Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

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: http://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.


About these ads

1,616 thoughts on “Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

  1. It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag….

    … and into the box.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.”

  6. 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!

  7. 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.

  8. “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.

  9. 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.

    Huh?

  10. “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?

  11. 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.

  12. 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?

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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…

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. “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.”

  20. 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.

  21. 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?

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. *** 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]

  25. 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.

  26. “Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:”

    The relevant material starts at comment #101.

  27. “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.”

    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.

  28. 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?

  29. 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 ……

  30. 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?”

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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?

  36. 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 !

  37. 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.

  38. I believe “hide the decline” refers to the divergence “problem” with tree rings at the end of the 20th century.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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. :)

  42. 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

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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?

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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

  49. 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 !

  50. “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”
    …….Keith Briffa

    …….Allegedly

  51. 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

  52. “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.

  53. 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.)

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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

  58. “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.

  59. ‘”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.

  60. 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.

  61. @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 ;-)

  62. 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.

  63. 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?

  64. 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.

  65. 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.”

  66. 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.

  67. 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????

  68. 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.

  69. 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

  70. “…..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?

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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 :-)

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. **********************************
    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.

  79. 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.

  80. 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?!!!!!

  81. 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.

  82. 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…

  83. 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.

  84. 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

  85. 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.

  86. 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.

  87. 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

  88. 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…

  89. 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.

  90. I’m downloading now. Massive file. This will provide juice for years. The dog that ate the homework just vomitted.

  91. 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.

  92. 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.

  93. 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.

  94. @ 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.

  95. 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.

  96. 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….

  97. 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.

  98. 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.

  99. 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]

  100. 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?

  101. 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.

  102. 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.

  103. 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.


  104. 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 …

  105. 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/

  106. This may not be a hacker but an inside job. Some normal human being tire of science being used for political purposes. Very interesting.

  107. 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 ……

  108. RC has gone strangely quiet, just like how the guns stopped as Luke began his attack run on the Death Star…

  109. if real, this seems like it could be the Russians or the Chinese trying to derail Copenhagen. the timing seems too coincidental…

  110. 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.

  111. 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.

  112. 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.

  113. 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.”

  114. 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.

  115. 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 ??

  116. 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.

  117. 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…

  118. 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.

  119. 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?)

  120. 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?

  121. 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”.

  122. 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.

  123. 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:

  124. Roger Knights (16:44:30) :

    Stop wasting your time. “Trick” has a meaning, and it is widely understaood. You cannot undermine that.

  125. 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.

  126. 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

  127. 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.

  128. Another thought – it is possible that the perpetrator (hacker or insider) has not yet released everything. There could be more files yet to come …

  129. 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.

  130. 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.”

  131. 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.

  132. 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.

  133. 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

  134. “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.

  135. 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.

  136. @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.

  137. 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”

  138. 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.***

  139. 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?

  140. 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.

  141. 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.

  142. 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

  143. 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.

  144. 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!

  145. “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.

  146. 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…;-)

  147. 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

  148. 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

  149. 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.

  150. 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.”

  151. 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.

  152. “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.

  153. 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

  154. One day there will be another St Bartholomew as many people will have enough of the green guilt spewing… watch out!

  155. 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…

  156. 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.

  157. @ 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.

  158. 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.

  159. 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/

  160. 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.

  161. 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.

  162. “”” 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.


  163. Icarus (16:46:28) :

    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 …

    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?
    .
    .

  164. 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.

  165. 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!

  166. 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
    >>>

  167. 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.

  168. On the one hand (as Le Carre points out), topicality is always suspect. But on the other hand, topicality is a direct draw . . .

  169. 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.

  170. I have the same md5 hash as W. Earl Allen (17:19:02), namely
    da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 FOI2009.zip

  171. 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 :)

  172. “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…

  173. *****************
    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.

  174. 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.

  175. 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.

  176. 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…

  177. Furthernore, it is WUWT that is at risk by posting names and addresses, not the individual readers posting that info.

  178. 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

  179. 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.”

  180. “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?

  181. 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

  182. 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.

  183. 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

  184. 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.

  185. 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.

  186. 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.

  187. 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.

  188. 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

  189. 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.”

  190. 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.

  191. 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?

  192. 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.

  193. 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.

  194. 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.

  195. 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.

  196. 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

  197. 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.

  198. 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

  199. 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.

  200. More of the worst will come when the particpants start pointing fingers like individuals in a band of caught thieves.

  201. previously posted fingerprint: da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 FOI2009.zip

    my check: da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 *FOI2009.zip

    looks to be the same by my meager analysis! :)

  202. “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.

  203. There are loads of other planets to try Global Socialism on. Meanwhile… we’ll always have Cuba.

  204. 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

  205. 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

  206. 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

  207. 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.

  208. 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.

  209. 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

  210. 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!

  211. 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)

  212. 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?

  213. 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?

  214. I haven’t read all comments, but it seems the warmers are not showing up in the thread tonight…. odd…. or not.

  215. 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.

  216. 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.

  217. 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…

  218. 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!

  219. 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?

  220. 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.

  221. ***************************
    ***************************
    “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/

  222. “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

  223. 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?

  224. 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

  225. 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.

  226. 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.

  227. 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…

  228. 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?”

  229. “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.

  230. 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.

  231. “This is absolutely real. There is no way to fake it.”

    Indeed. No one hides a lamp under a basket.

  232. 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.

  233. ~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.

  234. “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

  235. 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

  236. 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

  237. 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.

  238. 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.

  239. “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.

  240. 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.

  241. 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

  242. 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.

  243. ChrisinMB (20:17:09) :

    “The zipfile contains a trojan named Win32.Agent.wsg”

    Thats wrong. There is no trojan

  244. 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.

  245. 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.

  246. 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

  247. “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.

  248. 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.

  249. 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 …..

  250. “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.

  251. 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.

  252. 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.

  253. All’s still silent at RC since about 6pm today (I assume Eastern…not too long after things started up here).

  254. 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.

  255. 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.

  256. 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.

  257. 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.

  258. 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.

  259. 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?”

  260. 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.

  261. 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.

  262. 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

  263. 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

  264. could this be the work of “Deep Cool” – the Mole within Hadley CRU that send Steve the data he was looking for??

  265. 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.

  266. I read this site daily. The new (obscure) poster’s seem to be coming out of the woodwork on this subject! Quite interesting.

  267. [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”.

  268. 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.

  269. 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?

  270. 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!

  271. 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.

  272. [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

  273. If these emails are validated by a proper official investigation, then Phil Jones must go as director of CRU.

  274. 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.

  275. 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.

  276. 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.

  277. 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!!!!!

  278. 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.

  279. “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”

  280. 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.

  281. 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.

  282. 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

  283. 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.

  284. 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…

  285. 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.

  286. 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. ☺

  287. 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.

  288. 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.

  289. 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!

  290. 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.

  291. 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.

  292. “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!

  293. Tossing a T-Bone to the wolf pack might allow one to tip toe away during the confusion- – - a well connected political ploy?

  294. 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.

  295. Oh, Damn,

    I think I may have hitched my ride to the wrong horse…

    Politicians in various countries on the green machine…

    Mike

  296. If these emails are real it will be worse for people like Phil Jones than the iceberg was for the Titanic.

  297. 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“.

  298. 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.

  299. 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.

  300. 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?

  301. 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′

  302. 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

  303. 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.

  304. [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.

  305. 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?

  306. 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.

  307. 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.

  308. 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.

  309. Roger Knights (16:44:30) :

    I’m with you on the meanings of trick

    I use programming tricks, meaning non-obvious techniques.

    DaveE.

  310. [ 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:

  311. 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…

  312. 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.

  313. Bernie (22:24:23) :

    The emails suggest that Wegman’s social network analysis had real substance to it.

    Excellent observation. Wegman nailed it.

  314. 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?

  315. 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….

  316. 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]

  317. 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.

  318. Why is this news not been posted to Fenton Communications, I mean Environmental Media Services, I mean RealClimate.org? (Sorry I get them confused)

  319. 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

  320. 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!

  321. 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.

  322. 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.

  323. 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.

  324. 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 !

  325. 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.

  326. 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!

  327. 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.

  328. 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.

  329. 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…

  330. 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.

  331. 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

  332. 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.

  333. 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.

  334. 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.

  335. Perhaps Copehagen could have a follow-up meeting in Singapore. I hear they still use the flogging technique.

  336. 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.

  337. 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.”

  338. 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.

  339. 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

  340. Niphredil (21:10:27) :

    I think it was james bond, he always saves the day

    No, I think it was Courage the Cowardly Dog. :-)

  341. 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…

  342. 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….

  343. Robert Wykoff (21:32:02) :

    this is SuperNova!!!!!

    Svensmark shows that supernovas cause cooling. This news could put manmade global warming on permanent ice.

  344. 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.

  345. 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.

  346. 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.

  347. 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.

  348. 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.

  349. 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.

  350. ~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

  351. > 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…

  352. 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.

  353. 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

  354. 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.

  355. On the one hand (as Le Carre points out), topicality is always suspect. But on the other hand, topicality is a direct draw . . .

    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]

  356. 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

  357. 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.

  358. 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.

  359. 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.

  360. 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

  361. 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.

  362. The funniest one so far is a discussion on how to protect FTP/web pages:

    From: Mike Salmon
    To: Mike Salmon
    Subject: Re: Yamal 2009
    Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:58:44 +0100
    Cc: Keith Briffa , Tom Melvin , Tim Osborn , Phil Jones

    I’m not thinking straight. It makes far more sense to have
    password-protection rather than IP-address protection. So, to access
    those pages

    Username: steve
    Password: tosser

    Have a good weekend!

    Mike

    The username and password must be a reference to Steve McIntyre, I have no doubt.

  363. 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?

  364. 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?!?!

  365. 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!

  366. 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

  367. 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.

  368. 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….

  369. 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

  370. 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

  371. 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.

  372. 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/

  373. 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.

  374. 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.

  375. Unfortunately, I have zero confidence in the completely global-warming-captured mainstream media to even mention this scandalous, sordid affair.

  376. 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”

  377. 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

  378. Second galileonardo

    - but lots of anonymous dropping this link into well known UK blogs eg Guido without any comment which looks fishy.

  379. 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.

  380. 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

  381. 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

  382. 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

  383. 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

  384. 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

  385. 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.

  386. 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.

  387. “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

  388. 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

  389. 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.

  390. 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)

  391. 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.

  392. 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.

  393. 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.

  394. 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

  395. 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.

  396. 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.

  397. Is this really an outside hack? An internal whistleblower (who may have made it look like a hack) seems just as likely to me.

  398. 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.

  399. 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…

  400. “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.

  401. 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

  402. 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.

  403. 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

  404. 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.

  405. 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

  406. 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

  407. 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.

  408. 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

  409. 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.

  410. 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.

  411. 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.

  412. 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.

  413. 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?

  414. 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

  415. 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?

  416. 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

  417. Be very careful with this stuff. If I can read & edit the files, anybody can. I smell a trap …….. but I could be wrong.

  418. 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

  419. 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.”

  420. 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.

  421. icehawk55 (00:15:46) :

    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.‘

    I think the Mike in this reference is Mike Evans. Please be very careful matching pronouns and names to antecedants.

  422. 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.

  423. 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

  424. 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?

  425. This preface was sent by the hacker/mole on 17 November to various sites [from CA]:

    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
    Sample:
    0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
    1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
    0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
    0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
    0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
    1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
    1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
    1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
    0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
    0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
    0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
    0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
    0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
    0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
    1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
    1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
    1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
    1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
    1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
    1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

    Sounds to me like someone on the inside, rather than a hack. Time will tell.

  426. 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.

  427. 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.

  428. 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.

  429. 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

  430. 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?

  431. 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

  432. 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.

  433. 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.

  434. 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.

  435. 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

  436. 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.

  437. 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

  438. 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 ?

  439. 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.

  440. 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.

  441. 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……

  442. 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.

  443. 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.

  444. “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

  445. 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

  446. 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.

  447. 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.

  448. 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’).

  449. 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.

  450. 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…

  451. 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

  452. 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.

  453. 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

  454. 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.

  455. “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.

  456. 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.

  457. 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.

  458. 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

  459. 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 !

  460. 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?

  461. 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?

  462. 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.

  463. 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.

  464. 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.

  465. Rhys Jaggar (05:38:24) :
    Not sure what the rules of engagement are about releasing Phil Jones’ email address…

    Given that his email address is right there on the CRU web site, I’d say it’s no problemo.

  466. TonyB (05:29:52) :

    Tallbloke 5 22 34

    They are presumably referring to David Holland

    tonyb

    Laughing up their sleeves at him in fact.

  467. 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

  468. 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.

  469. “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.

  470. 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
    >

  471. 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?

  472. 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.

  473. 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!

  474. 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.

  475. 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!

  476. 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.

  477. 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,

  478. 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!

  479. 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.

  480. 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.”

  481. “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.

  482. 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

  483. 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….

  484. At least the hacking seems like it occurred. UEA IT are enforcing a password change.

    Whether the content has been modified is another matter

  485. 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. :)

  486. 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?

  487. 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

  488. 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.

  489. 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

  490. 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.

  491. 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.”

  492. 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

  493. 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]

  494. 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.

  495. “This thread is an embarrassment just as the Briffa non-scandal was here and at CA.”

    Not feeling so good this morning, eh Scott?

  496. This is excellent.
    Now watch as the AGW cockroaches, in the light of truth scurry desperately for cover.

  497. 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.

  498. 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?

  499. This thread is an embarrassment just as the Briffa non-scandal was here and at CA.

    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.

  500. 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 “?

  501. 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.

  502. 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.

  503. 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.

  504. 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.

  505. 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

  506. 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.

  507. 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.

  508. 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.

  509. 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.

  510. 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.

  511. 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.

  512. 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

  513. 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.

  514. 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

  515. “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.”

    Such hypocrisy. They can all go get arrested with James Hansen, so where’s the harm in a little hacking?

  516. 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.

  517. 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!

  518. “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.

  519. 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.

  520. Scott – from the contents of the emails – if they are genuine, they write more in the language of eco warriors than scientists.

  521. Whether the leaker is an insider or someone external, it is appropriate to refer to him or her as a “whistleblower.”

  522. 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.

  523. 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!

  524. 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?

  525. 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?

  526. 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.

  527. 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.

  528. “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.

  529. 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.

  530. 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

  531. 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.

  532. 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?”

  533. 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

  534. 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.

  535. 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?