted allies and getting the world to go along with it for fun and profit.
I’d say it was more like taking an originally, basically honest stance on a complex matter. Then came a huge political and commercial movement to which they were significant figures. The science and the workings of science were pretty much irrelevant to the movement. They now found themselves part of something which goes far beyond the academic world. They are priests guarding the secrets of priesthood. They’re certainly not confident of their position, or they would have allowed open scrutiny. They’re now in a position where they can’t say they’re wrong, or even that they are not sure, because the movement demands absolute certainty from them.
So, it wasn’t a huge, deliberate conspiracy, but because they’re not confident of their position, they’re forced to behave conspiratorially. At least, they see a need for confidentiality which wouldn’t be there if if their results could be openly examined and pass any reasonable test.
As for emails, people assume wrongly that emails are purely a matter between the sender and recipient, and they drop their guard. They’re stored on servers, they’re stored on backups, they’re probably the property of an employer anyway.
I know everyone is concentrating on the science collusion fraud by boffins – but has anyone investigated the political angles – the strings that control CRU?
Evidently the BBC is covering up the story behind these details. Posts concerning the content in the emails are being deleted. Furthermore Richard Black is curiously and conspicuously SILENT.
Do we have UK Government ministry involvement here, I smell a massive cover up? Perhaps an official phone call to the head of the BEEB to let them know that they are to downplay the CRU hacking story?
Anyone check the CRU emails for correspondence with influential Government and IPCC persons?
Think about it, how far up might this go?
There are likely many UK Government & IPCC departments that are right now frantically checking email for any incriminating correspondence that could show a link between the political machinations or Phil Jones and his wacky group and the directives or cheer-leading they received from higher ups in political circles. Those departments with a vested interest in the alarmist propaganda of catastrophic climate change due to man-made CO2 might be scared silly over the prospect of being exposed.
After another read through some of the stuff on this thread another thought comes to mind. There appears to be two different camps among the scientists.
One is gung-ho for the IPCC and prepared to “do what they have to do” including changing the data in order to get the answers that they believe to be the “right” ones. They will do their best to refuse data to anyone who might find fault with it and appear to have taken steps to convince their colleagues of the evil (I hope that’s not too strong a word) of those who do not subscribe 100% to ‘The Project’.
The other camp is prepared at the end of the day to go along with this but from several emails its members are less than happy with the extreme stance being taken by the IPCC and show concerns at the exaggerated claims being made where they can see that the science does not support the conclusions.
Somewhere down the line we all need to tease this latter group out from the fanatics and let them pursue some genuine climate research based on real world observations.
Meanwhile, I think that a little less triumphalism on our part (tempting as it might be) could be the order of the day!
To the casual observer you are correct, but there are people who can reconstruct several generations of overwritten data if they have access to the drive and can do sophisticated analysis of the media. If the scandal rises to a level of interest to involve state of the art recovery techniques and experts who know how to use them, the data is very likely still out there somewhere.
That said this information release may have nothing to do with hacking at all, it could also be due to improper disposal of an old lap top computer (lost stolen or sold as surplus) or hard drive that some hacker extracted old data from.
Larry
Fox has been carrying it since yesterday (it is in the sci tech area), CNN, and ABC still do not have a clue best I can tell. I periodically go over to CNN and run a search for “hacked” and have not returned any articles.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
Larry
This looks real to me. It looks like private correspondence between educated men. It also rings true at to the details. The Hockey stick graph is bull. There is no way the hockey stick graph represents reality. If one aspect is a lie, All aspects of Global warming become suspect, including the massive amount of money the proponents stand to gain from the legislative activity of this Fraud. Thank you for reading. Have a pleasant day.
One more note: The Main Stream Media is in bed with the government currently. Any news that comes from them is suspect from the start.
as Larry ( hotrod (08:34:45) : ) points out; forensic examination of hard drives can recover files even if they have been over written 30 plus times; cost in the UK for a medium sized hard drive (20GB) was a year- 2years ago some £20,000.
You can by software for around £150 that will recover standard format files at least 10 re-writes back.
I had also wondered if this is not a ‘second hand’ pc that some idle person failed to clean up properly; or a disk that has been rescued from some recycling/correct disposal contract. If I were in the UEA IT department I would be putting my waste disposal contractor(s) under the microscope (& hopping to find illegal practices like dumping….)
Firstly the talk of a hacker is FUD. The e-mails (if real) would have to come from UEA archives, which may well have been on tape. Just imagine even if he got access how long it would take a “hacker” to trawl through 10 years of e-mails, and from what I have seen, all the released material is “relevant”. There are no e-mails booking flights, restaurants etc which would be expected from a simple dump of an e-mail account. Therfore the file was prepared by someone in UEA, my guess as either as as a response to an FOI request or more likely on the foot of a Motion for Discovery in a civil case. This has then been leaked or discovered by the luckiest hacker in the histroy of computing.It could of course also be a fake, but if it is it is in a class of its own.
Bill Illis (06:51:45) :
What is most interesting about this information is, I do not get the impression they really understand what is going on.
They are just writing papers, putting together data, manipulating it to serve their purpose, playing petty university politics, putting much more effort into suppressing dissent … to push the AGW cause.
But they do not know what is going on with the climate.
********************************************
Nor do they show any understanding of biological systems, much less their use as proxies. I really don’t understand why more biologists aren’t speaking up to the utter uselessness of small samples of individual tree-ring proxies for climate. Keiller has tried, but apparently with no success. McIntyre fairly screamed that at them in his Yamal analyses, yet they babble on as if he’s the idiot. The emails are tending to show there’s a lot more ego than intellect going on at CRU, Pa and Livermore (admittedly they too, may not be a “representative sample”). If one’s demeanor is to be all about smug, one has to have something to be smug about.
Comment added to Daily Mail Online article.
There are four main issues.
1) The manipulation of data and the burying of ‘inconvenient’ facts. – This is scientific fraud and dishonesty and should lead to resignations.
2) The Stonewalling of Freedom of Information requests and the deleting of material *after* the requests were made. – This is illegal and will lead to prosecution unless the govt is determined to protect the guilty at any price.
3) The abuse of the tax system and the misuse of grant monies. – This is the money we gave the government through our taxes, which has been used to justify the imposition of further onerous taxes based on false data and hypotheses, maintained by the systematic exclusion of equally valid scientific data which reaches opposite conclusions about the causes of climatic variation
4) The manipulation of the peer review process and the prevention of publication of contrary evidence and hypotheses. -The Journals which offer to sell us the biased research we were forced to pay for had better think
Posted on the Daily Mail about 3hrs ago and its not come through – guess they have a backlog.
Wonder if UK Gov will pull the current CO2 TV ads.
Agree this is a leak not a hack.
I don’t think this has been posted yet on this thread. It’s an admission that tree ring temperature reconstructions are useless and reliance on them undermines climate models and the entire IPCC process. Found it via the search engine at http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
*From:* geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
] *On Behalf Of *David
Schnare
*Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
*Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Gene:
I’ve been following this issue closely and this is what I take
away from it:
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.
2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work – in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta’s work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.
As Corcoran points out, “the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground.
Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely
on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse
gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a
significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research,
including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques
are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that
the current alarmism is justified.
David Schnare
I really hope that this is real, the left trying to destroy the West by using junk science has been around for a while, their claims of nuclear winter were proven false, their claims of ozone depletion were shown to be false and now it looks like their claims of global warming are proven to be wrong. Eventually even the left wing media around the world is going to stop taking their claims seriously.
Richard Black of the BBC has been muzzled. It is official the BBC is involved in a massive cover up.
Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.
The thought police have shut his blog down entirely. The majority of post obviously do not fit with eco-fascism.
Could this really be happening in the UK – the so-called bastion of freedom of speech?
Evidently, free speech is no longer allowed in the UK.
For those who suspect a massive conspiracy to promote and eco-fascist agenda go no further – if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a…
Has now hit The Times in the UK …
Sceptics publish climate e-mails ‘stolen from East Anglia University’
27 comments to date.
Jeremy (08:29:45) : Said
“I know everyone is concentrating on the science collusion fraud by boffins – but has anyone investigated the political angles – the strings that control CRU?”
I did a guest post on this very subject in this very forum, only a few weeks ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896
Tonyb
*********************
hotrod (08:38:22) :
Jim (08:12:26) :
I can’t find this story on Fox News or CNN. That’s a pity. I wonder why?
Fox has been carrying it since yesterday (it is in the sci tech area), CNN, and ABC still do not have a clue best I can tell. I periodically go over to CNN and run a search for “hacked” and have not returned any articles.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
Larry
**************************
It’s actually fun to watch CNN and ABC throw themselved under the bus by avoiding criticism of liberal issues. Their ratings continue to tank because of their selective/slanted reporting.
One has to wonder what the powers-that-be at UEA think of this, it’s an embarrassment for them. One would think the Sir Brandon Gough, Chancellor of UEA, has to have serious thoughts about changing the director of CRU.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/vco/Chancellor
WHAT A SAD, SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS
Scientists have been trained with research grants the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits.
The entire scientific community will suffer. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has used its control over budgets of federal research agencies (NASA, DOE, etc.) to distort rather than to promote the search for truth.
House-cleaning needs to start with NAS.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
Jonathan May-Bowles (05:16:11): re: TRICK
Please read the upthread post here on WUWT on the “trick”. They are adding real temps. as a statistical “pad” to proxy tree ring-width data which are alleged to be independent indicators of real temps.! When the proxy data turn “negative”/”diverge” from the real temps. more recently [~1960], they also ignore the diverging ring-width proxy data in order to maintain the blade of the “hockey stick” by means of the real temp. pad.
Those are not the “good” kind of tricks.
I thought my point was reasonably lucid: If any of this material could legally be construed as intellectual property, which might include software or a draft paper in an attachment, for example, and this was developed as part of an employment at UEA, then UEA own the copyright.
Therefore anyone reproducing it without permission is in danger of committing an offence, depending on the laws of the country where the publication occurred there may be a defence of ‘fair use’, I dunno. I am not a lawyer.
Maybe its a cultural thing but over in the UK, stealing a private correspondence and circulating it to the public is widely regarded as dubious from a legal and an ethical standpoint.
CRU have acknowledged the hack and say the material circulating ‘seems’ to be genuine. I think it almost certainly is, but clearly it is out of their control now and they cannot guarantee that it has not been tampered with. Sorry, but that’s how it is when you deal with stolen merchandise.
The file, and quotes from it, are turning up all over the place and it is impossible for them to try to prosecute everyone.
Ah, so it’s OK to commit an offence, so long as your chances of getting caught are minimal? Interesting legal standpoint.
I mean, the stuff posted here as examples of a ‘vast hoax’ is a bit pathetic. 1 E-mail talking about a ‘trick’ used to hide a decline… to be honest, without knowing what the ‘trick’ is (adding in real temperatures? doesn’t sound like a trick to me) it’s hard to even construe that as disingenuous.
I mean, seriously…. is this it??!
I don’t know, I have only read a few that have been reproduced around and about and have no intention of spending a lot of time on this. Discard the confirmation bias blinkers and I have seen nothing that proves anything very much. The single, misinterpreted sentence lifted out of context from a decade-old stolen mail, does indeed seem to be pretty much ‘it’.
Dammit…. if the American people don’t own every jot and tittle and every hard drive that this pyramid scheme has one fingerprint on, then it’s time to start a new government
You do know that the leak was from the University of East Anglia, in the UK?
There is a little problem with the terminology now being used by the climate crackpots.
Not so long ago, we were told all about “global warming”…right, we suspected it was hogwash, now we know it was.
Just like acid rain…remember that one? Or the hole in the ozone layer…. yerrrs ok…
Now theyve morphed to “climate change”.
A catch all phrase to describe any bad weather anywhere and linking it to human activities.
The way i see it, they cant lose.
Why?
CO2 = global warming= Bad.
CO2 = global cooling = Bad.
Either way theyre “right” as CO2 is “Bad!” and theyll simply alter their stance to continue to make themselves “right”.
As for the comments regarding killing people made by some of these crazys ,simply because you dont believe in the same thing as they do, well, thats all too familiar in certain islamic religious fanatics currently running around and like a religion, “climate change” , AGW whatever, requires absolutely no proof, just a belief.
Madness, utter madness.
How on earth have we gotten into such a dire state of affairs?
It is truly amazing how much the BBC and the MSM are ignoring this story. Just goes to show how much in bed they are with the IPCC and the US Govt..makes me sick. I have had Fox news on all morning and there hasn’t been one mention of the scandal brewing. If any of the US stations were to carry the story Fox news would be the one. Will be waiting patiently for an on air segment..I do think Hannity and Glenn Beck need to jump on this considering how large their audience is currently.
Right.
Right.
Not a fact in contention; have you not had a chance to examine any of the material under discussion (or was yours simple a post ‘in the blind’ prior to any sort of personal education/investigation on/of this issue?)
????
Right (I think you in effect said this already – you’re repeating yourself …)
Your overall point, I’m afraid (at least to me) was muddled; pls repost.
.
.
Jeremy (07:47:11) :
Any news on when Phil Jones will resign – I figure that it will probably happen over the weekend (these things usually do)?
Jones, recipient of $330k in American taxpayer funding, will be advised not to resign or do anything drastic (like walking on a roof.) The savvy PR experts at Fenton Communications who are charged with running the AGW publicity campaign will try to keep Jones out of the spotlight. But as he is the director of the CRU and author of many compromising emails, political pressure for his head will grow.
Someone needs to be sacrificed to let the spinners go forward with their global agenda – that is bigger than the climate. So, look for a carefully staged “confession” from Jones down the road. Maybe a wide-eyed appeal for forgiveness for him and his rogue colleagues.
Don’t buy it. Formal charges from both sides of the Atlantic should be considered and in the very least, for the University of East Anglia to avoid becoming the laughing stock of academic research – they need to clean house at CRU.
BTW, Revkin has finally reported the story in a relatively even-handed way. Considering he’s made out as a media pawn by the “scientists.” With all the Times has invested in the AGW campaign they will fight this hard and attempt to claim their “science” unassailable even in the face of minor fraud. Note to Andy: You have been played sir.
At last; let the fine art of dissembling, the low road of obfuscating and the general tactic of making of off-point straw-man arguments begin!
Oops – mods, pls post this instead!
At last; let the fine art of dissembling, the low road of obfuscating and the general tactic of making of off-point straw-man arguments begin!
Some of us have been veritably starving, just waiting for the defense of CRUTape (TM MoshPit) to begin in ernest in a forum where censorship and editting are NOT practiced by the moderators as the norm …
.
.
ABC News just posted a piece… they are accepting comments.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9145220
Comment on the copyright issue, look at item 8 from:
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law
8. Acts that are allowed
Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:
…
Criticism and news reporting
…
Seems like most of the use is criticism & news reporting, I’m not a lawyer though, don’t take this as legal advice.
It seems that this weekend would be a good time for WUWT readers to write a letter to Chancellor Gough at University of East Anglia, urging an immediate investigation into the implications of these emails. The Chancellor is responsible for protecting the integrity and reputation of the University.
UEA’s future and funding opportunities will be seriously compromised if he does nothing about the appearance of CRU hiding, manipulating and destroying data from public view.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/vco/Chancellor
A quick letter recommending investigation should start the ball rolling.
Cheers. (hatip to Climate Beagle)
The eMails are interesting stuff, indeed.
Did have a long night to read several hundred of them.
At the moment I’m digging thru the other files, looking for nuggets.
Hummh, shall I apply for a job at Hadley?
Looks like they need a good IT-Manager (with some good expertise re. security)
rgds
KlausB
Pragmatic (11:05:32) :
A quick letter recommending investigation should start the ball rolling.
When you use the contact address it’s interesting the alternate name that comes back since the contact is on vacation. Probably a coincidence. Made me wonder about also cc’ing the local MP to ensure the message would get through, but I couldn’t figure out quickly who would be the MP that covers UEA.
“It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
~~Richard Feynman
h/t Lubos Motl!!
Blockquote
End Blockquote
Phil, you “don’t know” and are not going to ~”spend a lot of time on this”, then advise everyone else to “discard the confirmation bias blinkers”, while you also seem to claim that you have indeed looked at things enough to announce with some credence that you “have seen nothing that proves anything very much”.
Please try to rise to the occasion. Read the WUWT post on the “trick”, Mike’s Nature Trick, or check my post just above this post of yours, which I think probably gives some indication of what the “tricks” are, although I will certainly stand to be corrected. One thing I didn’t mention is that the real temp. “pad” added to the proxy tree ring-width data is probably also known as a “graft”, which even Michael Mann – who Phil Jones essentially said is one of the tricksters [~”Mike’s Nature trick”] – has himself said that no one should ever do when dealing with proxy data vs real data.
Once you get the idea that you are probably being merely/solely propagandized by the AGW material, it’s really not that hard to see what’s going on.
the http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip did not work.
Who has the current link for the files?
Bill Illis (06:51:45) :
I do not get the impression they really understand what is going on…..Gavin runs GISS’ models and I don’t see the in-depth knowledge in the emails that would be expected.
I also get that impression in their response to all this.
They are not grasping what is really going on and the amount of damage that this hack/leak has done to them.
I think if I lower my expectations of them then their emails, documents, and reaction to this issue, will make more sense.
Whereas Phil Jones has reportedly been the recipient of $330,000 in American taxpayer funding, the content of some of his emails would appear to be sufficient for an indictment for conspiracy to defraud the American taxpayer.
Bill Illis (06:51:45) :
I do not get the impression they really understand what is going on…
I suppose a smarter person wouldn’t have undertook what they did because they know they would be found out at some point and wouldn’t get away with it.
What is it the police say : if criminals weren’t so dumb they wouldn’t catch half of them.
Tenuc (06:31:23) :
Phil Clarke (02:47:31) :
“So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.”
No one need worry about this happening.
1. The file, and quotes from it, are turning up all over the place and it is impossible for them to try to prosecute everyone.
I suppose if such a law would apply to this they could trace all files back to the beginning. But I’m not sure if there is a law that covers this. It seems the original hacker/cracker would be the only one in line for possible prosecution.
But we may find it is a wistleblower from this inner circle.
Robert van der Veeke (05:04:39) :
Who is going to break the news to the rest of the passengers and crew aboard the AGW?
I think there will be those who are true believers in AGW who are going to be offended that these things transpired between the scientists at the top of AGW.
It’s going to take time for them, and everyone else, to process this event.
climatebeagle (11:15:48) :
The MP for the UEA area is Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP. Even though he is Labour, I tend to think that he is one of the more responsible and honest ones. He is now a backbencher after having been Home Sec under Bliar.
I have been wondering whether to make a formal complaint to Norfolk Constabulary regarding the efforts to delete emails subject to the FOI request. Right at the moment I have enough grief in my life without doing any more stirring of the brown stuff.
I think it would be very nice news to hear that Phil Jones and Keith Briffa were helping the police with their enquiries if anyone else wants to take make the complaint.
Alec J
Phil Clarke (03:39:33) :
Presumably if the uni or anyone else wants to prosecute people over the release or reproduction of this material, the uni will have to confirm the material released is accurate. Do you suppose they really want to do that in the public domain?
Dr Jones already did.
I did not know he verified the entire 62 mb but only parts.
Do you have the link where he verifies all of it?
Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud
By Dr. Tim Ball Saturday, November 21, 2009
Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.
Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.
Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists
Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).
I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.
Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.
Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.
Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.
Total Control
These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.
CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”
You can download the climate change fraud documents from the link below:
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009 or http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
Amusing photo at Lubos Motl’s
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/SwZPs1_TUQI/AAAAAAAADhk/xL8UrgkPdgQ/michael-mann-prison.jpg?imgmax=200
😉
ABC has finally picked this up, with a contribution from AP.
Note this has an AP contribution credit so AP is also looking into it which suggests it will now go mainstream as many media get lots of their initial copy from AP.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9145220
Apparently MSNBC (shocked) picked it up this morning as a washington post item.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149/ns/us_news-washington_post/
Still no joy from CNN or CBS that I can find.
Larry
If you want to know why Nov 12 matters.
http://camirror.wordpress.com/
Kevin,
I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account
for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two
different things — the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++
email text 1255550975
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geo engineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
Odd. I thought the science was done and dusted.
CBS News has picked up the story.
However, you have to search for “Climate Research Unit” to find it. No homepage link.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/21/ap/world/main5727910.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Is it illegal to delete data in order to not comply with a FIO request? I thought it was. Are there going to be any prosecutions?
Jeremy (09:40:01)
That’s is absolutely flabbergasting!
1. It couldn’t take the BBC 24 hours to make enough of the right calls to determine whether, in the main, those emails are an accurate record.
2. Irrespective of #1, the BBC should be shouting in headlines demanding UEA confirm or deny the accuracy of these emails (something they could do in a couple of hours, if not less, by simply running a “compare” routine.
Western society is as corrupt as Islamists make out if the BBC is going to roll over on this. The reason the West is what it is is because of the 17th and 18th enlightenment in which Western society accepted that science and truth should be a fundamental basis for societal organization and interaction.
If the MSM and our politicians do nothing with this information we are all damned. It’s that simple.
I want to read here that individual scientists who have been involved with this issue (or those of you who have professional standing in your organizations) are calling and writing their legislative representatives in Congress, in their professional organizations, and in what remains of the free press.
Some of the people no longer in government also can get heard, like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. Contact the Republican Party, too.
We need to get the ear of someone who can get a press conference held that the media will cover, in spite of itself and its loyalties.
Thompson knows how to navigate the legal system.
Post a press release here and people can post it elsewhere. It has to be written so that the average person can comprehend it. I’ve seen bits and pieces, but nothing that I can send to anyone that will not totally mystify them.
I’d be happy to copyedit and be a test audience for such a piece, and this site is welcome to write to me at the address at which I am registered.
And if the blogowner goes to my website, which is in my e-mail address, he can find out all about me.
MB (12:39:20) :
I don’t know the specifics of English law, but in the United States, destroying documents of any kind in order to avoid meeting the requirements of an FOIA request is a crime.
You have simply GOT to get on the blogs that people READ. Call Glenn Beck. Call Rush Limbaugh. Call Michael Savage, Thomas Lifson at American Thinker, Howie Carr at the Boston Herald, and others. Tap the contact lists at some of the conservative sites. Post at Free Republic.
Get the word out yourselfs by posting to blogs.
The best thing, of course, is to hire a lawyer NOW. Pool your resources and hire the best attorney you can. Hire Rudy Giuliani, or call him.
Go to the most powerful and influential people.
I’m assuming some folks here have contacts. I want to hear that you are all busy getting the word out that this entire thing needs to be looked at.
Call the FBI….. be creative…. but please do it and post that you have done it. It will hearten the rest of us if you do these things, but it will disappoint millions if you continue to WAIT for the lamestream media to suddenly see their folly of joining the sinking ship that is trying to destroy America and what’s left of the free world.
Canada Free Press runs garbage…not a good venue.
What I believe is a new WSJ article is up on their site’s front page:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
NOVEMBER 21, 2009, 3:39 P.M. ET.
Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
By KEITH JOHNSON
The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.
Is Global Warming Hoax?
A university degree: 4 years, $100,000
A PhD in something climate-ish: 5 years, you get a small stipend
A few million research $$’s and a tenured position: learn the dogma, repeat the mantra
Evidence of your scientific fraud gone viral on the internet: PRICELESS
absolutely, positively, eff-ing priceless
…sorry
John P. Baker (11:35:23) :
“Whereas Phil Jones has reportedly been the recipient of $330,000 in American taxpayer funding, the content of some of his emails would appear to be sufficient for an indictment for conspiracy to defraud the American taxpayer.”
More like $10 million from 1995.
oops! Looks like it is illegal to destroy data to avoid FOI:
“Information covered by the Act
Minutes of meetings, letters, e-mail messages between officers, internal reports, notes etc. It also includes information that has been sent to us from other organisations – just because we don’t own the information it doesn’t mean we don’t have to disclose it.
Any important documents that we hold will have a ‘retention period’ attached to them which means that they have to be kept for a certain amount of time before we dispose of them. If a document has already been disposed of according to our retention rules then we cannot be expected to provide the information. We only have to provide existing recorded information. However, it is illegal to destroy information that has been requested to try and avoid having to disclose it. Anybody found guilty of doing this could face a personal fine of up to £5000.”
(from a UK council on their FIO policy, which must apply to all government bodies?)
Bonnie (12:54:01) :
Canada Free Press runs garbage…not a good venue.
Doubt you’re going to convince many people you are have sound judgement with a one liner like that.
2/10 Try harder.
From: Tim Osborn
To: Michael Mann , Phil Jones
Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
Date: Wed Sep 30 17:15:29 2009
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
And Osborn and Briffa ’06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination
of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say
this Tim?).
Mike,
yes, you’re right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results
leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It’s
attached.
I wouldn’t say we were immune to the issue — results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3
out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies. Certainly
in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern
results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100.
Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary
information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures [b](remember we
have no formal calibration, we’re just counting proxies — I’m still amazed that Science
agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!
:-)).[/b]
But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is
100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just “likely” that modern is warmer than MWP.
So, yes, it should be possible to find some subsets of data where MWP and Modern are
comparable and similarly for some seasons and regions. And as you’ve pointed out before,
if any season/region is comparable (or even has MWP>Modern) then it will probably be the
northern high latitudes in summer time (I think you published on this, suggesting that
combination of orbital forcing, land-use change and sulphate aerosols could cause this for
that season/region, is that right?).
So, this Yamal thing doesn’t damage Osborn & Briffa (2006), but important to note that O&B
(2006) and others support the “likely” statement rather than being conclusive.
Cheers
Tim
Bonnie, sorry to bite at you. I just think Tim Ball knows what he is talking about.
http://www.heritage.org
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html
http://www.aei.org/
http://www.cato.org/
anthony and mods.
What a great job you’ve done here with this topic, considering the volume of traffic. WELL DONE to all of you!!!
Just been over to RealClimate to see what they are doing.I get the impression that they are trying to keep a low profile calm things down. However, I did find this comment and thought the mod’s answer perhaps revealed more than intended??
>>>#
>>Again, I write to the moderator. What did I write that was so inflammatory that >>you would not post it? I have not attempted to stir anything up? I would like to >>know the truth. Thats all. The truth needs no moderation nor to be covered up. >>What is wrong with my saying that? Maybe you can post this and a response as I >>don’t see what could possibly be wrong with this post.
>>My only questions now is…
>>I hear a lot about the FOIA and data that was being withheld that is now lost or >>destroyed. Is there an explanation or a reference to that which would answer >>what I have been hearing on the other end?
>>[Response: No data has been lost or destroyed. – gavin]
>>Comment by Jay — 20 November 2009 @ 1:54 PM
This can be found at http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1853
Comment No. 38
I would like Steve McIntire’s take on that
john
That’s okay. I’m familiar with the site and it publishes a lot of birther nonsense. It’s okay. It doesn’t hurt to be published there, but many who see it will discount it the way they do what appears on World Net Daily.
I like this one, the money quote is at the end:
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similarto MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
tallbloke:
It’s the NYT, BBC, NPR, AP that run garbage. And you are the victim.
Mark C (12:54:08) – Given some of the exerpts that have been posted in the comments here , the WSJ article amounts to a fluff piece . I truly hope that someone will emerge from the MSM with the brass to expose this for what it is – fraud . Yes , I said the F word . Surely there must be at least one journalist who feels outraged at being duped .
Just posted this complaint to the BBC .
A major story has broken on the blogoshphere , concerning the manipulation of data and corrupt practices at the CRU , in which at least one member of BBC staff is named . Despite this , the BBC concentrate on the “illegality” of what has occurred , rather than the content of the emails and files.
This is a public interest issue, and something the BBC , as a public service broadcaster/provider should actively be pursuing . It would appear that as it runs contrary to BBC policy /bias , the story is being buried. Or , is it government pressure ?
For the record, I am not contradicting anyone, tallbloke, so I think there has been a miscommunication, probably on my part. I just meant that CFP is kind of a fringe pub.
I’m a conservative, so I know who the nuts are. ; )
Bonnie said,
“Some of the people no longer in government also can get heard, like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. Contact the Republican Party, too. ”
I’d leave Newt out of that. Ever since he shared that AGW couch ad with Nancy Pelosi he lost most of his credibility luster.
IMO
On this political front, however, the Republican sure come out better thanthe Democrats who have nearly uniformly and unnanimously been driving the AGW-reduce C
Good news on who knows:
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate/
planetgore@nationalreview.com
I’ll be quiet now. ; )
Russ Steele at NC Watch just posted a reference to an article:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php
Western governments have committed themselves to raise huge amounts of tax revenue and use the proceeds for worldwide social engineering. If AGW is exposed as a scam, how are Western politicians to raise the revenue? How can they set about the noble task they have set for themselves and all of us, if we sabotage their efforts? How are they feed the huge appetite of international organistations such as the EU and the UN ?
How?
Sent to Richard Blacks email addy :
Richard,
You cannot hide forever ! The piece that Harrabin has put out is frankly embarrasing to the BBC . Auntie should be reporting the meat of the story , not the “illegallity” issue , in my opinion it has not been ” hacked” but comes from an insider .
Regardless of how these details were obtained , they are an important issue , of a similar scale to Watergate , or the Blue dress . are you a journalist or a mouthpiece ?
TB, your original response to Ms G was correct. No need to backtrack.
Gene Nemetz (00:40:23) :
geo (09:32:32) :
Ah, so Michael Mann is now having fantasies of sending Anthony, Steve, and others to jail for allowing these stolen emails to appear on their blogs.
I seem to get that impression too.
As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical…cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Gene, Geo,
I think it was an inside job.
Someone within their organization has put the files on the web.
http://camirror.wordpress.com/
Paul Coppin,
Are you the owner of this blog, and why are you revealing my last name online here without my permission?
And, Paul Coppin,
I was commenting only on the publication.
But I object to your publishing my last name without my permission.
Moderators: Please take note, if Mr. Coppin is not the owner of the blog. It seems quite ironic that someone trying to help the cause is made a victim of someone who doesn’t understand what transpired here in the messages.
Look, if you don’t want me to be here, I’ll go. Just say so.
[Reply: This is not Mr. Coppin’s site. If you wish to remain anonymous, you should remove your site link from your name. You can do it on your WordPress account. ~dbs, mod.]
my ‘quote of the week’:
Smokey (21:11:33) :
All your email are belong to us
I am seriously thinking about t-shirts in fact……
Bonnie said,
“Some of the people no longer in government also can get heard, like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. Contact the Republican Party, too. ”
I’d leave Newt out of that. Ever since he shared that AGW couch ad with Nancy Pelosi he lost most of his credibility luster.
IMO
On this political front, however, the Republican sure come out better than the Democrats as this blows up.
Democrats, who have been essentially unanimous in driving the AGW-reduce CO2 emissions/cap & trade/carbon tax movement
should experience some signifcant consequences. One would think.
Here in Oregon literally every sinlge public agency, official, newspaper in sight have been seeing the effects of AGW everywhere they look.
Sorry, but it’s been a astounding demonstration of some group disorder. All the liberal blogs, government and media have been pumping out everything imaginable pitch while demanding wild policies to save the earth and position Oregon out in front of the AGW/green movement.
It’s so dominating that I suspect the complete collapse of the AGW hysteria will not be sufficient to alter much of this agenda.
Making Oregon likely to be taking the long haul coming out of this lunacy.
Though conservation and environmental protection remain essential, Oregon, unfortunately has been infected by a nonsensicle and extreme group think which controls everything.
They have traveled so far down their “advocacy” that they can’t turn away from any of it for some fear of being embarassed???
It’s bizarre. They just keep lecturing, parotting and demanding.
Paul Coppin,
Well, never mind. I see you must have found my name on my website. Still, if I wanted to use my name on the blog itself, I would have done so, and what you have done is rude, if not unethical. You should have respected my obvious desire to be known by my first name only, except if someone were to go to my profile page. Rude behavior. Not good.
Stealing evidence that results in the revelation of a tremendous fraud (if that’s what we’re dealing with here) will not be prosecuted, and if civilly pursued, will result in zero damages and a lot of laughing.
Thank you, Paul. Sorry to bite at you. I guess biting is becoming too popular.
[I deleted your last name. ~dbs, mod.]
Rush Limbaugh on CRU and ClimateDepot:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112009/content/01125108.guest.html
I live just around the corner from the UEA, and indeed obtained a first class BSc from the very same university, which I thought actually meant something in terms of scientific method and principles.
I’m very tempted to pop in on Monday morning and see if Prof. Jones is available for comment! 😉
My head is just spinning now. I am following the Moshpit around so many sites, almost got teary eyed when I saw his posts at RC. The floodgates are open for a limited time apparently.
In summary:
ALL the Emails and files are 100% legit.
Steve Mosher asserts that the files are/were part of the compiled emails and data folders scraped from the CRU and prepared for the FOI report.
The zip file of that data scrape obviously was not well protected.
The big question is if the CRU had granted all of the FOI requests, would all of this information have been released?
For anyone who cares, my take on all this so far: http://whatcatastrophe.com/drupal/catastrophe_revealed
ANTHONY!!!!!!
read…
MB (13:12:10) :
I think the best thing you can do right now is get another FOI campaign started. In the emails you will find that jones and company met with the FOI people and talked to CA about them.
FOI the meeting notes and all emails related to this meeting.
The behavior around the FOI is the story.
dbs, mod —
Thank you for deleting my name. You can delete that thank-you to paul, too, I guess.
J. Peden … Please try to rise to the occasion. Read the WUWT post on the “trick”, Mike’s Nature Trick, or check my post just above this post of yours, which I think probably gives some indication of what the “tricks” are, although I will certainly stand to be corrected. One thing I didn’t mention is that the real temp. “pad” added to the proxy tree ring-width data is probably also known as a “graft”, which even Michael Mann – who Phil Jones essentially said is one of the tricksters [~”Mike’s Nature trick”] – has himself said that no one should ever do when dealing with proxy data vs real data.
Once you get the idea that you are probably being merely/solely propagandized by the AGW material, it’s really not that hard to see what’s going on.
Well, I went over to Bishop Hill, who has put up a list of allegations collated from the mails and read through the text that is meant to support the first dozen or so. I am afraid I found it is BH who is propagandising…
1.Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation
…is half the story. S B-C was circulating allegations of fraud at CRU signing herself as affiliated to the University (she’s emeritus). Dr Jones found this ‘malicious’ and wrote to a Professor at Hull saying so. The context: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen sent a mail with the title ‘RE: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of scientific ‘fraud’ by CRU and Met Office’
The evidence for the ‘fraud’ was McIntyre’s Yamal findings, which not even McIntyre asserts are evidence of fraud, and a long piece by Pat Michaels on the data transparency issue, published on a blog and the National Review. Sonja concedes It is beyond my expertise to assess the claims made [!]
But hey, I am going to circulate them anyway and sign myself ‘Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography, Hull University’ So we have an academic passing on claims of fraud she has not the expertise to assess under the imprimateur of the University. Seems to me at least as bad as the allegations made against some of the climate scientists. Dr Jones brought this to the attention of Sonja’s ex Professor
‘I realize Dr Boehmer-Christensen no longer works for you, but she is still using your affiliation.’ Hardly a demand that he prevent her doing so. Nothing improper here.
2 Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.
Overstated. The journal in question was ‘Climate Research’ in the wake of publication of a sceptic paper [Sally Baliunas and Willie Soon] so poor it provoked the resignation of half the board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#Controversy_over_the_2003_Climate_Research_paper
http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm
and Mann’s opinions were: There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?
‘Perhaps encourage’, ‘request of our colleagues’ Hardly the language of someone hellbent on destruction. Mann’s statements are consistent with ensuring the academic literature effectively screens out substandard papers, a proper concern for a senior scientist.
3. Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results
That is called ascribing a motive. In the case the wrong one, the data are truncated, but because of the well-known ‘Divergence problem’ post 1960. This is utterly standard: Bishop Hill reveals his ignorance. The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use.
4.Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.
Actually its not at all clear that it is the death that Jones describes this way, the rest of the mail is about a completely different topic. THIS IS WHY SINGLE EMAILS WITHOUT CONTEXT ARE USELESS! Whatever the intent, this is ad hominem.
5.Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request
This is the issue that gives me the most pause. But again we don’t have the full context, what we have is a request to delete mails, with no mention of the FOI. Its strong circumstantial evidence, but you’d need more to convict. Ah, but this is ‘trial by blog’
6. Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”
‘The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate’ -Gavin Schmidt.
Surely if your aim is to ‘hide’ something then publishing it in Nature is probably not a great move …
7. Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.
So what?
8. Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article
Michael Mann wrote: ‘extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
Scientist speculates he might speak to journalist shock! (It seems he never did in the end). Is it me or is this the thinnest of thin stuff from the Planet thin?
9. Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t
This requires a little knowledge of climate science, apparently this rules out Bishop Hill ‘Trenberth is talking about our inability to be able to measure the net radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere to the requisite precision to be able to say on short time scales what the energy budget is doing. The observations are inadequate for that – not sure who is saying otherwise’ – Gavin Schmidt.
10 Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap
So do I. More relevantly, so does Dr Roy Spencer (he’s a bit more polite, but then he knew his words were for publication.) I have yet to hear any demands from the sceptics for Spencer’s resignation.
12 Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too.
This is really the same discussion as (2) – What to do about a journal letting substandard papers into the literature? The quote is ‘Hans von Storch is partly to blame — he encourages the
publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation
under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
A personal opinion, in a mail the writer thought was private. Big ‘So what?’ And Tom is saying that the journal publishers, not he, are unconcerned about the veracity of what is published. Naughty Bishop Hill.
13 Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels
And if we all followed through on jokey threats made in personal emails, the prisons would be full.
14 Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’
This is utterly bizarre. Mann is suggesting moving the start date of a reconstruction backwards, as it will then contain (as in ‘include’) the MWP, pretty much the opposite of the accusation. Somebody needs to improve their reading comprehension.
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…
15 Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.
Here is the mail in its entirety: ‘We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
Well, yes they might, given the average level of scientific comprehension demonstrated by the sceptic who assembled this list.
So that’s an hour of my life I won’t get back ;-). The Jones/FOI stuff is concerning on the face of it, and I look forward to hearing the other side of the story, if we do. But that is a basically a sideshow. I feel sure that when the death knell/final nail in the coffin/smoking gun emerges from this fluff it’ll be headline news. Until then …
I wonder if the hacker (or hackers) got more emails and data that they haven’t released yet?
Robert van der Veeke said
“So who is the Thomas Andrews (the designer of the Titanic who died with the ship) of the good ship AGW? Who is going to break the news to the rest of the passengers and crew aboard the AGW? Do the officers realise that the ship is lost and that it is all a matter of time now?”
Thomas Andrews (the designer of the Titanic) = Maurice Strong (the designer of the good ship AGW)
Who is going to break the news to the rest of the passengers and crew aboard the AGW? Why that would be Stan Greenberg. “He was strategic consultant… on its multi-year campaign on global warming….. pollster Frank Luntz says “Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn’t just have a finger on the people’s pulse; he’s got an IV injected into it.” http://ilf.ndi.org/panelists#StanleyGreenberg
Do not worry the “officers” [bankers] have an alternate plan up their sleeve. I think they will ram Cap and Trade down our throats on either AGW or if that fails using the environment or sustainablity.
At this rate, we’ll get up to 2000+ comments by Thanksgiving.
Anyway, there seems to be much less media coverage on this issue than I expected 🙁 Maybe it’s because of all that Oprah coverage.
Dwight Eisenhower never was never particularly credited as being a prophet, but the words from his farewell speech of 50 years ago are eerily dead on in this current case:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
The liberal portion of the political spectrum certainly jumped on his one paragraph description “military/industrial complex” as frightening, but never paid any attention to these next three paragraphs. Gee, I wonder why?
Phil Clarke (14:58:30) gives us the RC talking points.
I especially liked #13:
This was only one of many similar personal threats made in writing by Santer [OK, allegedly]. After reading them, only a deluded person would presume Santer’s threats were “jokey.” And Pat Michaels might look at Santer’s words a little differently than Phil Clarke does. Heck, any random dozen people probably wouldn’t believe that any of Santer’s emails were “jokey.”
The rest are similarly weak explanations of what is clearly a tight clique of embattled grant hounds trying to hold their lucrative scam together. That’s how I see it anyway. They go ballistic when any peripheral member of their group even hints that global warming might be natural.
But it’s Saturday afternoon and Mrs. Smokey needs some errands done, so I won’t bother to refute Phil with chapter & verse. It’s all in this thread anyway.
AP story:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0
Not to be a poo pooer but many of you science types needs to understand history better. Science has always been chock full of dogma pushed from the elite financier class that is passes off as gospel through their hero’s they publish and promote. Do you think Newton, Darwin, and on and on were just good ole boys who made their mark on pure logic and reason? It is quite a bit more complex than that.
[Getting off topic re: bankers. ~dbs, mod.]
“Do not worry the “officers” [bankers] have an alternate plan up their sleeve. I think they will ram Cap and Trade down our throats on either AGW or if that fails using the environment or sustainablity.” Gail Combs
Hey bankers,
What part of the boom/bust cycle caused by government backed fractional reserve banking sounds “sustainable?” Your banking model is the root of much of the misery in the world today. Repent!
[Repent for going off topic. ~dbs, mod.]
Tamino is very quiet!
Probably too busy reformatting his hard drive.
It’s too late [snip – NO OUTING! ~ Evan]?
Paul Brassey said:
“I don’t think this has been posted yet on this thread. It’s an admission that tree ring temperature reconstructions are useless and reliance on them undermines climate models and the entire IPCC process.”
WOW what a great find. This e-mail should be forwarded to every Congressman, Senator, Member of Parliament… and other politician in the entire world. This paragraph says it all:
” The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of his own work, where that work is the critical core of the chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger work – in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta’s work, which is, of course, the majority of such analyses.”
In other words the Scientists KNOW the IPCC summary report has less value than bull poop because the core assumption “Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever”
Hi Smokey,
Could I invite you to address the question asked of you by Adam Grey?
I too, am interested in what evidence led you to your startling conclusions, before you posted them here. Any chance you could share?
OT: I have mentioned in the past how tricky politicians can be. Western politicians will have been told by their scientists and economists that their country’s future (10 to 30 years) energy demands cannot currently be economically met by wind, solar and wave alone/mostly while at the same time sticking to Copenhagen agreements.
Politicians might now begin to state that the only way to meet their Co2 limits are to use more nuclear power (which I believe was their intent all along). The UK government has said something along this line recently. Obama is also being lukewarm about Copenhagen (no pun intended). Finally other governments are now playing Copenhagen down.
Sorry for lack of references but reading comments on WUWT had burned me out!!! I am tired and goodnight.
I have one question — is it possible for the people who hacked the servers to “edit” the documents they downloaded before posting them to the internet? If so, the emails should be taken with a big dose of skepticism.
Ron de Haan (11:59:33) :
“Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud
By Dr. Tim Ball Saturday, November 21, 2009”
Thanks for posting this one Ron. It sums up my feelings about the shoddy science being used to support CAGW and how politics and science do not mix.
The powers that be will now have to find a new threat to coerce the peoples of the world into accepting world government.
I hear there’s a Washington Post story that needs commenting on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html
My friend writes the following on a private mailing list:
Behold the Washington Post’s take on Climategate.
Much is being artfully swept under the rug. Just for example, note the Post’s incurious parroting of Jones’ explanation of his attention-grabbing comment about having performed a “trick” on his data. His explanation seems credible as far as it goes, but neglects to address the other part of his comment, about “hiding the decline.”
And, as we’ve seen, there are many, many other issues in the data-dump. The Post fastidiously averts its eyes from those as well.
(But the AP assigned 11 reporters to fact-check Sarah Palin’s book!)
Meanwhile, the subhead, “Scientists’ e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public,” does a marvelous job of summing up precisely what this scandal is not about, or at least shouldn’t be. It’s truly about apparent scientific fraud, including a shockingly nepotistic relationship steeped between these scientists and the journals that are supposed to be an impartial and rigorous gateway for the truth, and between the scientists and the politicians whose agenda they further and whose funding they consume.
Making this about impolite phrasing seems aimed at doing the same for this scandal that morphing Bill Clinton’s malfeasance into just-about-sex did. The Post played a leading role in that, too.
Beware the inoculating effect of trivialization.
I don’t think this has been posted yet on this thread. It’s an admission that tree ring temperature reconstructions are useless and reliance on them undermines climate models and the entire IPCC process
Explosive stuff. Its contained in a mail from David Schnare.
Could you explain why you find an ‘admission’ about tree-ring proxies from a lawyer to be significant? Schnare seems to believe that GW is real but the causes irrelevant:
“On global warming, is it man-made? Is it a natural cycle?” asks Mr. Schnare, senior environmental fellow at the Thomas Jefferson Institute of Public Policy, “I don’t care and nobody else should either in large measure, because the temperature is going up. As long as the temperature is going up, who cares what causes it? The question becomes, ‘Can we fix the problem?’ ”
Mr. Schnare says that geo-engineering can fix the problem much cheaper than efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
I am unable to locate his contribution to the literature on tree rings, can you help?
thanks.
charles the moderator (00:08:46) :
You are absolutely right. If there is anyone reading here who has not yet voted in the Science Museum Prove It! poll, which asks you to send a strong message to the UK Government in advance of the Copenhagen Conference, you can find it here:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
If you want the full story behind that poll, this thread makes interesting reading:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/
By all means, let them know you’ve seen the evidence. Let your legislators know.
strip gore and give the prize to mcintire!!!!!!!!!
This is a real chestnut from that AP article:
“The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine “the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.”
“The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said in a statement.”
There are still sticking to the talking points, which is to say they are in Kubler-Ross stage 1.
I find it ironic that AGW provides no actual proof of the “A” part. We are expected to believe it when it is essentially based on an argument of broken models, correlations and “what else can it be?” and yet these emails are clearly damning but dont provide “proof” so we are asked by pro-AGW people to believe that with the proper context its all ok.
I think seeing Gore naked would kill a buzzard on a sh*t wagon.
Bonnie (12:53:23) :
“…
The best thing, of course, is to hire a lawyer NOW. Pool your resources and hire the best attorney you can. Hire Rudy Giuliani, or call him.”
I’ve got 10K to contribute to the cause. Anthony, where do you want me to send it?
icehouse (21:43:18) :
CRU was NOT hacked! This was an insider/whistleblower leak.
It could be. If that is the case then there may not be any laws broken. The wistleblower would still be in hot water at work.
Tim (23:16:56) :
It makes me wonder if other files have been hacked and the hacker is waiting for an opportune moment to release some more.
I’m wondering too. What if it turns out the leaker has all information, emails, data, documents, everything, from the beginning!
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/mk8113.jpg
Someone tell me in what context this doesn’t sound like “here, replace your data with this data and the divergence problem goes away.”
Anyone???
“When scientists assume the missionary position”:
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/when-scientists-assume-the-missionary-position/
Am I wrong or is it only the scoundrels in the e-mails, CRU, and University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit who claiming they were hacked? And not whistleblown?
I think if anything we’ve learned not to believe any of them.
sammy k (18:06:10) :
strip gore and give the prize to mcintire!!!!!!!!!
I don’t think McIntyre is the hacker. But maybe his continual pressure is part of why this leak happened.
THEN we have the documents and the code to sift through; are you passing summary judgement NOW to avert further attention to the balance of the material in that zip file?
“NOTHING to see here … move along” he sez …
.
.
Phil Clarke (17:04:06),
I’m back & catching up. When I gave my opinion regarding this thread, I named no names because new information is still coming out. There is no smoking gun ‘proof,’ as Adam Grey seems to want. But looking at all the shenanigans that these emails are disclosing, I personally believe that a certain clique are gaming the system for financial benefit and control.
Also, I don’t think you have evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Steve McIntyre:
“The evidence for the ‘fraud’ was McIntyre’s Yamal findings…”
What’s your specific ‘evidence’?
Finally, quite a few people have asked you various questions. I find that it is a trait of alarmists that they’re always asking questions, but they rarely deign to answer specific questions put to them. Just an observation.
Hohoho:
From email #1254751382:
I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my
grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children
will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and
carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly
in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE
WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
So… even these jokers know that carbon trading is a scam?!
That’s why we pay then so much, No. 23,417…………………..
From: Phil Jones
To: Gil Compo
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data – One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean.
This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases.
Cheers
Phil
Very clever Phil, ever heard of land use changes?………..the emails show a mindset that will not tolerate any departure from the script. These people should be quarantined from any further work on climate assessment and new people brought in under clear employment conditions that stipulate that transparency , openness and accountability are mandatory. It is going to take strong government leadership and time to accomplish this task.
In the meantime I have heard nothing from MSM in Australia.This week the Senate vote on the CPES (Carbon Pollution something….I can’t go on) takes place, we have five days to turn this ship around.
Hohoho…
From email #1254751382:
Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
David:
I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my
grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children
will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and
carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly
in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE
WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
So… these jokers know already that carbon trading is worthless.
Wait a minute! These e-mails and documents can’t be genuine. None of our models predicted that this information would be released.
/sarc off.
(The sarc tag shouldn’t be necessary, but there are some pretty dense warmists out there!)
Arn Riewe (16:00:33) :
Re Eisenhowers speech,
“new electronic computers”……..50yrs ago ! really?
I suspect we will hear a slow drum roll as this story builds over the next week. Sometimes these stories grow like mushrooms in the lawn, one morning you wake up and they are all over the place.
My guess is the major media folks are trying to decide which way to break on this story. If some juicy tid bit comes out late Sunday afternoon and or the media types smell blood in the water (especially the folks in UK following recent expense scandals) they might lose the dogs and it could get very interesting.
There is enough raw data and leads to follow in those releases to keep an army of investigators busy for months. The media might sit back and let the blogosphere do the early dirty work for free and then run with the story when things have had time to put some meat on the bones of this release.
Talk show participation early next week might also give an indication of where this is heading. Remember Clinton’s intern scandal took some time to develop as bits and pieces came out into the public arena.
Lots of home work to do for folks interested in making sense of this and it might take weeks to start to put patterns of behavior together and draw out peripheral participants that might use this as cover to give deep back ground info to various blogs to fill in the blanks.
The hit count on this thread is prima facie evidence I would think that there is a good deal of interest in the topic, and the fact that it went ballistic on a week end when this sort of thing is normally announced to allow it to get buried in the news cycle says a lot. If this pushes the Senate health care vote off the Sunday news shows or the front pages on Monday, then it probably has legs.
Larry
Hello editors, this page is too long! Please promote Phil Clarke’s thorough debunking at 14:58:30 to its own post, where it belongs, so that we may continue to have this most excellent discussion.
evancha (17:40:41) :
“I have one question — is it possible for the people who hacked the servers to “edit” the documents they downloaded before posting them to the internet? If so, the emails should be taken with a big dose of skepticism.”
Have you examined the e-mails for yourself? They are in .TXT format. Of COURSE they could have been edited. The thing to keep in mind that a number of people who sent and received those e-mails, including Andy Revkin, have stated that they are accurate. The last of those e-mails are dated November 12th. There are over a thousand of them. I think there is a good chance we have the real thing.
Link from UEA site to Met Office Hadley climate research centre. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ ” page cannot be found ” LOL. Wonder why not ?
Finally the UK Daily Telegraph prints a dull, well hidden, story on hackinggate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html
But, on that same page, James Delingpoles earlier blog entry is the most read item on the online Telegraph so perhaps they will start to pay more attention.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Yes the first electronic computers were developed for the government and military.
In 1944-1946 Howard Aiken & Grace Hopper, Harvard Mark I Computer, John Presper Eckert & John W. Mauchly ENIAC 1 Computer. They were mostly used for number crunching problems like working out artillery tables for naval guns etc.
The industrial computer age began in about 1951 when the Univac was developed. By the late 1950’s and early 1960’s they were moving out of major government and research facilities into large commercial banks etc. These were mainframe computers the size of a small house or filling entire rooms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Mark_I
Larry
phil clarke
“Overstated. The journal in question was ‘Climate Research’ in the wake of publication of a sceptic paper [Sally Baliunas and Willie Soon] so poor it provoked the resignation of half the board.”
you are missing the point,
the question IN THIS CONTEXT is not about the quality of papers that made their way through the peer review process.
the question is, why poor pro agw papers (like the ones bluntly critisized in these emails or those easily demolished by McIntyre ) have passed through WITHOUT similar consequences for the editors.
the consequence of this is, that there is now almost a monoculture of pro agw editors, and a state of fear to let sceptical papers pass even if they are sound.
and in addition there are those michael mann type reviewers around, with a review style that may be only characterized by a single word:
sabotage:
http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/article.php?a_id=3991
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html
Good comments.
All Your Emails Are Belong To Us
@ Phil — “Ah, so it’s OK to commit an offence, so long as your chances of getting caught are minimal? Interesting legal standpoint.”
Cut the crap, Phil. Purloined or not, the information is now in the public domain and is NEWS. Worldwide NEWS.
Suppose you libel me in a private written communication with X. X puts your letter in his safe. Ten years later a burglar steals the safe’s contents. Going through his swag he comes upon your letter, and just for fun, anonymously forwards it back to me. I sue you for your libel. Will you say , “But my private letter was stolen!” In the US, at least, you would get nowhere.
McIntyre and many others were maligned in those emails. They may not be able to sue for libel, having broadcast the emails, but are you saying they have to keep quiet and let Jones et al’s maligning and undercutting them remain a secret????
If so, that’s an “interesting legal standpoint”.
Nigel Jones (08:27:32) ::
“They are priests guarding the secrets of priesthood. They’re certainly not confident of their position, or they would have allowed open scrutiny. They’re now in a position where they can’t say they’re wrong, or even that they are not sure, because the movement demands absolute certainty from them.
So, it wasn’t a huge, deliberate conspiracy, but because they’re not confident of their position, they’re forced to behave conspiratorially. At least, they see a need for confidentiality which wouldn’t be there if if their results could be openly examined and pass any reasonable test.”
The priesthood part I agree with. Well put. But the totality of the messages–and their ruthlessness in stiffing requests for information and stamping out dissent– leaves me feeling they KNEW they were engaged in a conspiracy.
They remind me more of the grinning High Muckymuck atop the pyramid in “Apocalypto”, strutting like Mussolini and whipping the crowd into a frenzy as he summons, then magically dispels, a solar eclipse.
Meanwhile some poor bastard behind him is getting his heart cut out.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/20/lawrence-solomon-what-she-didn-t-ask.aspx
FOI2009/FOIA/documents/Fisher.txt
“I will send you the time series you need in a minute for the Central
west Greenland Stack…
And some other bits and pieces,,, The NGRIP record has the trend in it
that is no doubt closer to the truth for the fixed elevation temperature
history. But even there one could need a correction for elevation
change. The elevation corrected south GRIP Holocene has a very strong
negative delta trend in it and I expect there should be some correction
done to the north GRIP record too,, eventually I think they should all
come out looking like our records from Northern Canada. Now at least
ice core records have some low frequencies to correct… not like your
bloody trees that can not remember one century to the next,,,
(alderheimers )”
.
.
.
Fritz Koerner and I down to do a chapter in the book too I think,if
its the same book ,but its not due for quite a while,,,
David
Keith Briffa wrote:
>
> Dave
> I am currently working with Ray Bradley and others to produce a chapter for
> a PAGES book . Our chapter is concerned with the climate of the last 1000
> years and I am currently putting together a Figure and text concerned with
> the circum North Atlantic area. I wondered if you had , in an easily
> plotable form )i.e. spreadshhet-like numbers with real dates ) the stacked
> record – or whether you considered just plotting the GRIP?GISP mean was
> appropriate ? In a paper by Hammer , the north and south GRIP records (O18)
> are different – with a negative trend through the Holocene in the north and
> a recent “warming”, but neither at summit. I have restricted space so what
> is best to plot .
> cheers
> Keith
>
.
.
.
I was worried for a minute there, but it looks like Fenton is finally on the job.
Overtime, just in time for Christmas!
Still, it’s a little weak. What were the instructions? Focus only on the “trick” post? Threaten legal action? Concentrate on the “theft” meme that, I’d guess, was the first part of the cover-up anyway?
Pick it up, boys, put your backs into it – we can barely hear you!
Shurley Knot (20:14:58) :
“Hello editors, this page is too long! Please promote Phil Clarke’s thorough debunking at 14:58:30 to its own post, where it belongs, so that we may continue to have this most excellent discussion.”
I agree. It makes some good points–we shouldn’t overstate our case. The rest of it deserves extended rebuttal.
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1651-Global-Warming-SCAM-A-Further-Look.html
Results 1 – 10 of about 1,330,000 for AR4.
4th assessment report of the IPCC published in 2007
As some posties have suggested, I too feel this is an insidde job. Disgruntled employee, or some sort of rouse to fool eveyone before Copenghagen. Who know.
Here is a post from Real Climate… Check out Gavin Goebells response… he’d wanna be careful…. accessory after the fact maybe….
———————————————————-
What appalled me, if it turns out to be true, was an email purported to be from Phil Jones to Mike Mann where the archive shows “Jones” wrote on 2/2/2005, “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
If proven to be true, that goes far beyond deleting emails as a crime against science, and perhaps a criminal act as well. I certainly cannot feel comfortable with Dr. Jones being in a position of responsibility where he could actually carry out that threat unless he disavows that email as being something he actually wrote.
[Response: It is obviously not meant seriously, but that is hard to discern from little snippets like this. – gavin]
It’s pretty clear after reading Phil Jones’ post that he is a sympathiser with the fraud.
It is this simple Phil… If these guys are so stupid to write these types of emails and let them get out then how can we believe them… particularly when they won’t let the data out.
Get over it Phil, they have been nailed and you are sticking up for them. Are you part of the solution or part of the problem…..
Climate Mafia
Prince Alexander a true “Global Player” disqualifies himself to be the future King of the Netherlands.
Maybe this speech at the Energy Efficiency and Sustainability, during the official State Visit to Mexico, November 4th 2009 is why the Dutch MSM is avoiding any reporting about the current Climate Scam.
For those who ask the question how the fraudulent climate scientists are connected with the political elite this is a picture perfect example.
The current Queen has a seat in the Club of Rome and they are “embedded” within the United Nations. The Globalists are everywhere.
Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
First, I would like to thank all of you for participating in today’s seminar. I would also like to extend a special word of thanks to our Mexican hosts. It is an honour to be here today. In a way, this seminar shows just how far we have come on our way to a new, low-carbon energy future. New technology, new partnerships, a truly global approach to the problem of climate change: this is what I see emerging. We have also measured – as far as we could – the distance we still have to go. Let’s take encouragement from the fact that we are on this road together, and that we are indeed moving ahead. Energy efficiency is an issue that is particularly close to my heart. There are several reasons for that.
First of all, it is a subject that touches upon our daily lives. In order to be more energy-efficient, we must critically re-appraise how we live and the choices we make. Everybody needs to be aware of the extreme effects of climate change and the urgency with which we must deal with them. And everybody needs to be involved in finding sustainable solutions. This, I believe, is crucial to bringing about positive change: a low carbon economy should start at grass-roots level.
Second, energy efficiency is about our production methods. How we deal, or fail to deal, with our planet’s mineral reserves. Precious natural resources merit careful treatment. We need to be in awe of nature, not see it as our right to abuse it. That is a basic starting point.
Mexican history can teach us a lesson here. As we now find ourselves in the one-time capital of the mighty Aztec empire, perhaps we can spend a few moments taking a closer look at the Aztecs, the true ‘children of the sun’. Aztec culture is about respecting and revering nature. The famous Aztec pyramids of the sun and moon in Teotihuacan still attract thousands and thousands of tourists every year. The Queen, my wife and I look forward to visiting them on Friday. The Aztecs built their pyramids in order to pay tribute to their gods, the sun god in particular. Their message still rings true: we depend on nature, not the other way round. We depend on the sun as it is the one and only source of energy that makes our life on earth possible. Likewise, we depend on the unique atmosphere of this planet to protect us from the very harmful effects of that same sun. We have to stop this vital shield’s gradual degradation.
Maybe the Aztecs were light-years ahead of us in realising that the sun is the only source of energy and that all other sources like fossil, hydro, wind or bio energy are mere derivatives. Maybe they were telling us to focus on the sun and to join forces in making solar energy so efficient that we can use it to solve all our energy requirements. Every 30 minutes the earth absorbs enough light to meet the world’s energy needs for a year! Every 30 minutes! If only we could harvest it!
So while we are rightly looking for methods to reduce emissions in the short and medium term that have a distinct immediate effect on the pace of climate change, like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), we should never lose sight of the genuine long-term solutions to our energy problems. As I have already pointed out, our only source of energy is the sun. The rest are derivatives. So solar energy has the brightest future. And although it will take decades or even centuries before solar is our main source of energy, it is of the greatest importance to all future generations that we start conserving the best catchment areas, the world’s deserts. Many regard deserts as a barren and hostile environment. In fact, they are a precious source of life, which we should embrace and protect for the common good. The circle of deserts surrounding the globe presents us with wonderful opportunities for both generating and transmitting solar energy.
Large-scale solar plants in deserts, connected to a cross-border or even intercontinental grid, are a fundamental solution for sustainable energy supplies after 2050. As an interesting side-effect – and of great benefit to the local population – heat from the power-generation process may be used to desalinate seawater or to generate cooling. So heat and water stress, now almost synonymous with deserts, can partly be solved, while mitigating the effects of climate change.
Although this solution may sound costly, scaling it up will make it a more profitable business than fossil energy. The point is, if we do not approach energy as a long-term investment, we will end up paying much higher bills.
So, ladies and gentlemen, we know the technology is there. Now we need the political will and the right approach to investment to achieve this fundamental transition towards a new energy system. Investments in sustainable solutions make our communities healthier, our planet cleaner, our economies stronger and our future brighter. Let us look beyond the current financial and economic crisis and build the foundations of a sustainable future. As a result of this crisis, billions of dollars of public spending are needed to bail out our economies and regenerate economic growth. If spent wisely on sustainable solutions, these investments will also contribute towards rescuing our planet. We owe this to our children and future generations.
The COP 15 conference which will be held in Copenhagen in December is the ideal opportunity to prove that we understand the urgency of the threats that face those future generations. The current generation is the only one that can help mitigate them. We have the knowledge and the means. Let us show the world we have the courage to take bold and necessary steps.
Let us make sure those future generations can be proud of us. Let us not go down in history as yet another generation that could have acted, but chose not to.
In a way, Mexico and the Netherlands are ‘natural’ partners in the field of energy. Mexico produces oil, the Netherlands produces gas, and we are both working towards a sustainable energy future. The Memorandum of Understanding which is about to be signed points the way ahead. We are guided by shared ambitions and work in the same spirit. Working together in a field as important as energy policy will benefit our two countries, as well as the world at large. We can and must make sure that the world acts together. Only then can Copenhagen be successful.
To make Copenhagen a success, we need drastic emission reductions, accepted by all nations. Do we achieve that through negative or positive strategies? Should we only focus on saying no or could we take a different approach? Should we allow everybody to emit as much as they want and then tax them so heavily under the ‘polluter pays’ principle that they make greater reductions collectively than through an approach that limits emissions? With those kind of financial incentives the private sector will gladly provide us with technologies that lead to huge emission reductions. I gladly leave it up to the delegates of COP 15 to make the right decisions and, if necessary, to finalize the treaty here in Mexico next year.
Let me conclude by giving you a Mexican proverb. “Cámaron que se duerme se lo lleva la chingada”, or in English: “a shrimp that sleeps gets carried by the tide.” Right now, strong currents are trying to pull us along, leading us to a future of energy scarcity, rising sea level and increasing pollution. Let’s wake up, let’s turn the tide and move in a different direction. Let’s set an example to the rest of the world. I am sure that this seminar, with its plans, ideas and expertise on energy efficiency, will be a source of inspiration to all of you.
Thank you again for sharing your ideas with us. Thank you for being here.
Also watch the Prime Minister Balkenende here:
The Dutch are left in the dark about any scheme from energy rationing to Global Government. This used to be one of the most open and democratic countries in the World.
so how about this little gem… has anyone posted this yet?
Mick Kelly and Aeree Kim (CRU, ENV) met with Robert Kleiburg (Shell International’s climate change team) on July 4th primarily to discuss access to Shell information as part of Aeree’s PhD study (our initiative) and broader collaboration through postgrad. student project placements (their initiative), but Robert was also interested in plans for the Tyndall Centre (TC). What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.
1.Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.
2.Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.
there it is, clear as void. company gives money to scientist, scientist fudges data for company.
0927145311.txt
Clearly, the science is far from decided upon………
From: Tom Wigley
To: Mike Hulme
Subject: Re: CO2 concentrations
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:21:51 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: Mike MacCracken
Dear Mike,
Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did
and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets
(more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers you
gave in your email!! The Hadley people have clearly screwed things up,
but their “errors” don’t really matter given all of the uncertainties. I
didn’t mention this because I thought that opening up that can of worms
would confuse people even more.
In my view (trying to keep things as simple as possible), the key points
are these:
(1) The HadCM2 run purports to be IS92a, and it is a good approximation
to this.
(2) Their use of 1% compounded for CO2 *is* a reasonable approximation to
the IS92a GHG forcing (which, itself, is uncertain).
(3) The climate model output is also uncertain.
(4) The pure CO2 input to IS92a is what I have distributed from the Bern
model.
(5) Hence, the best and simplest combination is to use HadCM2 climate
output with these (point (4)) *a priori* defined “pure” CO2 concentrations
for IS92a.
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Thanks for clarifying your thinking on this.
>
> I still have a problem with HadCM2 forcing and making sense of what Hadley
> have published, esp. the numbers in the Feb. 1997 J.Climate paper by
> Mitchell and Johns. There, they make it clear that the model was presented
> with CO2-equiv. rising from 473ppmv in 1990 to 1414ppmv in 2100, i.e., a 1%
> p.a. increase. This *seems* precise and unambiguous, so I don’t think they
> do adjust the CO2-equiv. growth ratio (C2100/C1990) to 3.127 (i.e., about
> 1.05% p.a.) as you suggest.
>
> This concentration scenario yielded a 1990-2100 model forcing of 6.5Wm-2
> (sic), “close to that reported by Mitchell and Gregory in 1992” [Mitchell
> and Johns, 1997] using STUGE (my estimate for that is about 6.2Wm-2). Both
> of these are quite a bit higher than the 5.8Wm-2 forcing in IPCC SAR for
> IS92a. With this (apparently) higher forcing, I reasoned that all else
> being equal, the actual CO2 concentrations that are consistent with HadCM2
> should also be *higher* that those cited in IPCC SAR and hence we could not
> just use the CO2 concentrations from MAGICC (or the Bern model). Hence my
> somewhat higher CO2 estimates of 790ppmv by 2100 were arrived at by using:
>
> pCO2 = 279ppmv * (exp(F/(3.47/ln(2))))) where F is the proportion in
> MAGICC of total forcing due to CO2 alone for IS92a.
>
> The Mitchell/Johns J.Climate paper is confusing, however, because it also
> presents results in their Table 1 which shows a 1990-2100 HadCM2 forcing of
> only 5.5Wm-2 (sic), a value that relates to their text-cited value of
> 6.5Wm-2 only by using DQ of 5.05Wm-2 (i.e., the sensitivity of HadCM2)
> rather than DQ = 6.3Wm-2. Yet the text of the paper continues to imply the
> HadCM2 forcing is ‘12% higher’ than Kattenburg, rather than 5% lower.
>
> The bottom line … the IS92a SAR forcing of 5.758Wm-2 and DQ of 6.3Wm-2
> only yields a CO2-equiv. growth rate of just over 0.8% p.a., rising to
> nearly 0.9% p.a. if the HadCM2 DQ of 5.05Wm-2 is used. These are still
> some way short of 1% p.a.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> p.s. this is now more a matter for my own curiousity since I agree that for
> most assessment purposes the Wigley/Joos numbers are the best to use.
>
> At 15:36 18/05/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I’ve just read the emails of May 14 onwards regarding CO2. I must say
> >that I am stunned by the confusion that surrounds this issue.
> >Basically, I and MacCracken are *right* and Felzer, Schimel and (to a
> >lesser extent) Hulme are *wrong*. There is absolutely, categorically no
> >doubt about this. Let me explain.
> >
> >(1) The Hadley Centre run is meant to simulate the climate change
> >consequences of the full IS92a emissions scenario.
> >
> >(2) In this scenario, there are the following concentration and forcing
> >changes over 1990-2100:
> > Item C(2100) DQ(1990-2100)
> > CO2 708 4.350
> > CH4 3470 0.574
> > N2O 414 0.368
> > Halos 0.315
> > TropO3 0.151
> > —————————–
> > GHGs 5.758
> > SO4 (dir) -0.284
> > SO4 (indir) -0.370
> > —————————–
> > TOTAL 5.104
> >
> >These are the numbers I used in Ch. 6 of the SAR. They do not agree
> >precisely with numbers in Ch. 2, because I used the models and formulae
> >embedded in MAGICC. The differences between Ch. 2 and Ch. 6 are
> >irrelevant to the present issue.
> >
> >(3) How does one simulate the combined effects of all the GHGs in a
> >climate model that only has CO2? The standard way is to take the GHG
> >radiative forcing (ending in 5.758W/m**2 in 2100 in this case) and
> >convert this to *equivalent* CO2 concentration changes. If one uses
> >the old (IPCC90) forcing formula for CO2 (which is what was used in the
> >SAR), viz DQ=6.3 ln(C/C0), then C(2100)/C(1990) is 2.494. Note that the
> >1% compounded change would be C(2100)/C(1990)=(1.01)**110=2.988. Thus,
> >1% compounded CO2 gives roughly the correct *forcing*.
> >
> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGES ARE *NOT* THE CO2 CHANGES USED IN THE
> >MODEL. THE MODEL USES ARTIFICIAL CO2 CHANGES, SCALED UP TO ACCOUNT FOR
> >FORCING FROM OTHER GHGs.
> >
> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGE IS FROM 354ppmv IN 1990 to
> >708ppmv IN 2100. THIS IS *NOT* A 1% COMPOUNDED INCREASE.
> >
> >NOTE, FURTHER, THAT WHAT MIKE HULME SUGGESTS IN HIS POINT 8 IS ALSO
> >WRONG. IT IS WRONG TO *BACK OUT* THE CO2 FROM FORCINGS. THE CO2 WAS
> >SPECIFIED A PRIORI.
> >
> >NOTE FINALLY THAT MIKE *DOES* GIVE THE 708ppmv VALUE IN HIS POINT 9.
> >USING THIS WOULD BE OK, BUT I RECOMMEND USING THE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
> >BERN MODEL RESULTS (SEE BELOW).
> >
> >(4) Now, some minor wrinkles. In the Hadley Centre model for CO2,
> >DQ=5.05 ln (C/C0). Hence, to get a forcing of 5.758W/m**2, they need to
> >use C(2100/C1990)=3.127. Note that this is a little closer to the 1%
> >compounded result than my above calculation. The Hadley Centre may well
> >have used a slightly different total 1990-2100 GHG forcing than mine, so
> >they may have backed out a compounded CO2 increase rate even closer to
> >1% than the above. In any event, if they decided to go with 1%, then
> >this was a perfectly reasonable choice in order to capture the total GHG
> >forcing.
> >
> >(5) The 708ppmv C(2100) value is what comes out of my carbon cycle
> >model. In the SAR, in Ch. 2, we considered results from three different
> >carbon cycle models; mine, the Bern (Joos) model, and Atul Jain’s
> >model. For illustrations in the SAR, we used the Bern model. The
> >mid-2100 value with this model, for IS92a, was 711.7ppmv. A later
> >version of this model, used in IPCC TP4, gives 711.5ppmv. Jain’s model
> >gave 712.3ppmv.
> >
> >(6) The bottom line here is that, for a consistent pairing of Hadley
> >Centre climate and CO2, one MUST use the ACTUAL CO2 numbers that went
> >into calculating the radiative forcing, NOT the equivalent CO2 numbers.
> >The climate response reflects all GHGs, whereas the plants are
> >responding only to CO2.
> >
> >(7) I am attaching the Joos CO2 time series. I recommend using the
> >actual values rather than trying to fit a compound CO2 increase to
> >them—which, in any event, should not be done using just the end point
> >values. This, however, is your choice. Differences will be negligible
> >in terms of plant response.
> >
> >I hope this clarifies things. It has always seemed pretty obvious and
> >clear cut to me. I hope it will now to all of you.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Tom
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > *Tom M.L. Wigley *
> > *Senior Scientist *
> > *National Center for Atmospheric Research *
> > *P.O. Box *
> > *Boulder, *
> > *USA *
> > *Phone: *
> > *Fax: *
> > *E-mail: *
> > **********************************************************
> >Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Is95a.dat”
> >
>
Good post!
Now spent a day reading through the files and I think they are the real thing. It will take me a few weeks to dig through the detail of what it contains, but the context of everything I’ve seen so far is shocking.
1. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have a
complete disregard for the scientific method (i.e. the CRU are doing pseudo-science).
2. The CRU are working with the climate unit at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to deliberately manipulate data to conform to expectation and mislead the public regarding global temperatures.
3. The CRU are using their reputation as the world’s leading climate to subvert the peer review process by giving support to poor papers which support AGW, while trying to stop good papers which refute their beliefs.
4. They feel threatened by the current rise in public scepticism about AGW, and spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about if sceptics will find holes in their published information (bunker mentality). They seem to be in cahoots with people in the main-stream media to spread disinformation and alarm.
5. The CRU/GISS admit amongst themselves that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models do not account for actual climate observations, but fail to let the public know about this uncertainty.
All public funded bodies, like the CRU, are responsible to the public, not to politicians. The evidence from the hacked files shows that they are acting the other way round.
It is important that as many people as possible get to hear about what’s going on and I think a viral approach is the only way to achieve this, as I think the main-stream media, like the BBC and MSN. will try to limit the damage caused on the run up to Copenhagen.
Suppose you libel me in a private written communication with X. X puts your letter in his safe. Ten years later a burglar steals the safe’s contents. Going through his swag he comes upon your letter, and just for fun, anonymously forwards it back to me. I sue you for your libel. Will you say , “But my private letter was stolen!” In the US, at least, you would get nowhere.
The analogy fails. Libel has to be published or communicated by the libeller. My rights under the Fourth Amendment …
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
have been violated, however.
“The evidence for the ‘fraud’ was McIntyre’s Yamal findings…”
What’s your specific ‘evidence’?
Please re-read the post. It was Sonja B-C who was making the claim of fraud and using McIntyre’s work as evidence, not myself. I have made no allegations of fraud.
As for failing to answer questions, pot, meet kettle.
for anyone who wants to do some research, the docs are here:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Cliumatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009
Phil Clarke (14:58:30) :
OK. I assume you have the evidence that CO2 has done ANYTHING (anything at all, in the least, what-so-ever, a smidgeon, etc, ad infinitum) to global T other than to enrich despots, employ activist scientists (I never though I would hear myself say such) cause invested loonies to shout down and vilify dissenters and drive the global economy into a ditch?
Who knows what emails were “disappeared” before this freeing of information.
The liberator did say “… random selection..” leaving the possibility that more is forthcoming. Nice.
If these files exhibit validity, Mann et al should be brought to trial. McIntyre and McKitrick should be given a Nobel prize for discrediting these junk scientists and challenging the biggest hoax of our generation.
It never ceases to amaze how a handful of individuals can seize power and intimidate the rest. These emails will not bring down the “men behind the curtains”, but they have served the purpose of exposing their dishonesty and severely weakening their prestige and power.
Many more will now be more emboldened to pursue the truth. Many politicians may still give lip service to the cause but their personal doubts have now been confirmed. Thus we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the AGW cabal.
C-R-U. Climate Rhetoric Unit.
imapopulist (05:36:37) :
“It never ceases to amaze how a handful of individuals can seize power and intimidate the rest. These emails will not bring down the “men behind the curtains”, but they have served the purpose of exposing their dishonesty and severely weakening their prestige and power”.
Sorry to disappoint you but the scientists are only the tip of the iceberg.
This scam goes straight up to from Royalty to Presidents.
It’s our own Governments that are funding the scam with your money.
So, please don’t draw the wrong conclusions.
This is a real but relatively minor con trick on the part of those who would persuade us that global warming MUST be attributable to CO2 emissions.
If you really want to blow this falsehood apart you can do so for yourself remarkably easily. Just check out the correct definition of ‘global temperature’ in the 26 word summary of conclusions issued by the IPCC. This asserts that most of such warming is ‘very likely’ attributable to ‘greenhouse gas’ increased concentration. That temperature has been measured by the Hadley people at East Anglia and shown to have experienced an increase of just under half a degree C in 22 years.
Now check out the meaning of global temperature (correctly the temperature of the whole, three dimensional globe) that the greenhouse gas theory asserts MUST be affected by putting such a gas between our globe and the sun. It is NOT the same global temperature at all, being at least 100 times greater in magnitude, relating to a body 1.2 million times larger in mass than that of the surface atmosphere and subject to a rise in mean amplitude from the computed forcing rate resulting from CO2 increments of at most a few millionths of a degree C.
Using the scientific ‘law’ relating to the one to assert conclusions about the other is inexcusable.
This is the real con trick, of which the games being played at the Hadley Centre are just a sideshow.
If you doubt that this is so, you don’t need to be a scientist to check it out for yourself. An elementary knowledge of the English language will suffice. Together that is with a strong preference for being told the truth and a marked aversion to card sharps.
For more details you might like to go here
http://rapidshare.com/files/302672844/TWENTY_FIFTYflipped_.doc.html
or here
http://rapidshare.com/files/302671521/CLIMATE_CHANGE_POLICY.doc.html
These e-mails confirm what I have suspected for some time; the CRU is populated by Green Activists not true scientists. But what does it say about the University of East Anglia who allow this to go on?
I have been trying to download the zip file, but all the links seem to be unavailable.
Does anyone know if this is overuse or are there new links?
Brooks Hurd:
w w w . w a r w i c k h u g h e s . c o m / a g r i / F O I 2 0 0 9 . z i p
without spaces works and is pretty fast.
Phil Clarke: Your citation of the Fourth Amendment forgets that the Bill of Rights specifically denies to the Federal government the power to confiscate private records. Illegal confiscation by an individual would be theft, pure and simple.
But isn’t the question whether these e-mails are indeed private documents? The weight of the evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.
It might be instructive to note to Americans here, that the 4th amendment has little to do with this issue, seeing that this is a British issue. Britain and the Commonwealth has no 4th amendment equivalent.
Hi everyone, I have been following this thread since last night… I am not an expert on this stuff but I am fascinated by this story. I have one simple question that I would like answered… I have been talking about this on another site, and some of the reaction has been “well, it’s unfortunate that these scientists may have lied, but they are not the only scientists studying climate change, and this does not invalidate the findings that OTHER scientists have found.”
How would you respond to that, or could someone provide a link that might address that broader question? Thanks!
Has anyone here contacted Dr Lindzen from MIT?
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist
The fact that Britain has no 4th Amendment equivalent is of little importance.
Since the information has come into public view, it is admissible in United States Courts, and the scientists at the Hadley Climate Research Unit, and their various counterparts across the world, identifiable through the emails, can likely be charged in United States Federal Courts, for various civil and criminal violations, including conspiracy and fraud.
Various industries, which have been under constant attack for years as a consequence of what appears to be fraudulent data, surreptitiously manipulated as part of an ongoing conspiracy by the scientists at the Hadley Climate Research Unit, may be able to bring civil actions against both the Hadley Climate Research Unit and against various individuals working there.
I would argue that this is not over. It has barely begun.
The consequences to some of the ivory tower eggheads are likely to be distinctly unpleasant.
Ok, as there is a lot of stuff going about this then I feel I need to say something, the main stream press are starting to say the skeptics are having a field day with the use of the term “trick”. As an environmental scientist that took my degree a couple of years ago we were taught how to fudge the data to fit our hypothesis, it was what our stats modules were based on for 2 years, making things fit within 5% of what we wanted to show and not let the data show we were wrong, so think about that before listening to what the mainstream are saying. I also have to say I am disgusted as a scientist some of the emails I have read, if you ask me if I have read the files, yes as they came, not from website reposts. We all know that all walks of life are corrupt but to claim oil companies are the evildoers in society and then get payment from them for studies is unethical and hypocritical and that is what these people have been doing according to some of the budget reports.
Please don’t let any of what is going to be said over the next few days/weeks let you think all scientists are bad and corrupt, we are not, some of us actually try and do fair and accurate reports and don’t fudge data even though we know how, and no while I think we should respect the environment and stop polluting it I dont believe humans are responsible for CAGW or very much GW for that matter.
Well!… let me just remind everyone . that when we look back to t all those Ancient Cultures.. they are all looking up to the sky and foccussing on the “SOL”.. it and only it will have the last say as to what will happen on planet Gaia.
No matter who says what … lets reconsider what the Mayas were really trying to tell us thousands of years before any of us realized how our “weather” functioned .
cheers!
Does anyone know how to contact Lord Monckton? I tried finding an email online and could not. I intend to urge him to find a way to file a suit against UAE CRU and those who are apparently involved in various frauds.
If the MSM will not cover this story — and it seems as though they are not — then there have to be other ways to bring these people and the incredibly serious issues these revelation raise (the manipulation of public opinion and the political process in many countries and through the UN) into a forum such that there is a chance to get the public to question and doubt AGW such that the wind comes out of the public policy insanity that is currently being considered.
Personally, I can see of no other way of getting at this issue now besides legal action. Who else should we be contacting to urge legal action?
Phil Clarke, re fourth amendment
Fourth Amendment does not apply to private parties, only to government actors. Thus, any private person can search, seize (steal) your private papers without any violation of any Amendment. The Fourth Amendment limits what the government can do, not private parties.
There are other laws that will apply, however, such as burglary, and torts such as invasion of privacy.
I need this badly, a link or the hard data on info that I read recently about one of the emails eluded to the fact that they preferred a one world government. I know I saw it but cannot find it anymore……. question is what happened to it. It is very important that I get this data and proof.
Anyone can find anything in the emails at this site where you can search with words.
A quick search with “Earth Government”
and here it is
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=304&filename=1048799107.txt
RJC (10:46:52) :
Ask them to quickly name 4 other “climate scientists” who have driven IPCC policy, have control over a global metric such as a temperature data-set and are quoted by mainstream media whenever environmental/climate issues arise.
Hanson does not count as Gavin is his mouthpiece within this group.
Henry Galt: I doubt they would be able to provide that info. My (admittedly extremely limited understanding) of this story is that these scientists ARE the ones, who have come up with all the data, that has been hyped by the media all these years, and is the exact data that led up to things like Kyoto and Copahagen/future decline of civilization. That’s really all I know, though I am reading as much now as I can about this.
Seems to me the argument is going to be “there is data by other scientists that comes to the conclusion that manmade GW is real” or what not. There’s also the argument that they “just know” we are harming the environment, therefore we can’t afford to hesitate. I thought the whole basis of this topic was that scientific finds were saying man was changing the climate.
I also heard someone say that it was unfortunate that this would give more ammo to the skeptics. Aren’t scientists supposed to be skeptical of things until they have evidence?
Thanks for the response.
RJC (12:45:56) :
I know. It’s hard.
The main problem is that there is nothing to show for billions spent but the “just want to believe” crew are driving the agenda.
I want the evidence more than most people I talk to. Most are of the “Whadda ya gonna do…” persuasion.
I want this puppy put to bed. I am tired.
Contacting Lord Monckton – I’ve wondered that myself. Have been watching the website he recommended during a Glenn Beck show. http://www.webcommentary.com
There has been no recent activity there. But at the bottom of the list of signers by state, there is a warning that access to the names of signers is protected by a password only Monckton gives out.
But who are the guys behind the gang? The crime needs a (or more?) godfather to feed up and install the so called climate scientists. What’s the agenda?
Isn’t it?
Konrad Fischer
Oekoketzer
I AM QUITE SURE THAT THESE PEOPLE ( I WON’T CALL THEM SCIENTISTS ) DIDN’T DO THIS OUT OF THE KINDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS . . .
F O L L O W T H E M O N E Y !
Poptech (20:46:11) :
All Your Emails Are Belong To Us
OK, I finally got the connection. Good job. I’ve e-mailed the link to all my friends… uh… all three of them. Lucia has posted it at Blackboard.
Morbid (10:53:22)
That is very interesting about learning how to fit data to your hypothesis in your University degree stats module.
Would you care to name the University, and module number with dates? That would be a bombshell like the current topic.
Well at last… The BBC have finally given some airtime to this story and even a quick 6 frame shot of WUWT. Not on BBCworld or BBC1 or BBCNews – But on BBC Look East the local news bulletin for East Anglia.
The report concentrated on the fact that police have been brought in to investigate the hacking. Also some views were b’cast from atendees of a Green March in East Anglia today and a convert to AGW who is an MP – sorry I missed his name.
The programme is not yet available on BBC i player, but in case it becomes so – look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/lookeast/latest_stories/
Best Regards
KJ
@Katherine U- I found an email contact for Lord Monckton at the global warming heartland organization http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/profile.html?profile=A5EF5C522A947D9336F90900D17E862A&directory=3B532E2483EE9165FD810C4DF38DBAEA.
It is simply monckton@mail.com
Lets blow that inbox up! I’ve been lurking here for days, and I just want to say thank you to all of you here, I’ve gotten quite an education. Keep up the fantastic work.
Konrad Fischer (13:32:22) :
Google the evil Canadian Maurice Strong. He set all this in motion. Currebntly he is hiding in China to avoid prosecution in a UN-North Korea money scandal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/climate-change-emissions-scientist-watson?CMP=AFCYAH
We need no lectures from people who refuse to allow an open and honest debate or full and frank appraisals of “the evidence”.
Watsons moral compass is pointing to the cesspool.
The LA Times could use some input:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-hacker22-2009nov22,0,913036.story
Ian Wishar of Investigate Magazine (Australia) was the first to interview Dr. Phil Jones (via ‘phone) and caught him unprepared as he entered his office, and he confirmed that the emails are “real, but taken out of context”. I think 1000 emails and 3000 documents is plenty of context! Have a look here: http://www.investigatemagazine.com/newshop/enter.html. I love it!
Warmaholic Gate.
I understand the viewpoint of those who suggest treading carefully and being certain before passing unfounded accusations around like Internet jokes.
On the other hand, the Goreistas have been lying and scheming for over a decade now, using fraudulent claims and exaggerated data to con people into believing disaster is looming – mostly to further their goal of worldwide socialism.
Well, if they can act so immorally, to Hell with them. From my perspective, they are all either lying or stupid – neither of which warrants much respect. I hope these stories spread like wildfire.
The best that can happen is that the hacked files are legitimate and we can put a stop to lunacies like cap-and-trade legislation. The worst that can happen is that the hacked files are not legitimate – but we can still use them to put a stop to lunacies like cap-and-trade legislation.
In other words, Gore and Hansen and the media have not been fighting fair, so we can sling a little mud too.
Read The Obama Timeline and see what we are up against…
“…There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C
on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility…”
This is priceless. I hope the incriminating information just keeps trickling out bit by bit for the next few months, like the ACORN slime.
Death by a thousand cuts is how this beastly fraud deserves to die.
al gore is going to prison just like madoff
From a friend:
…You mean it isn’t all about a few ill-considered insults in emails stolen by some evil hacker?
–S.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones
The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones Icon – Comments 173
Andrew Bolt
Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 12:19pm
These are the emails that should have Professor Phil Jones most worried about his future.
Jones, head of the CRU unit whose emails were leaked, has been under most fire so far over one email in particular in which he boasted of using a ‘“trick” to “hide the decline” that would have otherwise spoiled his graph showing temperatures soaring ever-upward.
But far more serious – at least in a legal sense – may be his apparent boasting of destroying data to stop sceptics from checking this alarmist work. If, as some emails suggest, he destroyed it to thwart FOI requests from Professor Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, who’d already exposed as fake the Michael Mann “hockey stick”, Jones, one of the most active of the IPCC lead authors, could even face criminal charges.
(Note: in saying that, I should add that these emails may simply be poorly worded, out of context or even altered by the whistleblower who leaked them. Jones may also not knowingly have done anything wrong, and there is no proof that he did anything against the law.
UPDATE:
Several updates on Jones below, including his “selfish” wish to see global warming “regardless of the consequences” just to be proved right.)
Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by anyone not of their “team”. No wonder, perhaps, when the documents reveal Jones has so far attracted $25 million in
grants.)
The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick:
===>
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
From: Phil Jones
To: santer1@XXXX
Subject: Re: A quick question
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008
Ben,
Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!
McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these
– all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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:
From: Phil Jones To:
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al.
(1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica).
Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Email 1182255717.txt
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al.
(1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit
.2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil
…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.
This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil
Dear Mr Palmer,
Request for Information concerning the IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process
Drs Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn of your Climatic Research Unit served as lead authors on the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which by international agreement was required to be undertaken on an comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis.1 On 31 March 2008, I asked Dr Briffa for important specific information, not so far released, on his work as a lead author to which I have had no reply or acknowledgement, but have, through other FoI enquiries, been given a copy of his email dated 1 April 2008, to several other IPCC participants including Dr Philip Jones, and to which my letter was attached. He told his colleagues his response to me would be brief when he got round to it. Also included in the documents released to me is an email dated 14 March 2008 to Dr Briffa, among others, from Susan Solomon, Co-Chair of WGI, advising the addressees not to disclose information beyond that (which I consider inadequate) already in the public domain.
Accordingly, I hereby request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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
From: Phil Jones
To: santer, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –
<===
Ain’t peer reivew grand? You only get to be checked by the people you know will agree.
Incidentally, where in FOI legislation does it say man-made warming sceptics are banned from using it?
This has been an interesting read. When it comes to commenting on hacked info I am always skeptical and I always read as much data as possible. This is definitely one of those “follow the money” things. The hackers knew what they were looking for and they were either not getting what they thought was due for their efforts in the sham or they were getting rewarded for exposing something that they knew. Either way, this stuff reads like an ordinary mundane email server train so to me the info is credible. Gotta be careful selecting words in phrases like “Trick”. That could definitely mean a more productive or applicable technique. Some are in some deep doodoo but what will be more impressive will be the selective broadcasting of the details. That is where we are going to find the true motivations on this. Additionally, there will be some deafening silence with some individuals. Those are the ones that I will follow.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_the_australian_link
The global warmist conspiracy – and the Australian link Andrew Bolt Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 06:20am
The leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit indicate an astonishing conspiracy of the world’s leading warmist scientists, involving collusion, rigged evidence, suppression of dissent, the possibly illegal destruction of evidence under FOI request, and the smearing of sceptical scientists.
(To the BBC, however, it’s just about naughty hackers – not whistleblowers. To the Guardian, it’s about poor scientists being frustrated by the “intense scrutiny”, with the celebration of the death of mild-mannered sceptic John Daly being scientists ”reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics]”.)
I’ve published some of the most extraordinary of the emails so far, but now there’s also an Australian link which shows just how closely activists and these scientists, as well as possibly the CSIRO, worked together to present the most alarmist scenarios. Here’s the 0933255789.txt, from Adam Markham, head of the Clean Cool Air Planet, which sells global warming “solutions”, to Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia and founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, who actually seems to have had second thoughts about the “consensus” in the decade since he received this email :
===>
From: Adam Markham
To: m.hulme@XXXX, n.sheard@XXXX
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: mrae@XXXX
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO.
In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50% of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a particularly important issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
“The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999, p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding “the decline”, and Jones explained he was not trying to mislead.
“No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=445
Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxx]>
Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like – half the years to
2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014
We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.
Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.
Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement.
From: Tom Wigley
To: Kevin Trenberth
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Kevin, I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was ”we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two different things—the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking.
Tom
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not agree with this.
Tom.
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
Kevin
… That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money….
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@XXX
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
Keith,
Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send it to you.
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.
Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.
Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.
Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
At 08:54 12/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote:
Phil,
there may be some money this FY, substantial sums. Management here are casting around for ideas. As its to be spent this FY its largely going to be consultant work as we never have a cats chance in hell of recruiting on that timescale. What resource do you think we could contract from CRU (you, Harry, others?) ….
Your chapter on “Observations: Surface and atmospheric climate change” is a key chapter in WGI and it is important that what we say in our chapter in WGII follows from and agrees with your chapter. I would be very happy to discuss ways to ensure effective communication between our two chapters.Specific aspects from your chapter of relevance to our chapter include observed changes in regional temperature and precipitation, both means and extremes. We plan to use a figure in our chapter showing a global map of observed temperature trends over the last 30 years (?) overlaid with locations of significant observed changes in natural and managed systems. We want to make sure that this is based on the same dataset(s) that you will be using to show the observed temperature trends.In practice, almost everything in your chapter will be relevant to our chapter. I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of your ZOD after it is completed, so that I can make sure that our chapter is consistent with yours. I am happy to send you a copy of our ZOD, if you would like to read it.
1106322460 txt
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
:
#1047388489
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
#1047390562
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
#1051156418
“This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on)…. deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).”
#1051190249
“Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.”
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess….
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology? ….Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden. I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
<===
(Thanks for the terrific help of readers.)
Bonnie (18:59:35) :
Thanks.
“This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!” – another testament to his incompetence ?? ….. and when I say “his”, it’s a personal difficulty I have typing his name.
“The VC is also aware of what is going on –” – Ha ha ha, I’m sure the Vice Chancellor is ecstatic knowing that the entire population of the world now knows that.
If skeptics were hacked, Gore and Hansen would probably defend the act as “civil disobedience”..
Nigel Lawson has a column in today’s Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
He ends up with:
‘It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org), which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy.’
Phil Clarke (03:21:59) :
My rights under the Fourth Amendment …
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
have been violated, however.
Dr. Phil and CRU clan have to Fourth Ammendment right unless they are U.S. citizens living in the jurisdiction of the U.S.. This CRU clan is most likely to be indicted for obstruction and conspiracy. The actions of Dr. Phil around manipulating, hiding and deleting data satisfy British common law for agreement and intent.
Further, we do not know that these emails are not a leak by a CRU whistleblower. If they are they have certain protections under British law. And international law recognizes that company emails written on company computers regarding company business – belong to the company. And in this case the company belongs to the British people.
Should read have NO Fourth Amendment right…
Lord Lawson in the Times calls for a full independent enquiry into ClimateGate:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
“Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged
is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature
figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they
have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the
scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests;
and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting
scientists being published in learned journals.
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is
that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the
British Government, but other countries, too, through the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching
and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question.
And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A
high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.”
Lord Lawson.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
AGW, the University of East Anglia, the Freedom of Information Act and evidence of BBC bias. This is heady news. The debate on climate change will never be the same again.
By a strange and highly relevant coincidence the BBC was obliged just this week to respond under the FOI Act to a request for a disclosure of policy on climate change. This is the first publication of exactly what response was forthcoming.
The initial response has been with regard to the BBC Trust, the governing body. No reply has yet been obtained covering the Executive, but the statement of BBC policy at the top level is highly revealing. What are asserted to be the only words on file within the Trust addressing AGW are few in number and contained within just a few paragraphs.
Since these words are so critical it is important that we are precise in establishing definitions. AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming as a proposition embodies two statements, each addressed separately in the BBC statement of policy. GW , the global warming component, asserts that there has been an increase in global mean temperature, but that would be a meaningless statement if not quantified. The accepted level at which temperature rise becomes GW, that is an increase demanding political countermeasures, has been set for the purposes of the Copenhagen meeting as a rate of not less that 2 degrees C per century. The factual climate change issue is whether or not that level has been exceeded.
The second component, A, makes a statement about causation. The 26 word IPCC conclusion is that ‘most’ of GW is ‘very likely’ due to A, that is an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In plain English it has got warmer and its CO2 wot done it. For the purposes of Copenhagen however the ‘most’ and ‘very likely’ have been dropped so that the only issue of the agenda is how to limit CO2 emissions.
In the light of this understanding of the AGW issue we can usefully look at the stated BBC stance. It appears as a paragraph in the document setting out the BBC approach to impartiality, “Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century”, http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/century21.shtml
Although the FOI response contained the following wording, this cannot be held to apply to the wording of the above document already in the public domain. They are in any case strange words to append to a response under the provisions of the FOI Act.
“Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.”
We may therefore reasonably consider what was cited as the only material relevant to the information request which was worded as follows:-
“Is there, or has there been, within the BBC Trust any document dealing with editorial policy on matters relating to climate change?”
The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-
“There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. “
The first sentence addresses the GW issue but according to the wording of the second sentence is not considered to have even a small minority of intelligent and articulate opponents. It is therefore accorded the status of fact establishing that, in words commonly used by the government, ‘the issue is settled’. It is unsurprising that under the dictates of this policy no airtime is given to those who dispute the GW proposition.
The second sentence addresses the A issue, accepting that there is an opposing case but relegating it to that of a small minority. It is on this assessment that the next paragraph is deemed to be applicable.
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to
the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate.”
On the A issue therefore, that of human attribution, debate on the BBC airwaves is authorized but the proportionality is restricted to that determined by the judgment that this is a small minority. This is reflected in the very limited exposure given to views contesting the A thesis.
What is also revealed is that the ‘small minority’ assessment is derived from a seminar of scientific experts. If the selection criteria were in line with those used by the IPCC then this conclusion was inevitable. What is now evident is that it is dramatically out of line with public opinion, where the most recent survey indicates that more dispute the AGW proposition than support it. The case for an open debate in which the proportionality of airtime allocated reflects the public perception is unanswerable.
On the first issue however it is clear that the BBC is plain wrong. The actuality of GW is NOT settled. The figures produced by Hadley, the University of East Anglia unit, show temperature gains over the last ten years at no more than one third of the 2 degree rate of gain that qualifies as a GW occurrence. The satellite figures, both more recent and more reliable, indicate a level barely one tenth of qualification as GW and with a margin of statistical error that rule it improper to assert definitively that there is now any temperature gain at all.
We now have a situation where it has been disclosed that the Hadley figures on which so much reliance is placed to assert the occurrence of GW have been manipulated. It is in the reporting of that sensational revelation that the BBC bias is put to its most significant test.
There are two items of news contained in the information now divulged. The first is that information internal to Hadley has been made public, either by hacking or whisteblowing release. Since Hadley do not handle security nor defence data, and the material contains no breach of personal data of a confidential nature, this is a very minor story of only localized interest.
The second factor however, the revelation that the crucial Hadley statisitics appear to have been overtly and deliberately manipulated to deceive, is very big news indeed.
The BBC, as we can now see observing the dictates of the official BBC Trust policy, reported the first item and withheld information on the second. Why that should have been the position is very clear from a reading of the policy statement, now revealed under the FOI as the ONLY guidance issued on this matter by the BBC’s governing body.
This is a serious matter. The BBC is owned by us, the licence payers, not the members of the government nor the experts of the scientific community. We are entitled to some answers, and to a very substantial and publicly declared change of policy.
FOI request on that seminar?
CLIMATE CHANGE?
A wry look at climate change and the peddlers of doom.
Climate,first of all there is a silent b missing
climbate setting b = plan
claim planet ,planet is earth,and one stakes a claim
earth’s stake =>earth is stake,where is becomes isos [=]
steak = earth
setting steak as fillet,now a fillet in welding is not the most sound of welds let me set this as a butt = water
water = earth
finding hidden code:
dividing by rate gives
w = h
wxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuv
hijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefg
water left hand side comes down
water = hlepc = help c
earth on the right moves up
earth = tpgiw = p twig
help c = twig p
The best way to detect water is with a twig i.e. by dowsing removing sin = god w
help c = god wp
god = go d[in Geordie go = gan] =>gand extending gand becomes g ampersand = &g amperes&
help c = &g amperes&*wp
when one requires help one phones the operator = or or a pet = || a pet|| now t on the left hand side[LHS] becomes s
||sea p|| = &g amperes& wp
Setting sea as north = |rth| setting rth as the 18th prime number =>|61|
|||61|||+||p|| = &g amperes& wp
Amperes is a measure of electrical current setting this as current = present = gift = horse = shore = sea = north =>|61| and setting g as the acceleration due to earth’s gravity = 10m/ss when rounded up.
|||61|||+||p|| = &10*|61|& wp
Setting p = piano = quiet in music = sh and setting wsh = wish = hope => wester = west of,west is poor pronunciation of rest, rest of = |fest| ft cancel =>|se| = |et|
|||61|||+||p|| = &10*|61|&*|et|
|||61||| = |||00110110+00110001||| = |||0111+0101+11+11+1+1|||binary = ||20|| = ||00110010+00110000|| = ||0101+0100+11+10+1+1|| = |16| = 20
||p|| = ||01010000|| = ||1100+10+1|| = |15| = |00110001+00110101| = |0101+0111+11+11+1+1| = 20
40 = &10*|61|&*|et|
RHS:|61| = 20
&200& = &00110010*00110000*00110000& = &0100*0100*0100*00*00*00*0*0*0&binary = 64*[00]3 *[0]3 ,where 00 = .. = i and 0 = . = e
64* ie*ie*ie=>64*eg*eg*eg = 4*[10e]3 , where e = natural log = 2.7818…..
40 = 1285472 * |et|
|et| = |00110101+00111111+00110101| = |0111+0111+0111+11+11+11+1+1+1| = 33
40 = 42420576
Unity[U] = 1060514,rounded down
U = 1.060514*106 ,where 10 = -. = n and setting n as the pH of water = 7 next running the system through to the 4th derivative [4th = 4th prime = 7]
U1ST = 1.060514*76 = 124768
U2ND = 6*1.060514*75 = 106944
U3RD = 30*1.060514*74 = 76389
U4TH = 120*1.060514*73 = 43651
Finding the U average [UA] = 87938
Standard displacement from the main[U]
U = {(U1ST-UA)2+…..+(U4TH- UA)2)/4}1/2 = 30872
Set this as the total rainfall for England in milimeters dumped on us by the North sea in the standard years to come= 30.872 metres = 1222.5312” this equates to 33.9592 yards of rain for the standard years ahead.If I now divide this equally amongst the number of counties in England i.e 48
33.9592/48 = 0.7074833 yards of rain per county per year in England which equates to 25.4694”.
Kind regards,
Col
This story hit the Wall Street Journal!
The print edition picked up this story this morning with a page 3 story, that is listed on the front page “Whats news” index. This is about as mainstream as you can get here in the U.S. as far as the business world is concerned. It will be interesting to see what effects if any this has on the stock market. Especially interesting to watch the Green Energy index that had a huge volume spike on the 18th, which is after the Hadley Center by its own admission knew the hack had occurred but just before the news broke on the web. Someone bought or sold a bunch of green energy issues during that window.
http://www.ftportfolios.com/retail/ETF/ETFpricehistory.aspx?Ticker=QCLN
It is too early to say this might be insider trading, but it certainly raised my eyebrows when it was noted in another topic here on WUWT.
Larry
1500 comments! Tell me about unprecedented times.
Cheers
Phil
Debate just shown on Fox news!!!!!!!! Calls for investigation agreed by the guy who is pro AGW!! Sorry, didn’t catch the names, but this is awesome.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”Henry Louis Mencken….
Professor Jones has had £13.7 million in grants from the British government ($22m). You don’t hand over that money without knowing what you are paying for. The IPCC has always been a political body with “somebody” rewriting the scientists conclusion to take out all the “if”s & “may”s. This scam has been pushed by government since the Berlin Wall fell because they needed a new scare.
Just had a look to see if COP 15 site had anything on this yet, and found this……
Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails an attack on Copenhagen
A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month’s global climate conference in Denmark.
AP/Michael von Bülow 23/11/2009 04:25
Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, said he believes the hackers who stole a decade’s worth of correspondence from a British university’s computer server deliberately distributed only those documents that could help attempts by skeptics to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.
Trenberth, a well respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the Internet by the hackers.
The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said hackers last week stole from its computer server about a decade’s worth of data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. About 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents have been posted on Web sites and seized on by climate change skeptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.
“It is right before the Copenhagen debate, I’m sure that is not a coincidence,” Trenberth said in a telephone interview from Colorado.
At least 65 world leaders will attend the Copenhagen climate summit in December as representatives of 191 nations seek agreement on a new global treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.
Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his own e-mails posted online. “I personally feel violated,” he said. “I’m appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they’ve been taken out of context.”
In one of the stolen e-mails, Trenberth is quoted as saying “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can’t explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies — in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures.
In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Trenberth, the British research center’s director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he’d used the word trick “as in a clever thing to do.”
Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails “looks awkward at best,” particularly messages which criticize climate change skeptics.
story at… http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2655
_________________________________________________________________________________
What I find strange is that this article seems to have only one comment so far…….
frank fog
23/11/2009 09:43Before the Climate Hit Men cover up their document trail
We need an immediate worldwide climate probe
Not honest mistakes by the priesthood of climate science
But criminal intent to defraud
_______________________________________________________________________________
This paragraph seems to be saying that there could well be more cat to let out the bag in this matter…….
The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said hackers last week stole from its computer server about a decade’s worth of data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. About 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents have been posted on Web sites and seized on by climate change skeptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.
I’m waiting for more developments.
BTW, has anybody succeeded in reconstructing any of the data yet?
Can somebody qualified please phone into James Whale LBC (London, UK) drive time program NOW (Monday 16:24 ish) to discuss the CRU email scandal. I am sure he would put you to the front of the queue.
I have just been in email contact with James Whales’ researcher, they are trying to contact Nigel Lawson. Someone *qualified* from here should call his show. 0845 60 60 973, they are discussing the issue today.
The timing of this disclosure is awesome – just think about it – as soon as countries actually start spending huge amounts on fighting AGW alarmists are won! The only thing they need to do is stop manipulating the data, so real figures would show slowing of GW as a proof that Copenhagen approach is working. And there is no stopping them after that.
Galinar (10:07:34) :
The timing of this disclosure is awesome – just think about it – as soon as countries actually start spending huge amounts on fighting AGW alarmists are won! The only thing they need to do is stop manipulating the data, so real figures would show slowing of GW as a proof that Copenhagen approach is working. And there is no stopping them after that.
———————
Nope – they would then have to start manipulating the CO2 data downwards – because it ain’t gonna go down due to anything that happens in Copenhagen.
So – now we get to see the REAL Inconvenient Truth – no wonder Al Gore was never worried about flying his Gulfstream II (Huge co2 producer) and the fact his house has a larger carbon footprint in one month than the average American house in a year. I guess the mystery of all these cold years in the past decade is now solved. Brrrrr – someone chunk another pot of coal on the grate.
WATSON LIVE ON CHANNEL4 UK now!
Channel 4 news (uk) now doing a piece on this story.
Watson denying anything improper, defending Jones and stumbling to answer.
Lies clearly visible as he answers.
Irony is delicious as now he knows what its like to be a “denier”.
What a clown.
A Professor Andy Watson (I think it was) from the University of East Anglia has just been interviewed by Krishnan Guru-Murthy about Climategate on the prestigious UK Channel 4 News. Professor Watson said that Professor Jones would rely on the transparency of his evidence to justify his work. Can they be from the same university? Dog, homework etc., come to mind.
Bugger, was watching C4 then switched over when the sport came on! Missed. Hope someone outs it on Youtube.
When it comes out on Youtube. will someone post it here. I’m in US.
CNN finally picked up the story from Wired (November 23, 2009 1:23 p.m. EST), they were only 4 days late to the party.
The spin of the article is entirely “Move along nothing here to see”.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html
Larry
Now here is a guy who is *excited* about ClimateGate!!
http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-tv-doom-gloom-climate-fraudsters-exposed/
Monckton has spoken . . .
http://tinyurl.com/yh8jszy
Ray
Watson’s just been on Newsnight too. I thought Singer wiped the floor with him.
There was an excellent 14 minutes on BBC2’s The Daily Politics today at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6sdy/The_Daily_Politics_23_11_2009/
The section starts at about 16:23 in. Andrew Neil interviewed Professors Fred Singer against Professor Bob Watson with sceptical ex- FT journalist John Cassidy who wants to see real data not model predictions. ClimateGate was discussed at some length. In my view it was a walkover for Singer. With Neil on the case (ex Sunday Times editor), the scandal now has legs in the mainstream media. This will run and escalate.
BBc2 newsnight just ran with Singer and the fat boy from uea.
LIberals will try hard to rationalize the facts, there is too much money involved here (via taxes like Cap & Trade). They need to protect their deception with newsline like Global Warming is worse than expected, type of news.
The major issue for the voting and tax paying public is: Should policy be based on data that is private and analyses which cannot be scrutinized or reproduced by independent scientists? My answer is no.
Paxman should be dragging the Minister of Climate Fascism in and demanding to know why we are basing tax policy on such data and analyses, which cannot pass the basic test of science: Independent verification.
This isn’t quite as interesting as I had hoped, though the marooned.jpg in the documents folder seems a bit juvenile for people with PhD’s
and another thing, go do a search in the emails for anything containing the word “greenpeace”, now one would have to ask why they have so much correspondence with a biased environmental group when they are supposed to be neutral.
Hacking is low and I’m always wary of arguments such as, “the ends justifies the means”. However, illegal manoeuvrings such as this have been perhaps triggered by a slight lack of transparency in the field. The long-term damage to the scientific process and reputation is what worries me most.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html
LBC 97.3 now.
It is being discussed on LBC now, listen on-line http://www.lbc.co.uk/
These fake scientists should be sacked!
I went browsing the emails for info on General Circulation Models, and stumbled on this little exchange: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1004&filename=.txt
I thought it a nice example of what scientists really get up to when discussing topics between each other.
…I just read the Douglass, et. al. paper… I’m not a climate scientist, and am not sure what to make of it, but I don’t like their treatment of the models. I’ve only had basic statistics and spatial analysis courses, but their methodolgy seemed a bit wacky.
Now that the conspiracy is outed, and the perpetraters are being condemned in the media (finally), can we get back to doing real, and new science and not justifying previous work on the same topic that is contradicted by junk science and junk scientists?
for all the skeptics of the skeptics.
it is easy to confirm that an email is real. it would be on the servers even after they were deleted.Authorities (scotland yard) could match up the data on the labs servers with the so-called hacked data to see what is real and what is not.
I think we will see that in fact the emails and “hiding the decline” are actually what has been going on.
It really sucks. Science is becoming a prostitute. Shame on acaemia
Following the money trail:
Can anybody name 2 scientists who aren’t paid directly or indirectly by government (that includes Friends of the Earth) or charities/foundations specificly committed to alarmism who have said catastrophic warming is real. That excludes statements along the lines of “most of the 20thC warming (0.6C) may be anthropogenic” but genuine catastrophism.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
“If authentic…one only wonders who gets the tv/books rights for this stuff?”
Micheal Crichton maybe?
he did already write the book about it 4 years ago. (State of Fear)
Great foresight on his part, and quite a bit of vindication if all this turns out to be true
Glenn Beck gives an excellent summary of ClimateGate:
Geoff C (14:24:37) :
Morbid (10:53:22)
That is very interesting about learning how to fit data to your hypothesis in your University degree stats module.
Would you care to name the University, and module number with dates? That would be a bombshell like the current topic.
Yes I second that request. A quote from your “Stats module” against the quote from Richard Feynman would do very nicely to show laymen the difference between the “New Science” and real science.
Though an AGW skeptic, I find it difficult to believe that Dr. Jones and many of his colleagues have been doing what many people seem to believe they were doing. Let’s wait for Dr. Jones’s explanation and, maybe, an objective investigation before declaring him a crook.
If they have tempered with surface temperature data sets, it would mean a catastrophy for climatology and many other theoretical and applied sciences and their practical applications. This goes beyond and above the global warming controversy. Let’s hope it has not happened.
Just been on the UK Channel Four News tonight.
Ray
These hackers must be made to stand trial. Suppose they next choose to irresponsibly scatter notes from the highest level meetings of the EU, the USA, China or Russia? The finest efforts of the servants of the people must never be subject to the chaos of hooligans.
Revoke the hackers’ retirement income. Deny them medical care. They must no longer enjoy the right to buy, grow or otherwise obtain food. Free speech, needless to say, will be off their plates as well. Forbid others to assist them. Here is the model: The kulaks were liquidated for the sake of history, and we survived.
Argument is counterproductive. Consensus is settled. They have forfeited their right to appeal. Mankind must be protected from rogue elements.
Another download link:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T
If the link above doesn’t work anymore (it does as of this posting) here’s a google search link so that you can find it from someplace else if need be.
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=FOI2009.zip&btnG=Google+Search
Beware of packs that bill themselves as legitimate but are suspiciously small in size since anything less than 61mb is probably a virus.
I just fainted!!!
From link: http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-fraud-bbc-newsnight-report-it.html
In the rest of the media George Moonbat, the Guardian’s standard bearer on all things eco-fascist has said
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.
… 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.
@ Tom Bright
You name is a misnomer. You are not bright. These people revealed information that is absolutely necessary for the people of the world. Are you a flat out communist? For the destruction of the Constitutional Republic?
Many of the people we trusted to do research on this topic were hiding data and faking graphs. The hackers need to be given full retirement for saving the world form the most dangerous legislation every created by Evil self centered people. Go back to sleep.
Reply: I let this through because despite the personal attack on another poster it is self embarrassing. You really should learn to recognize sarcasm mr. anonymouse. ~ ctm
VictorP:
“Though an AGW skeptic, I find it difficult to believe that Dr. Jones and many of his colleagues have been doing what many people seem to believe they were doing. Let’s wait for Dr. Jones’s explanation and, maybe, an objective investigation before declaring him a crook.
If they have tempered with surface temperature data sets….”
Ah, but beyond the datasets and the computer code (which look damning at first blush but *may* have explanations), these files contain (to my lawyerly) mind *clear and convincing* evidence of collusion to suborn and subvert the peer review and publication process: an ethical violation of the first order.
This is enormous, because the basic rhetorical gambit of the warmist cabal has been the assertion of a claimed ‘consensus’;- but if the consensus was manufactured, an artifact of backroom politics, then the props are kicked out.
I suspect that this aspect will have a very substantial impact on the broader scientific community- the thousands and thousands of working scientists not directly concerned, who have taken AGW essentially on faith because they trusted the integrity of the process. These are folks who know what the Rules are, and what constitutes cheating.
If someone was to go through all my personal emails and messenger accounts and letters, they’d probably have enough “evidence” to jail me for …ooh, quite a long time. Why? Because I dare use colloquial language, I mention biting people for one thing, and various other misdemeanors.
Several calmer heads have mentioned that this could be cooked up, either partially or completely. The most ..ah.. “damning” evidence is that email that mentions “trick” and “hide the decline”, which, I note, Fox News highlighted all pretty-like, just so no-one could possibly miss. Jones et al could have denied it. They could have said that that one was seeded. They didn’t. They came out and said which were theirs. He said that he did say that, and stated exactly why he said it and what the terminology means.
These are people, just like you all are. And they are scientists. For a true scientist, proving something false is just as exciting as proving something true. The scientist that proved unilaterally and “beyond reasonable doubt” that climate change was WRONG would absolutely make his or her career.
There is no conspiracy. They have not placed hairdryers under the icecaps to melt them to prove a point. The science of climate change has changed radically, even in the last ten years. Opinions have changed, new points have been raised, arguments have arisen and been shot down. These men and women are not out to devote their whole lives to fooling people. They are people devoted to their work and who believe in what they study. And in private emails, they use colloquial and unPC language.
Please remember that when you are reading through the results of a massive invasion of privacy and theft, and when you watch the subsequent mudfights and character assassinations.
Where going to live, where really going to live…
I’m happy for the polar bears & the ocean isn’t going to rise 20 feet!
Where is lying Gore to make a statement
[quote= Tom Bright]
Tom Bright (11:38:49) :
These hackers must be made to stand trial. [/quote]
[quote= Tom Bright]Suppose they next choose to irresponsibly scatter notes from the highest level meetings of the EU, the USA, China or Russia?[/quote]
Supposing they do? Supposing they put into the public domain examples of corruption, fraud and treason and worse?
The hackers who have done this great service for all of us deserve to be decorated by the president himself.
I shall be drinking a toast to their continued good health, good wealth ( for it is surely deserved) and continued good fortune in exposing the likes of CRU and the rest of the climate crooks for what they are- The Man who would be king!
[quote= Tom Bright]The finest efforts of the servants of the people must never be subject to the chaos of hooligans.[/quote]
The “servants” of the people it would appear are unaccountable to them.
When faced with such people talk is of no value.
Hooliganism is probably the only way forward when all else fails.
[quote= Tom Bright]Revoke the hackers’ retirement income. Deny them medical care. They must no longer enjoy the right to buy, grow or otherwise obtain food. Free speech, needless to say, will be off their plates as well. Forbid others to assist them. Here is the model: The kulaks were liquidated for the sake of history, and we survived.
Argument is counterproductive. Consensus is settled. They have forfeited their right to appeal. Mankind must be protected from rogue elements. [/quote]
The above statements appear to have originated from some hitherto undiscovered species of swivel-eyed loon, frothing at the mouth, such that im minded to think of the following:
“I am Locutus of Borg.
Resistance is futile.
From this day forward you will service Us.”
Seek help Tommy Bright, seek it now.
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d24-Legal-fallout-of-Climategate–CEI-to-sue-NASA
Some idiot could’ve come here and said what “Bright” said, so I wouldn’t be too hard on the ones who thought he was for real. Bright is the one who should be talked to about his attempts at humor. Part of the success of humor is being so over-the-top that your reader intuits you’re joking. Bright needs to study more.
It’s not a shocker that global warming issue might have scientists who might exaggerate their data, and their published data is painted with crafty equations, articulated with a first-class intellectual rhetoric.
The fact is this, they are measuring equations with variables that are immeasurable, thought there might be some patterns in smaller noticable “climate change” due to dirty pollution… their persuasive logic inundates the listener with one reason, “better safe than sorry.”
They don’t KNOW anything.
It all shares the same root in evolution vs. creationism.
The issue of global warming surfaces one major issue. Is there a God, or can we actually destroy this planet?
As far as humanity goes, this is another vicious cycle in our human nature. Manipulation & Control.
Hmm, I wonder what embarrassing information we’d find if we hacked the computer records of climate change sceptics (Andrew Bolt in Australia for example) and made the information public? Anyone’s draft documents, from any side of any discussion would look bad, guaranteed.
Glenn Beck sucks by the way. If you want to discredit these findings throw Glenn Beck in the mix.
Greenpeace isn’t all bad. Patrick Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29#Global_warming has not jumped on the freak out band wagon.
We do run the risk of this information being censored though. All the data should be posted somewhere or put out on a bit torrent so too many people will have the data to suppress it. If it is too wide spread it will be imposable to get a court order against one web site or one person to suppress the data.
@ Bonnie,
Thank you for your comment and defense of my comment. I had no idea what Mr. Bright was doing was an attempt at humor. I deal with people ever day that spout that same thought and attitude.
From my point of view, Bright was telling his opinion.
For all those who wonder what we would find if we hacked a climate skeptic’s website, or who defend these e-mails as “science as normal” in terms of behind the scenes communication – I have spent many years doing research based on archived scientific correspondence, and I’ve never seen anything in the twentieth century correspondence of scientists in my chosen area (marine science) communicating with the juvenile vitriol and lack of professionalism revealed by the CRUtape letters. True scientists are gentlemanly and in the past have even assisted the work of scientists whose views they oppose. As for what the skeptics’ e-mails look like: what the heck do you think you’re reading?
Ah, the good ship non sequitur hove into sight, guns blazing at bugger all. From ‘Deb’:
“Hmm, I wonder what embarrassing information we’d find if we hacked the computer records of climate change sceptics (Andrew Bolt in Australia for example) and made the information public? Anyone’s draft documents, from any side of any discussion would look bad, guaranteed”
Whatever dastardly, black composition you may or may not find in a sceptic’s correspondence is completely beside the point.
The discussion is about what HAS been found in the correspondence of scientists who are responsible for dodgy data upon which much of the assessment for GW has been formulated. This includes the data relied upon by the IPCC in their prognostications of doom.
If you are in the Warmaholic camp, just tell people why they should believe the hysterical outpourings from that side of the argument when they are based on junk science.
@jennifer Hubbard and @Allen Lyne,
Looks like comments here can only be in agreement to yours huh? If generalisations – “True scientists are gentlemanly” (you’re a scientific researcher?: don’t make me laugh) and emotive statements – “hysterical outpourings” are the only comments allowed, it’s no wonder sceptics have a poor reputation and lack of credibility. I’m off to a well-balanced discussion elsewhere.
Al Gore’s “AIT” was on the other nite. Not seen it yet. One of the hockey stick guys said, “this graph charts 1000 years of temperature change, and the graph doesn’t lie.” My girlfriend said see? see? I said, “What does that prove? 1000 years? Big deal. The earth is over 4 billion years old. Charting 1000 year trend of anything on a 4 trillion year old eco system is like measuring the last 30 seconds of a patient’s medical data to examine a lifetime of chronic illness. It’s just stupidity. You don’t need secret email communications to figure out that the fix is in. The deep core drilling segment in AIT is my favorite… the scientist stated outright: over the last 20,000 years there have been _dozens_ (repeat= DOZENS) of _quote_ “UNEXPLAINED” periods of rapid temperate change for which science has to date found no explanation.
And this statement is in Al Gore’s own movie.
Besides… already on “mainstream” news sites the SIXTY megabytes of email data is being described as “a few emails”….
Turn off the media. Use your common sense.
If any of the hackers are reading this though…. nice hack guys.
Major respect!!!!!
Should I apologize for a childish post about a government crackdown on the hackers who exposed the open secret of all those grant seekers? I suggested revoking ration cards, withholding health care and canceling retirement income, at least one of which (food) I admit I cadged from dear Ayn.
The worldwide mania to mandate death by a thousand economic cuts in the name of saving the planet is not the only crackpot plan being rushed right now into law. Before it’s removed, download “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” (The Lancet, Jan 31, 2009, p. 423) by Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer and Ezekiel J. Emanuel.
The graph on P. 438 suggests virtual death sentences based on age alone. Under one year old? Over fifty? It’s your time to sleep with the fishes.
Other criteria are used right now, today, in England’s National Health Service, the model for our new system. The paper lists Lottery; First-Come, First-Served; Sickest First; Youngest First; Save the Most Lives; Prognosis or Life-Years; Instrumental Value; and Reciprocity, all of which sound harmless enough.
At the risk of all our eyes glazing over, allow me to quote, word for word, one of many troubling ideas, this one under Instrumental Value: “… prioritses specific individuals to enable or encourage future usefulness … where a specific person is genuinely indispensable in promoting morally relevant principles, instrumental value allocation can be appropriate.” Yes, welcome to Chicago style, where thumbs judiciously on the scales can and will be buried deep, but it will be there. Getting your life saved at the expense of others will not be outlawed, just transferred from achievers to the politically connected.
Is this merely a fringe article, one whose thoughts will never be implemented? You may recognize the third author, whose brother Rahm is our current President’s chief of staff.
As Robespierre learned too horribly, when committees may decide life and death, those who benefit or even rule today may face the snarling mob tomorrow. From the death panels we are assured are not in today’s exact version of the new, thousand-page law (a latecomer to the Thousand Year Reich?), it is but a few quick steps to jolly public shows urging oldsters to step off smartly to make place for the young ones, then denying inexpensive appendectomies to pensioners to get them fortuitously off the dole roll, then outright mandating cutting off food rations when one’s calendar strikes Old.
According to the keen and well-placed Zeke, Old happens precisely at fifty.
Pappekak: Let’s not become guilty of judging the content based on the personality presenting it.
The fact is that Glenn beck reaches 10’s of millions of people, what he says gets heard. How many millions of US voters do you think are reading this blog?!
txt.1255550975
From: Tom Wigley
To: Kevin Trenberth
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , Philip D. Jones , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Kevin,
I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account
for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two
different things — the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
>
> Tom Wigley wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
>> lack of warming.
txt.1255538481
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: FYI–“Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat Michaels attack on temperature data record”
Date: Wed Oct 14 12:41:21 2009
Cc: Ben Santer
Tom,
What you’d need to point this out is a pdf of his thesis! Or is there a paper where
the thesis is referred to?
I recall Pat wasn’t very good at writing stuff up. There was one paper about warming in
Alaska that I recall either you or me reviewing. It related to surface warming in Alaska
and the borehole from Lachenbruch/Marshall (?) from about 1986.
With the pdf you wouldn’t need to say that much, as it is as you say stupid to leave the
Trend in with the rest of the variance.
Did the NCDC info help you sort out that data. Tom P told me that they don’t infill
certain areas in early decades, so there is missing data. Tom P isn’t that keen on the
method. He rightly thinks that it discourages them from looking for early data or including
any new stuff they get – as they have infilled it, so it won’t make a difference. It won’t
make a difference, but that isn’t the point.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:45 14/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear folks,
You may be interesting in this snippet of information about
Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to
open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels,
PhD needs re-assessing?
txt.1254832684
From: Phil Jones
To: Andrew Manning
Subject: Re: Fwd: Co2 Data
Date: Tue Oct 6 08:38:04 2009
Andrew,
Getting a bit fed up with these baseless allegations.
You could point out several things to Martin.
1. Projections aren’t made with observed data – instrumental or paleo. They are made with
climate models.
Not only is that email from 1999 but it looks as if it has been majorly edited to me. And doesn’t anybody think that this is a very convenient time for this so called ‘climate change is not our fault, it’s been made up by scienctists evidence’ to be released!!
Kirsty:
Yes, the timing is suspicious.
What we need is a full disclosure of all of the data and all of the correspondence and a full and extremely public inquiry on both sides of the pond.
The investigation should include finding out about the hack itself – who did it? Who funded it? Why was it done now rather than earlier?
One need only to read “The Report from Iron Mountain” to know that climate change is political in origin. Al Gore et. al. are simply not original thinkers!
VictorP (11:06:59) :said:
GW skeptic, I find it difficult to believe that Dr. Jones and many of his colleagues have been doing what many people seem to believe they were doing. Let’s wait for Dr. Jones’s explanation and, maybe, an objective investigation before declaring him a crook.
If they have tempered with surface temperature data sets, it would mean a catastrophy for climatology and many other theoretical and applied sciences and their practical applications. This goes beyond and above the global warming controversy. Let’s hope it has not happened.
Victor, I have worked as a chemist in industry for more than 30 years. I have been asked to change, manipulate and down right falsify data on a number of occasions. If upper management has an agenda – honesty goes out the door. That is a fact of life. The only question is if you, as a scientist, will compromise your principles for a pay check.
I even checked with a lawyer in 1979. Someone who is a certified “Professional Engineer” is protected under law, otherwise if the boss asks you to lie you must lie, quit or be fired. Being asked to lie is no defense agains being fired. — GRRrrrr
Same thing happened to me. Fudging happens lots more than the out-of-the-loop people would like to believe. It was the only reason why I left research. I loved doing it. I loved following the data to wherever it led. And I didn’t care of the results were significant or not significant, it was always fascinating. But I honestly could not stand the terribly bad ethics and the back peddling that happened when I brought it to anyone’s attention. It was a nasty experience.
After all that has been revealed, the Guardian is still banging on about doom and gloom climate change and the Copenhagen thing as though nothing happened:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change
Looks like this is all going to be forgotten and brushed under the carpet.
This is funny – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded#watch-main-area
There is significant and demonstrable distortion in the evidence advanced to support the view that warming is occurring at a level that demands political action.
In the same week we have seen the opening of the Chilcot Enquiry and the revelations about the University of East Anglia and the alleged distortion of climate change statistics.
There is a connection.
Chilcot is reviewing the issue of distortion of evidence of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) advanced to justify the declaration of war on Iraq. The issue is one of amplitude. If the WMD available to Saddam Hussain was capablE of only local and low level deployment then there was no case for war. If delivery by ICBM to devastate areas of London was a serious risk then the need for action could be made. The dividing line between the point at which wmd (low-threat) became WMD (serious and actionable) was not precisely defined although it clearly existed.
The climate change issue hinges on the reality of GW (Global Warming). This is in practice quantified as GWC or Global Warming occurring over the period of a Century. It has also been assigned a specific value at which it is deemed to become critical so that major action on an international scale is justified. That level of GWC has been set at 2 degrees C, so that beyond that point gwc (low-threat warming) becomes GWC and action needs to be instituted or reinforced. That is what the Copenhagen meeting is for.
In both cases much depends on the validity of the assessment of the defined value and the determination of when the amplitude reaches the critical level.
Can that assessment be subject to major distortion without departing from reliance upon the truth? In other words is it possible for there to be substantial deception without provable lying?
To answer that let us consider a relevant analogy.
We have in the past formed a company, the Secure Consolidated Automated Machine company or SCAM Ltd. It has traded successfully for two years producing profits of £1m in each year. It has now come unstuck, and shows a loss of £0.5 million in the third year. We need to effect a sale quickly but the ability to do so depends on a critical number. That number is the AP or Annual Profit.
The solution lies in a measure of statistical manipulation. This requires no departure from the truth. What we report is average AP. Over the three years this is £0.5 million per year. Without lying we can therefore conceal that the current reality is a loss of half a million and convey the impression of a profit of that amount.
We can however do better than that. Profit commonly relates to turnover. We have seen the combination of some expansion and inflation yield a 10% growth in revenue in each of the three relevant years. If we therefore make a projection based on these correctly stated facts we can now show a PAP (Projected Annual Profit) ten or so years ahead at the level of £1m. That should make the sale.
We will have avoided any lie but soundly cheated any buyer.
Now let us apply this model to the Climate Change issue. The objective is yield a PGWC figure (projected warming over a century) that exceeds the 2 degree C threshold.
In 1998 that is easy. In the first two decades, or more precisely between 1976 and 1998, there was a measured 0.5 degree C warming. This is the equivalent of our first two years trading at SCAM Ltd. The GWC figure is correctly stated as 2.2 degrees C and exceeds the threshold.
However in the third decade, as in the third year of trading for SCAM Ltd, there is a dramatic downturn. Actual temperature gain as measured by the ground stations recorded by Hadley is only 0.7 of a degree C, or one third of the required level to qualify as GWC rather than gwc. Moreover the more reliable satellite figures show less than half that amount of gain.
We can however tackle the issue as did SCAM Ltd, that is by some manipulation that at no point departs from the truth. The 32 year gain has been 0.57 degrees C and can therefore legitimately be represented as an average GWC over that period of 1.7 degrees C,
This is close to the required 2 degrees C but is capable of further extension by quoting a projected level, as was done in the SCAM prospectus. As gain is associated with CO2 concentration and that has been rising at 2 p.p.m each year we can project a doubling in the century and on that basis double the value we compute as the PGWC figure or projected gain over the century.
This therefore becomes 3.4 degrees C and comfortably exceeds the 2 degree C threshold.
It is of course in one sense a ‘true’ figure, in that it does not depend upon any misstatement of fact, just as the SCAM prospectus adhered to factual data. With current losses of £0.5, SCAM could declare a projected £1m profit. With current warming of less than 0.7 degrees C, the IPCC, based on Hadley representations, can assert a level in excess of 3 degrees C.
It is however a gross distortion of the truth, fully comparable with that which parlayed wmd into WMD and took the world to war on a substantial deception.
Manipulation of data really does matter. We are being offered a false prospectus. This time we should not wait for a Chilcot Enquiry well after the damage is done. Let us insist on the real truth now.
Dear MB —
Exactly! It will indeed be forgotten and brushed under the carpet. And why would it not? The pirate ship now has a full crew of cutthroats, their banners are flying, and they have productive citizenry cornered in the shallows.
“Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science
Have these people even heard of ClimateGate?
David Fairbairn (08:31:02) :
That analysis is so excellent David and so understandable to the non-scientist that I would urge you, if it’s OK with the moderators, to repost it on a more current thread, such as today’s HARRY thread.
Philincalifornia
Thanks for the suggestion. I have now posted in Harry’s Place.
My email is dvdfairbairn@googlemail.com and I also have a booklet published on this issue and a policy analysis that can be accessed on these URLs
[snip – these are for pay links – blog policy violation]
Any interpretation without of hackers work spells “EXHORTION”, and it spells
COMMUNISTS, BATHISTS in any form they care to raise their fazcist heads.
A Freedom revolt against corruption should inspire union thugs to run for the coward’s hole they cqame from
The offhand remark, above, about the President should give the hacker a medal personally calls to mind that the President has problems of his own and will soon be busy blasting his grandmother with ridicule.
As a much younger woman she witnessed the birth of her grandson IN KENYA!
http://obamacrimes.com/philjberg/BergasRelator/Berg,%20QuiTam%20Complaint%20Exb%20B-D.pdf
Sooner or later your pants fall down and everyone sees you aren’t as big as you said you were.
Thanks, David Fairbairn!!
The most blaring flag that man-made GW is a bunch of crap is the false concern for people and their disapearing habitat. If we as a species are to blame for the problem, and if our distruction is an end, then why would they be concerned about the elimination of the problem? This has always been about power and money. Control what the people do and skim the money as you redistribute it. Problem is, the major population centers of China and India are never going to sign on to any treaty and will continue their ways. So after you have taken any wealth left in the West, China will crush the West and continue polluting. Listen up you whining manatee hugging freaks who still think the end is near, there have been 5 major mass extinction events in the history of the earth. Nothing we can do can stop one. Weather or not we make it through, life will continue.
Ian Plimer at Adalaide University has been saying this sort of stuff has been going on for years. People like Monbiot have been refusing to enter into public debate and just making the usual expected personal attacks.
I hope this will help in a return to genuine science -but I understand UEA has “lost” all its base data and only has the manipulated figures for what used to be called global warming, and has recently become known as climate change.
Perhaps other “honest” researchers may instead of concentrating on manipulating facts, words and opinions begin the quest for real data and real
answers. Maybe the internet has a role to play in this much needed process.
The trade in carbon emissions is becoming big business – there is money backing both sides of this argument and none of us can honestly claim to have the whole truth.
From FOIA.zip/documents/uea.ppt
Model not perfect so there are processes in real system but not in our model that could alter model response by an uncertain amount.
Places extra uncertainty on prediction variable in form of a variance.
W e o n l y k n o w t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a n y c o m b i n a t i o n o f p a r a m e t e r v a l u e s i s t h e b e s t – i n p u t m o d e l . B u t t h a t m e a n s w e n e e d m i l l i o n s o f m o d e l v a r i a n t s .
T h a t i s t o o e x p e n s i v e – c a n o n l y a f f o r d h u n d r e d s o f r u n s b u t t h e y h a v e t o s a m p l e d i n a w a y t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h y o u r b e l i e f s a b o u t w h e r e t h e b e s t m o d e l i s &
A n d w e w a n t b e t t e r t o f o c u s o n b e t t e r q u a l i t y m o d e l v a r i a n t s s o n e e d s o m e w e i g h t i n g .
S e t o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l c l i m a t e m o d e l s a r e a l l t u n e d t o o b s e r v a t i o n s .
B u t t h e r e i s n o g u a r a n t e e t h e s e a r e t h e a c t u a l o p t i m a l m o d e l s.
O t h e r c h o i c e s o f v a l u e s f o r m o d e l i n p u t p a r a m e t e r s c o u l d h a v e p r o v i d e d e q u a l l y p l a u s i b l e s i m u l a t i o n s o f o b s e r v a t i o n s w h i l s t p r o v i d i n g a w i d e r a n g e o f r e s p o n s e s i n t h e f u t u r e.
S o t u n i n g c o u l d a f f e c t t h e d e c i s i o n s p l a n n e r s m a k e b a s e d o n c l i m a t e p r e d i c t i o n s.
F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e m o d e l s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e t h e c l i m a t e s y s t e m . H e r e s t h e I P C C p l o t c o m p a r i n g d i f f e r e n t c l i m a t e m o d e l s – b u t a q u e s t i o n h e r e i s A r e s o m e m o d e l s b e t t e r t h a n o t h e r s ?
FOAI2009.zip/uea-tyndall-shell-memo
SHELL INTERNATIONAL
Mick Kelly and Aeree Kim (CRU, ENV) met with Robert Kleiburg (Shell International’s climate change team) on July 4th primarily to discuss access to Shell information as part of Aeree’s PhD study (our initiative) and broader collaboration through postgrad. student project placements (their initiative), but Robert was also interested in plans for the Tyndall Centre (TC). What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.
Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.
Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.
Robert seemed to be more interested in supporting overseas (developing world) than home/EU studentships, presumably because of the credit abroad and their involvement in CDM. (It is just possible this impression was partially due to the focus on Aeree’s work in the overall discussion but I doubt it.) It seems likely that any support for studentships would be on a case by case basis according to the particular project in question.
Finally, we agreed that we would propose a topic to this year’s MSc intake as a placement with Shell and see if any student expressed interest. If this comes off we can run it under the TC banner if it would help.
I would suggest that Robert and his boss are invited to the TC launch at the very least (assuming it will be an invite type affair). Question is how can we and who should take this a step further. Maybe a meeting at Shell with business liaison person, Mike H if time and myself if time? I’d like to/am happy to stay involved through the next stage but then will probably have to back off.
We didn’t cover the new renewable energy foundation.
Mick Kelly
11 September 2000
There have been statements that the word “trick” could be used in other ways than fraud. However, at the end of the statement attributed are the words “to hide the decline”.
I think that putting the context here proves the dishonesty of this certain individual.
I read every word of every post attached to this article. There’s nothing that I can say that would add to the discussion. I will say though that the odds of recovering this situation are low. The people that stand to benifit from this fiasco are too well entrenched. To paraphrase algore when he says “the science is in and everyone agrees” the decision has been made and anyone that is relevant to the discussion is on board. We’re getting this “world government” like it or not. Your input is not required, your fate has been decided by your betters. It’ll be a lovely little war.
The last thing to say from my point of view is this: Flood every single person on Capital Hill: Congressmen, Judges, President, Vice President: Flood them all with paper faxes and do it with a click of the mouse. This is a FREE SITE. You may donate if you CHOOSE to. Personally, I have. http://www.americanvoice.com
I have sent 10,000 plus faxes since I joined the group. Believe me, these people have my opinion. Send your today.
The science that these liars have manufactured through the manipulation and suppression of data will be used to ratify governmental policy in the form of the Copenhagen Treaty.
How many of you have read the Copenhagen pdf file? This control system which is going to result if the treaty is signed by everyone (and that it will most likely will be..) is actually going to fund itself using the carbon taxes, which will be imposed on the already heavily taxed populations.
Yes, an ed Milliband on C4 news tonight said that revenue raised from the UK (+ other “rich” nations) will be used to subsidize “development” in the poorer nations (e.g. Brazil). So there you have it. We are about to get yet another f***ing tax and we will not be the beneficiaries. This is global communism, Ed Milliband’s father was a marxist (look it up on wikipedia).
This is clearly the plan to install a global rule over the world and destroy the Sovereignty of the United States all to the benefit of a small powerful elite group.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443#
Heh, I’m kinda late, but however. You guys make this issue of “Russian hacking” too complicated. Just who do you think we are, anthropomorphic drunken bears working for KGB, or what?
It’s completely believable that the whole project was exercised by an enthusiastic group of Russian geeks. Yes we have geeks, and they play WoW like all the geeks in this world do, and Russian society is not some militaristic system where everyone acts because of a command from a higher-up. We have imageboards like 4chan, too. And the most shocking fact is, we are no imbeciles! We can learn English to speak fluently, it’s not hard at all compared to our native language. I learned it by reading online comics, for example. It’s also studied in schools, but screw schools.
You are using the same old stereotype of an Evil Empire (Empire of Evil? I forgot), fearsome leader and hordes of vodka-powered minions. Our president (I mean the real one, not mr. bearman) knows this well and exploits it. But actually there’s very little of what the government controls in our society. It has no credit, no one goves a damn about what they say, and their attempts to look respectable suck. There are very few people in Russia who support government while not being part of it – probably 15% or so. They fake elections because people are too bored to go and vote. They’re all either wealthy gangsters from 90s or ex-KGB service people (dunno how to say) or just party relics and they’re not even hiding that. Our government joins all that shitty unprofitable global organisations, proving to be plain incompetent. And the scene where it has especially little influence is Internet.
There is no secret plot to it. Only irritation and standard hacker’s bravado.
Ilforte (18:17:26) :
You just shattered my image of russia 😉 too be fair ive only known one russian… and he was a vodka skulling spetznez officer.
I live in Australia where there is a climate change battle going on. Penny Wong the climate chance minister, Kevin Rudd, Prime minister and all there minions are now running scared at the moment through this e.mail, but they wont make that public. It started out as a slow walk now they are sprinting to the finish line at warp speed. It was only gonna take time before something like this happened, and i am glad it has come out just before Copenhagen.
The left right paradigm is quickly falling apart. What we need to do now is shout from the roof tops ” WE KNOW WHAT YOUR TRYING TO DO AND WE WILL EXPOSE YOU AND YOUR LIES “.
Al Gore has been caught so many times lying about climate change i dont think he even knows the truth anymore. We all know that when this is all over no one will be held accountable for the biggest fraud in the past 2 centuries. Treason this is what it is …………….
Nah, no one willtake resposibility when this all hits the fan. The line will be that “We were acting on the best scientific evidence available. It’s the fault of the scientists, not the politicians”.
When did a politician in the western world last take resposibility for a mistake or wrongdoing? Profumo?
Aaargh! Please fix the double typo on resposibility. Bloody keyboard.
Ilforte:
I don’t think anybody is denying the skill, much less the existence, of Russian hackers. Far from it. However, it looks increasingly like CRU wasn’t hacked by anybody, not even Brits: this release, based on what we know at present, looks more like a deliberate leak from inside.
I don’t think this could be the work of Russian hackers. Russians are not clever enough, or technologically advanced enough. No, I don’t think a Ruskie could have done this kind of thing. Maybe an Indian, or perhaps Chinese, but a Russian! Ha. You must be joking.
Mike Ewing (18:29:44)
Oh, these spetsnaz guys. They’re everywhere.
MB (08:26:48)
Too fat and obvious. Funny though. If I were you, I’d speak of “Polish, probably Georgean or Ukrainian”, it’s more effective for pissing off stereotypical Russians.
Bohemond (06:54:15)
That makes much more sense, actually. CRU can’t be an evil corporation, it’s just another semi-scientifical bureaucratical organisation and its members must have contradicting interests, like in our RAN. This also means it’s possibly divided into fractions for some time already, and what we see now is a beginning of another stage in their conflict.
Maybe Tom Clancy will write a book about all this one day 🙂
Cap and Trade is the Plan to install the New One World Government. This is just the beginning, the money plan to do this. Research Congressman Larry McDonald. He was about to expose the Plans of the Power elite and they made sure he died. Korean Flight 007…
The blue eagle flies at midnight. I can say no more.
December 5, 2009
In light of the recent Computer Hack at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK., the information now on the internet is quite interesting to say the least. It has served to call attention to the political involvement in science and the question remains, are we in fact having Global Warming?
At the heart of all this is the question, is global warming caused by humankind? Having studied the subject over the last two years, I can know that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. However, I realize that there are many that have not come to the same conclusion.
In 1859 oil was discovered her in my home state of Pennsylvania and for a long time gasoline was a waste product until the invention of the internal combustion engine and we humans found a use for it and we all know that it has become a major driver of our economy.
The problem is how do we deal with CO2 if in fact it is a contributor to climate change. I don’t think by adding a tax is the answer and the idea of a Carbon Tax at this point with are economy in the gutter is not a smart move by politicians.
First, I want you to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a environmentalist, but I am a advocate of alternative energy. I’m just a guy with a hight school education that is in love with science and technology. Two years ago, I did research on solar thermal energy and have since that time designed and build a solar water heating system that I have in operation here at my home. My motive was not the environmental issue of Global Warming, it was the high cost of energy. A Carbon tax increases the cost of energy!
I recently read an article Published by Steve Forbes, Forbes.com Special Report: Beyond Copenhagen, titled Eat my Carbon. What to do with the world’s fossial fuel pollution? Why not feed it to plants?
In my study and research on CO2, I do know that plants need CO2 to survive just as much as we humans and animals need oxygen to survive. Greenhouses growers increase CO2 to get better plant growth and it is known that plants grow better with a higher level of CO2 introduced in to the growing environment.
We just can’t switch off all our Coal Fired Electric Generating Plants or stop driving our automobiles. Well then what do we do? Just like in the early days when we found a use
for a waste produce, gasoline, through the invention of the internal combustion engine. We now can feed the CO2 to Green Growing Plants just like we have found a use in the timber business for waste wood, wood pellets, which by the way is carbon neutral. The rotting of wood in our forests produce CO2 and by using these products we contribute nothing to the natural environment.
The cost of pressurizing captured carbon dioxide and injecting it underground could be as much as much as $100 a ton. I can tell you that our farmers are paying way more than that for a ton of fertilize to get good crops.
Paul Woods, a chief executive officer of Algenol, a Florida start up that is developing an algae-to-ethanol technology. I know from my research three years ago on biofuels that that was a good possibility. I have some friends making there own fuel from used cooking oil. These guys are making enough biofuel to heat their homes and operate two trucks and two automobiles. Making fuel from what otherwise would be waste cooking oil makes a lot good sense. However, using virgin oil from food crops does not make good sense as has been demonstrated a few years back.
Their is all kinds of great technology out there, using algae is one of my favorites. Growing a non food crop for fuel while feed it CO2. We have just found a solution to the CO2 problem, if in fact it is a problem.
In light of the recent Computer Hack at the University of East Anglia,CRU, I seriously suggest that we back up and take a long look at the science, the research and the scientists that are called in to question . I want to hear more form both sides because of the cost involved in mitigating CO2 from out atmosphere. I think the american people deserve a closer look at the science and what went on at that university.
We are not as stupid as Al Gore thinks we are and it is because of his outrageous statements and his lack of science fact that motivates me to be a skeptic in this hole question on Global Warming.
John McClintock
It’s interesting reading the comments here.
Those who are attached to the idea of man-made global warming can’t bear the thought that this might be real and that the dogma to which they’ve clung might be bunk; those who are attached to their skepticism of man-made global warming are practically salivating with delight, like schoolyard children watching the humiliation of a classmate.
Fact is, whether you’re a skeptic or a proponent, the possibility that this is real should horrify and dismay anyone who champions science. The damage that it could do goes far beyond discrediting “AGW,” as people now appear to be calling it. Imagine the swath of people who will now automatically dismiss anything that comes from the scientific community; imagine the distrust, the loss of credibility that all scientists, even those who are honest and forthright, will experience.
I have long believed that, if we are truly entering a period of warming, that it’s more likely part of the natural cycle and cannot be stopped. The idea that climate change is caused by humanity strikes me as a form of hubris. But these emails do not make me happy in the slightest.
TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS – why they are unreliable and falsely represented as ‘settled science’.
The forecasts of temperature gain over the century produced by modelling can be shown to have two components, one having a high degree of predictability and the other being highly problematic.
The Greenhouse Gas theory is responsible for the first component and may be reasonably regarded as ‘settled science’. It states that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will generate a ‘forcing rate’, the direct result of which may be expected to produce a sufficient increase in the energy retained by the earth to cause a rise in surface temperature over the course of a century that we may identify as GG degrees C. This is the direct outcome of the operation of the Greenhouse Gas principle and has been calculated to be 1.2 degree C
This is the primary consequence. There are however secondary consequences, none of which are explicable by the Greenhouse Theory as such, but are dealt with by other branches of scientific knowledge. These secondary factors, of which there are potentially many, may be identified as x1,x2, x3 etc and the net sum of them all identified as X.
Each of these factors may either be of the nature of a feedback or may be an independent variable. A positive feedback arises where the factor is itself directly related to the increase in heat generated as GG.
Examining the models used by the IPCC shows that the value of X derived from these models lie within a range where X is at the low end 50% of GG and at the high end 500% of GG. These therefore yield predictions of warming within the century of between 1.8 and 6 degrees C.
These models, being constructed to yield predictions of the consequences of CO2 increase, deal only in X factors that are of the nature of positive feedback. It is this that accounts for the wide range of prediction, even though the models are very similar and the parameters introduced into them reflect a very much less extreme variation in the assessments made by scientists.
This can be readily shown by considering a positive feedback incidence of an X factor where its initial value, that is the secondary effect taken in isolation, is 40% of GG. This will now generate a tertiary effect of 16%, and a further effect at 4 removes of 6.4%. At 5 removes this becomes 2.5% and at 6 it is a further 1%.
As a result a model into which is fed a parameter assuming a 40% primary positive feedback will generate a total temperature gain of approximately two thirds. This acceleration of the predicted gain gathers momentum very quickly. As the original assumption approaches 100%, that is a positive feedback just doubling the temperature gain at the first pass, it causes the model to yield a prediction approaching infinity. It is of course this characteristic, which is mathematical and owes nothing to any empirical observation, that gives rise to talk of ‘runaway’ tipping points.
We can therefore see that the relatively modest differences in the assessment of feedback components introduced by different scientists yields results that verge on the bizarre. Those familiar with the use of modelling for business forecasting will be painfully familiar with this phenomenon. A modest tweaking of the input can give you almost any result you want, but unless the inputs and their variation are derived from hard, observable fact you are simply not dealing with the real world at all.
That is not of course to say that the X factor is unimportant. Quite the converse it is crucially significant. The question that has to be addressed is not whether the 1.2 degree C as derived from the application of the Greenhouse Gas theory is correct (it is sensible to assume that it is) but what is the net effect of the multiplicity of X factors which must then be applied to yield any kind of usable forecast.
The first point to be made is that, if we are wanting a real forecast and are not just playing modelling games, then those X factors which are NOT feedback elements but are independent must be given equal weighting. The exclusive concentration on the Greenhouse Gas theory, implicit in such models, means that all the other potential X factors are discounted. It is significant however that they have had to be brought back into the equation by the IPCC in order to explain why the temperature outcome of the last decade is so far adrift from that predicted by the models.
The second point is that the operation of the feedback x factors must be validated by empirical observation, both in terms of their quantitative effect and the reality of the causal linkage with the primary GG factor assumed when assigning them feedback status.
To describe the science of these assessments as in any way ‘settled’ is absurd given the immense complexity and metrication difficulties entailed.
If there is one overall ‘law’ of nature that deserves to be observed when confronted with such an enigma it has to be the law of entropy. It is the operation of this law that causes so much of the natural world to be constantly moving towards a state of equilibrium, recovering over time from disturbances to that state. As a general statement it can be asserted that nature just doesn’t do tipping points. Given a perturbation amounting over a century to the injection of incremental energy capable of yielding a 1.2 degree C warming in the atmosphere, it is more likely that the secondary and further effects will be of the nature of negative rather than positive feedback. We are certainly not entitled to assume either without having collected and analysed empirical evidence.
The IPCC emphatically does not have that evidence. It has fallen back on the device of seeking to carry over the degree of certainly reasonably attributable to the Greenhouse Gas theory in yielding the 1.2 degree C number to the estimation of the X factors then applied to generate the scary, and very wobbly, prediction of warming. This is thoroughly bad science.
At the heart of this aberration lies a semantic trick, all the more effective because, like a good card trick, it is so difficult to spot.
The amount of additional energy added to the earth’s total complement as identified as necessarily occurring through the operation of the Greenhouse Gas principle, must of necessity add to global temperature, that being the mean temperature of the globe. The issue now becomes one of distribution, that is how that energy becomes dispersed across the 5.974 x 1024 kg mass of the globe, and most particularly how much of it is retained in the form of a temperature gain in the 5.148 x 1018 kg mass of the atmosphere.
To obfuscate this issue the IPCC has adopted the practice of using the SAME WORDS to identify the temperature of the latter as the former. In both cases the term ‘global mean temperature’ is applied. This is readily demonstrable by examining the 26 words of the IPCC conclusion that uses the term to identify mean surface temperature, and uses it in the same way 14 times in the preceding more detailed chapter. It is impossible to derive scientific truth from such a blatant misuse and distortion of terminology. We here see the term identifying the entity to whose variation in temperature we can assign a degree of certainty ‘flipped’ to designate an entity that merits no such attribution of scientific likelihood let alone certainty.
The reality is that, as a consequence of a rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, we must expect over a century a gain in energy which, if remaining resident in the atmosphere, would cause a temperature rise of 1.2 degrees C. There are however both other unrelated factors that may cause the temperature to be higher or lower, and factors arising as secondary consequences of any temperature rise that may again act either to increase or decrease the resultant net effect. We do not currently have nearly enough scientific knowledge nor evidence to be able to make any confident prediction of the outcome.
David Fairbairn
Please note in the above comment the software of this site does not accommodate superscripts. Hence 10 to the power of 18 has printed as 1018 and 10 to the power of 24 as 1024.
DRF
[The easy convention is 10^24. Alternately, you can use HTML: sup and /sup [in arrow brackets, with the exponent between the two commands] to get 1024. ~dbstealey, moderator]
Incidentally, hacking servers and networks is a criminal offence, deemed a form of cyber-terrorisism, as the pending extradition to the US of the unfortunate Gary McKinnnon shows. It is odd that this parallel has not been drawn in the media, obvious as it is. The hack may have been done by an individual connected with climate-change denial or conspiracy-theory groups, yet the best equipped to selectively trawl specific individuals’ mail to order are the intelligence services, especially those of the UK, USA and Russia. The timing was perfect and the speed with which climate deniers used a few semantic
matters buried in thousands of documents in time for 10 days’ furore before Copenhagen remarkable.
“…. yet the best equipped to selectively trawl specific individuals’ mail to order are the intelligence services, especially those of the UK, USA and Russia. The timing was perfect …..”
Wow!
Now why would they do that? Is it that Copenhagen was going to fail (note the Senate opposition) …. and so rather than the whole thing dying a death, a reason to defer has been created, …… “those pesky deniers to blame”?
Note that the leak/hack/emanation from CRU does not contain anything definitive … Odd, that. A ‘Dodgy Dossier’ one might say?
Stand by for another Carbon Tax attempt starting in about 6 months. The thing is too politically valuable. Here are the voter-groups that it would benefit;
– Huge new cashflows benefit public employees and welfare recipients
– Another lever of coercive state power benefits ‘Greens’, ex-socialists & co.
– Increases cost of imports, and neutralises the competitive cost-advantages of developing countries, and their artifical exchange-rate ploy.
– Improves domestic employment prospects and so appeals to Unions
– Improves small business opportunities, and so appeals to the commercial right
– City, Banks, aware of massive trading opportunities.
-Big Oil in favour, as any end-user price increase is sure to give opportunities to increase profitability and also reduces risks via increased leverage on Governments.
So pretty-much a huge vote-winner from a political POV. And, as they control the best hackers in the world, why not?
PS did anybody note the comment to the effect that the IPCC can be ditched as it has done its work and is now dispensible?
Global Warming is a tool by by which the leftwingers everywhere can justify taxing everyone, including the the poor which they claim they are trying to help.
pusiffli (03:46:42),
There is not one iota of evidence that an outside hacker or government posted the emails and code. Common sense indicates that an insider posted them.
The last leaked email is dated one day before CRU made its decision to refuse to comply with the FOI request. Clearly, the emails and data had been aggregated to comply with FOIA, and when the decision was made to deny the FOI request, an insider leaked a copy of the code and emails. No other scenario make sense.
What would be the motivation for an outside hacker to expend so much time and effort to select and edit just those particular emails, and the Harry code? If someone had hacked CRU, they would have simply dumped everything online. Certainly what was leaked is only a small fraction of what was on the CRU servers.
The constant drumbeat about mysterious, un-named hackers, Russians, etc. is classic misdirection: “Hey, look over there! It’s a hacker! Probably a Russian hacker, everyone knows about those Russian hackers.” But where is the evidence? Who are the suspects? Answer: they only exist in the talking points of the lock-step media, which has apparently done no investigation, but rather, parrots what the CRU people want them to say.
No shoe leather has been expended by reporters in investigating the obvious fraud and collusion of the tight knit clique of scientists who began their careers as nerds, but now have rock star status and $millions shoveled into their pockets by Leftist foundations, NGOs and quangos, all with a heavy AGW emphasis. They are clearly bought and paid for, and the taxpayers who pay their otherwise modest salaries can’t compete with the spectacular amounts delivered by organizations buying an AGW agenda.
The inside CRU whistleblower simply ran the data through the Russian server, which effectively erased its origin. Anything else is rank speculation, endlessly repeated in order to take the spotlight off of the damning emails and coder comments showing the fraud being perpetrated on the public by the same climate scientists who tightly control the climate peer review process.
If the hacker speculation isn’t pure fantasy, then who is the suspect? Name one. Show us a “hacker” suspect. In fact, there is zero credible evidence that this leak was done by anyone from outside the organization.
Anyone reading the emails, and watching the finger pointing and suspicion among the CRU, Penn State and other actors can see that people like Mann throw their weight around, and tactlessly put others in their place with no regard for their feelings or opinions. A mature scientist being slapped down by a 30-something like Mann might not publicly protest at the time. But karmic payback is a bitch.
Is it any wonder that one of probably a dozen or more people involved in collating and preparing to comply with the FOI request, including other scientists, postdocs, paralegals, technicians, secretaries and lawyers, might have a personal motive to disclose the information when it became apparent that yet another FOI request was going to be stonewalled?
With Copenhagen approaching, someone with hurt feelings and a DVD of the data, or one of the increasingly rare individuals with old time ethics, saw the opportunity to show the world the rampant corruption and dishonesty, fueled by money and status, in what passes for mainstream climate science and climate peer review.
The new talking points about hackers, with frantic arm-waving about supposed attempted break-ins are nothing but unfounded speculation; baseless stories specifically designed to get people talk about a “what if” scenario, in order to preempt discussion regarding the strong evidence of corruption contained in the leaked information.
Keep motive in mind when you read about “what if” hacker speculation. They are simply trying to deceive the public by avoiding discussion of the real crime: deliberately defrauding the taxpayers by following an agenda set by outside organizations funneling big bucks into these climate scientists’ pockets, rather than doing the unbiased job that the public pays them to do.
I note that on my last submission before this you excised my reference to two papers identified by a URL on the grounds that these were paying sites and this was a blog policy violation.
In fact the URLs both provided FREE access to the material. The fact that the booklet is published and hence available at a price is immaterial when its full content is being made available at no charge at all. I have no interest at all in any money that might result from the published version, only a strong interest in seeing that the truth be known.
DF
MR IPAC AND THE VILLAGE WATER TOWER
An allegory for the era of Climate Change
Mr Ipac had the latest computer. It was very fast. One day it came into its own.
The problem began in the large structure in the centre of the village. On top was a water tank providing water to the entire village through a network of clay pipes embedded in the building and the ground. Beneath was a large granary, holding most of the village’s food supplies.
A patch of damp appeared in the store. It soon spread to become a full-scale leak. The logical suspect was the water tank and an expert was called in. He examined the system thoroughly, took measurements and then brought his report to the elders.
To understand what is happening, he advised, we need to grasp the Claypipe Water Theory. This is established science and tells us that a clay pipe is semi-porous, meaning that it can carry water without leaking but that when under the pressure of a water pump will lose a measurable amount of water. You are today pumping just over 3,000 gallons of water a day into and out of the tank, and measurements show that you must expect to lose about a cupful or 20 centilitres daily. You need to work out what that will do to your food store over the next ten years and decide if you need to take action.
So it was the Mr Ipac was asked to program his computer with the equations of the Claypipe Water Theory, add in the data and produce the forecast. To do this he had also to get the results of measuring the actual amount of water accumulating in the store. This yielded an answer that was at first surprising. For every cupful known to be leaking from the pipes, three cupfuls were to be found in the store.
The expert again consulted said that he could define the result but that there was no theory comparable with the Claypipe Water Theory to provide a reliable explanation. Observations indicated that there was ‘positive feedback’, meaning that the leakage of a cupful of water then went on to have a secondary effect that added another two cupfuls. A possible explanation, though one not yet demonstrated, might be that the initial leakage changed the porosity of the masonry allowing the ingress of water from the heavy rainfall of the monsoon. In any case the existence and volume of this addition to leakage to the store was not in doubt and needed to be programmed into the computer.
The result was alarming. In ten years the store might expect to be flooded to the depth of three feet. The depth could be as high as five feet and was most unlikely to be less than two. Action was imperative if disaster was to be avoided. The only feasible action to address the primary cause had to be a reduction in the number of gallons pumped each day. In other words water rationing was unavoidable.
The elders knew this would be difficult to agree, as water was not just necessary for washing and drinking but for the livelihoods of most of the villagers. It was disturbing therefore to find there was opposition in the shape of ‘deniers’ who disputed the cause of the leakage and sought to refute the evidence that it was the villagers’ consumption of water that was responsible. So strong was the feeling that this was a moral and not merely a scientific aberration that throwing such people out of the village was contemplated.
Plans therefore progressed for a major meeting of the elders to resolve the matter and bring in rationing. This was accompanied by intensive publicity and the date was set for an event towards the end of the third year of the crisis.
In the meantime however there was an unexpected development. The ingress into the store abated to a trickle, no longer yielding three cups for each pipe leakage of one, but instead barely a third of a cup. The evidence of positive feedback had reversed to become one of negative feedback.
The expert was again consulted. He pointed out that the original estimation of the feedback leakage was not based on an established scientific principle, as was the primary leakage attributable to the Claypipe Water Theory, but depended for its explanation on guesswork. The evidence on which that was based was solid but the science was not. Again he could only offer an opinion as to possible causation, not any scientific certainty. The most likely reason for the current reduced level of leakage to the store lay in the combination of a greater incidence of sunshine and a change in wind direction causing a drying out of the masonry rather than the previous addition to its moisture content. What was however certain was that the view that positive feedback would triple the ultimate effect of claypipe leakage was no longer supported by the evidence.
The elders in the meantime, having validated that the computer hardware was fault free, asserted that, irrespective of any new evidence, the tenets of the Claypipe Water Theory MUST apply and that the three foot water level forecast remained the basis for their deliberations.
At the meeting villagers were permitted to attend but not to speak. Despite this however, one villager, who in the past had nearly earned himself banishment as a denier, insisted on being heard. What he had to say was heard in dumbfounded silence.
The computer program upon which so much reliance is placed produces the result it does solely because it has been programmed to do so. Examination of the code will show that the assumption of high levels of positive feedback have been embedded in the code thus predetermining the outcome irrespective of the data fed to the system. Since that section of code is entirely evidence based, and in no way depends on the Claypipe Water Theory for support, it must be rewritten to reflect new evidence. If that is not done the conclusions drawn from it will be nonsense.
He now proposed a motion to throw out Mr Ipac’s computer and revert to the application of common sense.
The motion was carried. Water is not subject to rationing and the village continues to flourish. There is however now an advertisement on the village notice board for a computer being sold very cheap. For scrap.
David Fairbairn 8th December 2009
as a sceptik you can also interpret these emails as hiding the worst that can happen in the near future…the fact that mails from diferent years are released could mean that someone form inside published those mails to distract population from real climate change….decline could be a quick temp dropping…..world temp could collapse and this could be ascociated with global economic crysis and last year oil price bloowing on air.goverments of the world are united for the first time to hide the decline….a catastrophy near the corner…a reason why they are prepareing in secret.how would goverments of all the countries prepared 3 billions people for the end of the world? they wouldn`t!hide the truth.they are also worried about telling bed news to each other
It’s incredible how the ‘deniers’ in these posts show such glee over this. It’s like they finally have a chance to say ‘global warming is nothing to do with me’ as they look in their childrens and grandchildrens eyes. Man, I would love to think it isn’t real myself…but I am not convinced 100% either way because there are so many vested interests on both sides, although on balance the greater benefit is to the business lobby. Also, it seems there is at least there is some wider consensus that there is global warming of some description, so it’s not like the issue has suddenly gone away and we can sit back and relax. The reality of global warming by whatever means is not good news and will lead to all manner of misery. We need to have honesty about whether it is a reality or not, regardless of the cause.
Having read through alot of the emails, including those that all the fuss is over, I still don’t think there is much evidence of conspiracy. People in the US certainly would miss alot of the obvious irony and (black) humour in these emails. Talk of blocking FOIA requests looks to be just people expressing exasperation at the interruption and hassle it involves, and the intrusion into something they’ve devoted years on. Also the data manipulation is something many people would be familiar with and it doesn’t mean it is done with any mal-intent. I have had situations where reporting figures have to be manipulated because for some unforeseen reason one of the inputs is unavailable or corrupted, so you just fudge it based on the historical trend, otherwise the report would be nonsense, and you’d face endless questioning over something you know is not really an issue. The effect of that fudged data doesn’t negate the whole data in anyway.
Note that I am just as skeptical about any massive global issue like this. It is the classic way of introducing unwelcome change by making it ‘inevitable’. Now the question becomes ‘who would benefit?’. The deniers seem convinced that it is a conspiracy to increase taxes. This could well be true, and there’s nothing new in the way governments can get creative around ways to increase the tax base, often (usually?) in league with large corporates who outsource the business. The cap and trade business is certainly a huge potential generator of money, and the oil companies are going to be big players in that as a way of offsetting their loss in profits from the decline in oil and gas supplies. Both the government and corporations are going to have to find new ways of funding further exploration for oil and gas and new alternatives somehow now that they’ve blown a couple of generations worth of tax on bank and auto industry bailouts. And if oil and gas is as close to or has reached the decline stage, then reality is that industrial society will have to be massively down-sized. It may just be that the climate change issue is being used to prepare us for this.
In any case, the next decade or two will see a totally different world emerge. What shape it will take is what matters, and whether it will be introduced democratically or not. Can’t say I’m optimistic on that note.
Pete if you really want to find the truth about catastrophic global warming (anything les isn’t worth the fuss rather than saying there must be something to it if these people are pushing it, just look out the window.
As regards “global warming by whatever means is not good news” May I ask, if we were only talking about less than the medieval warming, why that isn’t good news? This is the problem with knee jerk opposition.
Ryyurio I’m not sure how to answer your point because you produce no actual fact nor make any specific point. It merely seems to be throwing every possible fantasy at the wall in the hope something will stick.
The forecast of global warming of 3 degrees or more rests entirely on the acceptance of two propositions. The first is that there is an initial injection of heat from the doubling of CO2 of about 1 degree. The Greenhouse Gas axiom asserts that this MUST occur, and that if it occurs it MUST be down to CO2.
The second is that this gets amplified by ‘positive feedback’ and that the impact is a further 2 degrees of warming.
It is necessary to accept BOTH these propositions to support the forecast. BOTH have been the subject of trickery that can be and should be exposed.
The meaning of ‘global temperature’ has been flipped when quoting the Greenhouse Gas axiom. When the same meaning is used in the axiom and the conclusion it is no longer true at all that CO2 MUST be responsible.
In the second case it has been stated that there is ‘CO2 feedback’ that is positive. It is demonstrably NOT CO2 feedback but heat feedback and that has been shown beyond doubt to have been negative over many millenia.
Check the words. Check the logic. You will see this is right.
David Fairbairn
CLIMATE AND WORDS
In a 100 years it will be 3 degrees C warmer. At least. That is what the IPCC tells us. There is a machine, a model, in fact several versions of it to give us the answer.
I am no engineer. I rely on the engineers to tell me. But I look at the machine and know it is wrong. Not wrong in the sense that the engineers would find it wrong. I don’t know enough engineering to do that. But I do know it is missing the front wheels. Both of them. It cannot work. Maybe I should tell someone.
I do know something about one part of the machine. It is the computer part. In fact I am a bit of an expert and that made me look closely.
Some time back the government asked me to take a look at why these computers fail. Especially the big ones. It made sense to ask me then as I was Director of the National Computer Centre. I headed up the work. It was though some real experts on the team who did the work and came up with the answer. That answer was at the time perhaps a little surprising. Not any more.
It wasn’t the data that went into the computers. People are not that stupid. Nor are those feeding in climate data. It wasn’t the machinery of the computers. When it comes to adding up they don’t get it wrong. It wasn’t the processes or rules put in to the programs. Scientists don’t get natural laws and axioms of physics wrong.
It was the logic. Logic means words. Especially in Greek. Computers are fed a diet of words. Numbers are identified and given a meaning by words. Words set out the rules that link one word with another.
If you suspect a computer system has got it wrong, look hard at the words. Nearly always that will lead you to the nonsense. All that is necessary to trash a system is to confuse the words. Use the same words to label what is different and the computer, being a dumb sort of beast, will give you a wrong answer.
In London at a restaurant we get the bill and may pay with a cheque. In New York you get the check and pay with a bill. Feed that to a computer and watch your accounting system collapse.
So I look for words. I may not be very clever as an engineer but I just listen to those who are and take their word for it on the engineering bit.
That is what I bring to the party. I took a good look at the IPCC climate system, checked the words and the front wheels fell off.
The first wheel was fairly easy. It was obvious. The second more difficult.
There are only three bits we need to look at. Two nouns and one verb. The verb is a process or scientific theory.
Word one describes the warming itself. Global temperature. It is the first noun in what the IPCC says about climate change. It is clear what it is. It is the readings from a lot of thermometers placed in the atmosphere close to the surface. They add these up in East Anglia and give us the result. It is about 14.5 degrees C. It has gone up half a degree. Not much doubt what we are talking about.
Word two, the next noun, is not so easy. ‘Anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’. However with the aid of a dictionary we can get that too. They mean CO2, and especially the stuff we emit. It has gone up in the air from about 285 parts per million to 385. Clear enough.
And then there is the verb. The Greenhouse Gas Theory. That connects these two nouns, or says it does. It goes like this. We have a hot sun over there radiating energy. We have the globe, which is us, over here receiving it. In between we put some CO2 . This has the effect of keeping some of that energy from getting away again. The globe gets hotter. That is what the engineers tell us. So in my book it is true.
However, having a bit of a thing about words, which is what I do, I ask the silly question. What gets hotter? The globe of course. What goes up? Global temperature. So that’s what you feed into your computer. Yes, of course.
Got it! Same words, different things. The temperature the guys in East Anglia are carefully adding up to put into the computer is not the temperature of this large, spherical globe at all. That globe is at least 100 times hotter and in any case the word describes something with 1.2 million times the mass of the atmosphere on the surface.
The crisp £10 note has gone into our computer labelled as an invoice, and the annual accounts are up the creek.
Does it matter? Well the engineers can tell us that, but it looks to me as though our car has a problem with one wheel missing. For a start the idea that it has got to be noun2 bringing about a change in noun1 goes by the board. There are a whole lot of other nouns in the dictionary.
However I didn’t stop there. Looking at words gets addictive. Moreover there was another wheel looking a little wobbly.
So lets ask about this addition of heat. We know how it gets there. It is this Greenhouse Gas effect. The CO2 up there effectively delivers a belt of heat. Let’s label it with the words CO2 Direct. Is that the lot? No, there is another belt to come, in fact a succession of them. That is CO2 Feedback.
How does that work? I am not an engineer but it would be as well to understand what is happening. It goes like this. Some more CO2 gets into the atmosphere. We put it there. The CO2, being a greenhouse gas, makes heat. It sends the heat to the oceans. The oceans get warmer. The ocean sends out greenhouse gas (mostly water vapour but some CO2). This gets added into the atmosphere. And so it happens again. And again and again and again. No wonder the engineers want us to be worried.
So that is CO2 Feedback. But do we know that this is what actually happens? Can we work that out from what happened in the past? Can we put it to the test?
The answer is unfortunately not. Or perhaps only maybe. Having CO2 go shooting up like that is not something we have been able to see and measure. It is ‘unprecedented’. Just look at the hockey stick. Or perhaps better not as that is a bit over the top. But its true anyway. So we are stuck with it. CO2 Feedback happens.
Time to look at the words. We have to accept it happens because it is a feedback of CO2 increase and that is something new. So can’t deny it or prove that it doesn’t. But is that right? Are those the right words. Another stupid question.
Another rather obvious answer. It isn’t the CO2 that gets the oceans coughing up the feedback. It’s the heat. And then more heat so it does it again. It looks like it isn’t a CO2 Feedback after all. It’s a Heat Feedback.
There is a simple test. Simple enough for even a non-engineer to do. Get out a large hairdryer and make the original heat blast that way. Not a CO2 injection just plain hot air. Is the feedback any different or exactly the same?
We have our answer. The words are wrong. It is indeed a Heat Feedback. Moreover it matters.
It matters because we can very easily test whether Heat Feedback is positive or negative. There are plenty of examples of heat bouncing up and down between ice ages and warmings. But the message we get is clear. If there is positive feedback it doesn’t stay that way for very long. Of one thing we can be sure. It is negative feedback that wins out.
We may guess that CO2 Feedback is positive. We may claim that noone can prove otherwise. But in the case of Heat Feedback we know it proves to be negative and have the data that shows it.
But what we fed into our computer was CO2 Feedback. What we got was the wrong answer.
It doesn’t just matter. It matters a lot. CO2 Direct is responsible for only about a third of the warming. About 1 degree C out of 3. That is what the engineers tell me. The other 2 come from positive feedback. That is what the computer says. But the computer has been given the wrong word.
So I don’t really know about the science but I do know about the words. I know too about what a computer does with muddled words like that.
It is time to get to work on the vocabulary. Get the words straight. Attend to the logic. Then perhaps I can believe what the engineers, with their heads buried in their computers, are telling me.
In the meantime I can try and work it out for myself. There is a lot else besides CO2 emissions out there. There are many natural forces doing their thing to push temperature up. It hasn’t GOT to be CO2 after all. Furthermore the only bit of that we can rely on is the direct effect. That looked like being 1 degree C ten years back, but rather less on current form. The feedback of 2 degrees C, which I now see is a heat feedback, hasn’t persisted in the past and certainly isn’t doing so now.
I will buy about one tenth of what the IPCC has been saying, and maybe double that to be safe. Beyond that if I want that sort of advice I will go to a fortune-teller not an IPCC propagandist.
Sorry David, I’m not convinced. BTW I also have worked with computers since 1976 so I know a bit about them to. I understand what you’re saying about word semantics and how that can make a crucial difference, often by orders of magnitude. I have been the victim of this myself at times where people smarter than me have just been to clever and caught themselves out. By contrast I am particularly careful (pedantic if you like) to remove ambiguity and any chance of transposing data across variables. This is achieved by simplicity being the underlying principle. At the very least start simple and build from there and testcase as much and as often as possible, hopefully with some independent cross verification. But realistically, the number of variables and quantity of data being dealt with in climatic science would probably be well beyond most people and strethes some of the most advanced computer platforms.
Now in the case of Heat vs CO2 feedback, one of the side effects of increased heat in the atmosphere, and the oceans, is that it will cause more CO2 (and methane which is worse) to be released from sources where it had been locked up previously. Things like the permafrost regions, glaciers and polar ice all melting, rivers and lakes putrifying as they evaporate faster and get filled with more phosphate polutants and more forest fires contibute alot more CO2 to the atmoshere. There would also be water vapour going into the atmospheric mix from warming. So is this really heat, or CO2 feedback?
Now, of course there are all the continuing natural sources like volcanoes, rotting vegetation, flatulence, leakage of natural gas from the ground etc, all of which have gone on over the millenia. Volcanoes in particular can contribute enough at times to cause massive climate changes. Perhaps now, the difference is that there is enough carbon emission from burning fossil fuels that it is similar to or equivalent in potential effect as a number of volcanic eruptions, not in the exactly the same process, but effectively the same.
I’m happy to admit it’s well beyond my level of understanding, but my instincts, in combination with observing the changes around me, tell me that we are experiencing a pretty dramatic change of climate. I have seen this in both hemispheres over the last 40 years or more. I am not qualified, or pretentious enough to question the ‘science’ that is constantly being called into question in this blog and I will make up my own mind. . I also don’t think the ‘establishment’ or the ‘new order’ or whatever percieved conspirators or bogeymen have quite reached the stage where scientists globally, in the main, can be bought, persuaded, threatened or fooled into believing a basic non-truth. If they have then we are likely in for an experience at least as bad as what global warming promises, and probably worse at least for a while. Mind you…there have been big in-roads to academic institutions over recent decades by the corporates… ore thanmost are aware of (or care about).
In the mean time I’ll maintain a level of scepticism and a distance from either persuation. Follow the money, there you’ll find the real benefactors of this intrigue.
“Mind you…there have been big in-roads to academic institutions over recent decades by the corporates… or than most are aware of (or care about).
In the mean time I’ll maintain a level of scepticism and a distance from either persuation. Follow the money, there you’ll find the real benefactors of this intrigue.”
And far, far vaster inroads into academia by government- the 800-pound gorilla of research funding. Do you really think governments don’t have agendas, or aren’t willing to pay to get the results they want?
More to the point: the billions being spent on climate science are entirely a function of Impending DOOM! If it were ever admitted that there’s nothing catastrophic going on, then Mann, Jones & Co, can wave bye-bye to their huge grants, splashy international conferences and caviar wedges, and return to what climate science was before Rio- a sleepy, forgotten academic backwater.
It’s no longer relevant to wonder whether inducements might exist to make the CRU crew lie and fabricate: we now KNOW that they lie and fabricate.
Bohemond – of course Gov’t has an agenda, and this is very closely aligned to the corporate goals. The two are just arms of the same beast, the industrial miltary complex of which Gov’t is an integral part. And yes, lots of people associated with climate science are probably being ‘looked after’ pretty well, just as many in the pharmacology and nuclear and ‘war’ sciences are. The vested interests will always support those who support them and buy off those who waiver. The problem for ordinary people is trying to decipher any truth from all of this, when the agendas are never openly revealed. This is why both sides of the argument have to be given equal weight because the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I’m certain alot of the time what seem to be opposing sides are in fact working to the same agenda and using the divisions to hide the greater truth. As you suggest, there is alot to be gained from having people kept in a constant state of anxiety over real or invented threats (e.g. WMD in Iraq and ‘Al Qaeda’, whoever that is). It clouds peoples judgement and makes them easier to manipulate. All you have to do is read http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf to get an idea of how far they’re prepared to go with this and why. It’s about money (read resources) every time. Who gains? Not you and me that’s for sure.
This article is also very revealing about the extent that supposed western democracy is being eroded…another attempt to allow infinite amounts of money from any source to pay for candidate funding in the US. Only those that support a certain agenda would have any chance of ever representing the country: http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/
And talking of inducements, there’s ample evidence of companies financing campaigns against climate science even when they acknowledge the threat themselves. These are detailed and referenced on George Monbiots website here. I know many people hate this guy but he is dedicated to something he believes in and it’s a worthy balance to keep an eye on his postings. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/
As I said in my earlier post, I suspect this climate issue could have at it’s root the need to cut back industrial society due to energy constraints. The prospect of that is just as scary as climate change once you really analyse the implications of it. It can be interpreted as a ‘doomer’ scenario and I’m sure alot of people would see it that way. Denial is a very powerful mental defense. I would like to do that, it’s easier. But I think it’s important to have a fuller mental map and respond accordingly, accepting responsibility if you like, but being aware that the ‘bogeymen’ are sometimes just shadows, other times worse in the reality. This blog is very good to follow the energy issue BTW http://ricefarmer.blogspot.com/
http://ricefarmer.blogspot.com/
“I suspect this climate issue could have at it’s root the need to cut back industrial society due to energy constraints. The prospect of that is just as scary as climate change once you really analyse the implications of it. It can be interpreted as a ‘doomer’ scenario and I’m sure alot of people would see it that way. Denial is a very powerful mental defense. I would like to do that, it’s easier. But I think it’s important to have a fuller mental map and respond accordingly, accepting responsibility if you like, but being aware that the ‘bogeymen’ are sometimes just shadows, other times worse in the reality.”
I have the same suspicions aswell, this is a very serious hypothesis that few people have taken into consideration.
So Copenhagen has passed and nothing happened. Or did it? I found this interesting article that claims to reveal the real reason nothing happened. It seems the billions the wealthy countries would provide poor countries to deal with expected effects of climate change would come with some very large strings attached. Namely that the money would be channelled through the IMF and World Bank. These institutions are well known for forcing countries that have taken loans into a state where they become endlessly saddled with debt, have to give away their resources cheaply and have to allow the multi-national corporates in to pillage all sources of money they can through privatisation of essentials like water, energy and bank loans etc etc. Through economic pressures and financing political and/or armed struggles they force changes in governments to those more ‘compliant’ to to the powerful governments of the world.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-real-reason-behind-the-copenhagen-walk-out.html
So something did happen in Copenhagen. The wealthy elite showed their hand. It was revealed that this was just a business opportunity as far as they were concerned. They don’t care if these countries end up submerged or desertified. It is only about money. Absolutely nothing else. I think that reveals alot about those that have the ruling hand.
For the poor countries it was a choice. Become a slave to the wealthy elite forever, or take your chances with whatever the climate throws at you. Good luck people.
I take your points about the World Bank and IMF, Peter, but the money was not to be as loans. It was supposed to be gifted by the rich to the poor nations because the rich are responsible for the CO2 emissions that are destroying the world, sinking the poor countries etc yawn etc.
My fear was that any money gifted would either finish up in personal Swiss or Canary Islands bank accounts in the time-honoured way of aid to poor countries. Or else it would be put to use the other way despots and dictators use aid money–to buy arms and armies to prop up their corrupt regimes.
It is a fact that many loans from the developed world to the undeveloped come with strings attached that a certain percentage of the loan must be used to buy armaments from the donor country.
I guess that’s a bit off topic. Whatever the reasons the poorer nations certainly smelled a rat and Copenhagen came to a predictable non-outcome.