Release of CRU files forges a new hockey stick reconstruction

It seems no matter where you look, “hockey stick” shapes pop out of data related to climate. Today, the most extraordinary day in climate science seen in quite some time, was no exception.

And, the day is not over. But honestly I’m too tired to continue. Thus I’m going to present the dataset gleaned today in raw form, but without the final endpoint. There’s no smoothing nor splicing of dissimilar datasets, but granted it is not a complete dataset. I’ll have complete data tomorrow.

Readers will recognize that even though the endpoint has not been established, the conclusion from the graph is clear. We are living in times of extraordinary data, never before seen. It’s accelerating, and worse than we thought.

WUWT daily stats - 11/20/2009 - click to enlarge

UPDATE: the final number at midnight Nov 20th, 2009 was 187,988 hits.

Sometimes, there is irony.

In other news, WUWT’s post on the CRU data hack was the number one post on WordPress today, beating out CNN, People magazine, and other well known media outlet posts.

Click for a larger image

I wish to offer my sincerest thanks to the WUWT moderation team. Thanks also to readers who spread the word and participated in the largest ever thread.

About these ads

230 thoughts on “Release of CRU files forges a new hockey stick reconstruction

  1. “We are living in times of extraordinary data, never before seen. It’s accelerating, and worse than we thought.”

    I think the word you are looking for is “unprecedented”

  2. Good to see what you look like Anthony!!! Very well done for creating and managing an outstanding site of great interest to many thousands of people.

  3. “. . . the largest ever thread.”
    Nearly 1,200 comments and 180,000 hits in one day (and it was the 4th post of that day). At the risk of stating the obvious, I’d say you struck a nerve. (I liked the commenter that said they had run out of popcorn. A colleague was also riveted to the thread and emailed to say, “Who would have thought that a scandal would bring this house of cards down? Not bad science, not bad policy but good old fashionsed bad behaviour.”

  4. Congratulations Anthony. This is a breakthrough for you to a new level of exposure. It proves that truth will out.

  5. Congrats on hitting # 1 on WordPress! Hopefully as this thing unfolds you, AirVent, and Climate Audit will get some well-deserved recognition in the mainstream press. That is, if the mainstream press even bothers to cover it!

  6. Very well done for everyone involved in bringing this to WUWT. I, as I am sure many others are too, spreading the word.

    Still no MSM coverage here in Australia, just more alarming talk of high temperatures and storms here in Sydney, and flooding in the UK (Worst in 1000 years apparently).

    Congratulations.

  7. It is because WUWT provides rapid and timely topical climate news stories that point to good science or to flaws in assumptions – what we want to see – no self satisfied “so there it is bean brain” talking down to viewers. A good set of well informed commentators that can take the story further. Why be surprised ?.

  8. A most extraordinary Friday.

    Great job by the mods.

    Now that’s a hockey stick I can believe in. I’ll be monitoring Quantcast & Alexa to see how these figures show up. Earlier today, Quantcast had figures up through the 19th. And if RC’s been as civil as some earlier comments seem to indicate, they’ll probably have quite an uptick in their numbers as well.

  9. A day that has confirmed the suspicions of many inquiring minds…
    A day that has opened many peoples’ eyes…
    A day that should stop unfounded taxes and regulations…
    A day that should help make the world a better place…

    A truly momentous 24 hours…

    Thank you Anthony. Thank you Moderators. Thank you Contributors.
    Without you none of this would have been possible! Amazing.

  10. An amazing day. An amazing blog. Sanity’s extraordinary good fortune. And deepest thanks to (probably) the insider who was not going to sit still for any more bad behavior on the part of criminals masquerading as climate scientists. By the way, does anyone want to call him/herself a “climate scientist” anymore?

    Now, what’s next? How about scientists taking back all their professional societies — deep-six those board members who voted for AGW or “global warming” or climate change”, demonized CO2, and supported the IPCC and Copenhagen without a vote of the membership. Everyone should be “purged” and new bylaws written and approved by the memberships to prevent a similar conspiracy from happening again. Almost one of the biggest frauds in history. How many billions have they squandered so far?

  11. An amazing day. An amazing blog. Sanity’s extraordinary good fortune. Congratulations, Anthony and moderators. Whew! What a job.

    And deepest thanks to (probably) the insider who was not going to sit still another minute for more bad behavior on the part of criminals masquerading as climate scientists. By the way, does anyone want to call him/herself a “climate scientist” anymore?

    Now, what’s next? How about scientists taking back all their professional societies — deep-six those board members who voted for AGW or “global warming” or climate change”, demonized CO2, and supported the IPCC and Copenhagen without a vote of the membership. Everyone should be “purged” and new bylaws written and approved by the memberships to prevent a similar conspiracy from happening again. Almost one of the biggest frauds in history. How many billions have they squandered so far?

  12. Fine work, as always, Mr Watts.

    Why, I wonder, did this theme generate so many hits? Could it be that many were waiting to find something that appeared to confirm their suspicions?

    I am sure there is one thing lying behind all the opinion polls that tell us the majority simply don’t accept the AGW scare story, that thing is nothing more than “it just doesn’t smell right”.

    One confirmatory reading is now marked on the “stenchometer”. It will take a few more. I am ever hopeful that they will seep out to assault our nasal passages and ever grateful that courageous people like you, Mr Watts, are here to bring them to public attention.

  13. Anthony, please keep up this important work. I’ve no doubt that EAU/CRU will be working flat out right now to be able to explain, by Monday, how we’ve just misunderstood those e-mails.
    Nothing yet from the BBC, here in the English District of the new European Empire.

  14. Let’s hope we see a similar graph for scientific fraud convictions v. time before too long. It will start from a low base and go exponential in 2010 … mmm, but I’m not holding my breath.

  15. I see the enormous efforts at positive spin (or positive denial – mountains out of molehills, cherry-picked quotes, might not all be real) starting at all the “usual” team sites.

  16. That’s the most beautiful (and accurate) hockey-stick I’ve ever seen.

    Thank you, WUWT, for fighting the good fight. You (and science) have won and the alarmist rats will now be jumping off their sinking luxury liner and onto safer ground. Will Captain Gore stay the course or jump a lifeboat? What will be the next ’cause celebre’? We wonder. Hooray! Good work.

  17. I have it on good authority (from the Hadley files) that you’re all a bunch of hooligans. What we have here is a “hooligan hockey stick”!

    Cheers! (as the Hadley poofs love to exclaim)

    CH

  18. Sunlight and fresh air are excellent at eradicating toxins, germs and pus.

    Despite the weather, it has been a very sunny week.

    ”Shine out, fair sun, till I have bought a glass; that I may see my shadow as I pass. ”

    – R III

  19. James Delingpole has as a good piece on:- http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
    The rest of the UK media seems to be ignoring it commpletely or fussing round the UEA in damage limitation mode.
    This will not make a scintilla of difference to Copenhagen or to the policies of Obama, Merkel, Brown, Rudd and all the rest. None of that is about science, anyway. Not even the corrupt and arrogant ‘science’ perpetrated by Phil Jones and his band of eco-fascist crooks.
    But it is to be hoped that it is yet another (and a big clunky) spanner in their machinations. Sooner or later the truth will of course out. And this is a milestone along the way.
    Just have to hope that too much damage hasn’t already been done to human society (and to the reputation of true science) when this tired and comprehensively discredited AGW bubble eventually bursts.

  20. I see RC is trying to go for a record too – they seem to have given up moderating to increase the post count.

    But seriously, thanks to AW and his team for their services to scientific truth and open-mindedness.

  21. The BBC is currently preventing discussion of the issue with this statement:

    “Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.”

    Closing the stable door?

  22. Anthony

    Congratulations – but you had me spooked for a second – raw data showing warming? And then I looked at the axes and realised what you plotted. For a second I thought it was temperature data and my heart dropped.

    Keep up the excellent work.

  23. Oh Dear…

    1056478635.txt

    From: “Mick Kelly” To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) Subject: NOAA funding Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000

    Ninh NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN. How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious. Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not! Best wishes Mick

    ____________________________________________ Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784 Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/ _________________________

  24. Who’d a thunk I’d a stayed awake half the night on this. I was holding out for decent behaviour (by us) in this sea of appalling rudeness and corruption of Scientific Method, and I think that is coming through nicely.

    Only the BBC shock me: interviewing the CRU folk with no mention of the “whistleblower” aspect. None at all. No suggestion that perhaps this stink needed to come out if we are to restore good science.

  25. Without doubt this is the high water mark of the AGW flim flam. The emails do little to destroy the sad science of climate warming; rather they call into question the integrity and the honesty of the Hockey Stick fanboys and their pals.

    People who have been reading WUWT and CA have already known that the “team” is willing to lie about, suppress, ignore and attack anyone and anything which challenges their deeply flawed point of view. The emails simply confirm that has been obvious for a couple of years.

    The AGW fat lady is in the wings warming up.

    In Copenhagen she will sing her first aria. And she will keep singing until doubt and science take their rightful place in the climate debate.

  26. This is an amazing ride! Thanks Anthony and moderators!

    This hockey stick is impressive, you could ask the “de TEM” to per-review the data…. LOL

  27. .

    And how about a donation to Mr Watts at WUWT??

    http://www.surfacestations.org/donate.htm

    If you are a regular viewer of WUWT, you must get as much enjoyment from this site as two or three trips to the cinema, or one ball-game. That has got to be the equivalent of $50 – surely!!

    .

    Come on everyone. If you want to see a political change, it will not happen in a vacuum. Campaigns require money, and WUWT and CA do not run on fresh air and Hail-Marys.

    Dig into your pockets, and dig deep. Let’s keep this ball rolling.

    Ralph

    .

  28. Ditto!!
    I hope this all leads to corrective action at the state, legal and media levels.
    The entire world has been defrauded. THERE HAS TO BE COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES.
    When I think about all
    1. The “green taxes” I’ve paid,
    2. The costly regluations that had to be dealt with
    3. The tax money paid to fund this fraud
    4. The tax money paid forall these bogus studies
    5. The taxes paid to fund the IPCC
    6. those damn expensive climate conferences
    7. the political time devoted to a non-problem
    8. all the scientists who had their careers ruined
    9. all those green subsidies for renewables
    10. all the kids in hunger because of biofuels
    and so on,
    It’s time that these people be investigated, indicted and juste meeted out.
    Yes, I think if we all assembled in a class action suit, we could finally get this ball rolling.
    Reconcilliation? No way!
    Those fraudsters can thank their lucky stars they aren’t living in the Old West days.

    I’m gonna bring this up with a lawyer I know and see what avenues are possible. They took, correction, THEY STOLE, enough of my money.

  29. The news have now been featured in the on line version of the British Telegraph here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html
    They are mainly focusing on “One of the emails under scrutiny, dated November 1999, reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    Scientists who are alleged to be the authors of the emails in question have declined to comment on the matter. “

  30. If someone in the states knows a lawyer competent in these matters, then I think we ought to band together legally and go on the offensive.

    I’m ready to contribute $500.00 (five hundred) into a legal fund to address this. If everyone puts in $5, $10 or $20, multiply it by a thousand, and we have formidable war chest.

    I think the best place to start would be a British or US Court.
    If there are lawyers in this blog sympathetic to our cause, please step forward.

  31. Congratulations to everyone involved in exposing this (assuming it all turns out to be true).

    I have this uneasy feeling that this is a complex rouse, designed to prove the evils of climate change deniers ahead of the Copenhagen conference….

    But if it turns out to be true, the I hope Anthony Watts & Stephen McIntyre are nominated for the Nobel prize. They truely deserve it.

  32. Wonder of wonders, Thank you (King for the day) Anthony
    Just watched BBC news on the satellite, floods in England disasters left and right but not a word of global warming, normally it would be the big news ”England is drowning in global warming’

  33. As others have already said:
    Major kudos to WUWT; and
    long live THIS hockey stick.
    Ditto ruthlessly objective science.

    Difficult to know for sure without the benefit of hindsight sometime in the future, but it’s tempting to wonder if this might turn out to be one of those critical-mass ignition days; when the sandy foundation of the whole AGW house of cards started to visibly wash away. . . .

  34. The exposure process we have watched so far mirrors the exposure of the MP’s expenses scandal closely.

    For our ex-imperial cousins from across the pond, I should note that the British Members of Parliament are currently embroiled in a scandal about their expenses. As the highest authority in the land, they signed them off themselves, and were getting quite creative about what they charged for.

    A journalist had spent many years trying to uncover details of the frauds, but at every turn she was stymied by the refusal of Parliament to cooperate – in exactly the same way as CRU. Then, a few months ago, an internal ‘hacker’ copied a lot of the expenses claims and sent them to a newspaper – and the scandal was exposed.

    Compared to the MPs, who were lying blatently, I think the CRU e-mails I have seen are embarrassing, but can be presented as minor – internal discussions about a topic can well sound extreme when taken out of context. What interests me far more is the apparent plotting to deny Steve any publication outlet, followed by ignoring his work on the grounds that it has not been published. This strikes at the heart of science, and should be grounds for dismissal…

  35. The British Brainwashing Corporation’s Gravy Train Heads for Copenhagen

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229695/BBC-dispatches-35-staff-climate-talks–creating-carbon-African-village-does-year.html

    “BBC dispatches 35 staff to climate talks – creating as much carbon as an African village does in a year

    20th November 2009

    The BBC is sending 35 people to next month’s climate change talks in Copenhagen – creating as much carbon dioxide as an African village does in a whole year. The corporation said its delegation of 12 presenters, along with a backup team of researchers, producers and camera crews, will spend up to two weeks in the Danish capital on expenses to cover the global summit.

    Critics said the numbers were ‘absolutely staggering’ and accused the BBC of playing fast and loose with licence payers’ money. If all 35 BBC staff go by plane, they will generate around six or seven tons of carbon dioxide.
    Conservative MP Philip Davies said: ‘It’s absolutely staggering. It’s yet another example of how wasteful the BBC is. It begs the question what all of these people will be doing when they are there. On the subject of climate change, the BBC seems to lose all its critical faculties and it will probably be just a fawning exercise over these environmentalists anyway. It would be nice if one of these 35 people asked some pertinent and critical questions about climate change. But I suspect they will all be subscribers to the extreme environmental agenda.’

    The BBC delegation is expected to include the corporation’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin along with a team of science and environment reporters. Political editor Nick Robinson may also attend, given the expected presence of Gordon Brown, while the BBC is considering presenting the Ten O’Clock News live from the summit at some point during the fortnight.

    Next month’s United Nations talks were intended to create a new global climate treaty that would commit developed and developing countries to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Without a deal, most scientists and environmentalists say the world is heading for a ‘dangerous’ rise in global temperatures of between 2c and 6c by the end of the century. However, world leaders now concede there is not enough time to get a formal treaty in place, and that another climate summit will be needed next year.

    Earlier this month the BBC came under fire for spending £20million on an army of advisers, strategists and ‘decision makers’ at a time when programme makers were facing fierce budget cuts.

    A spokesman for the BBC defended its decision to send such a large team to Copenhagen. ‘The BBC will provide in-depth multimedia coverage across a wide range of outlets, including the main network news bulletins, BBC Breakfast, the BBC News channel, BBC World News, BBC Radio including Five Live and Radio Four, and the BBC News website,’ he said. ‘The Copenhagen conference is a major global news story and we will deploy 12 on-air presenters and reporters, supported by 23 producers, camera operators, engineers in total. They will be phased over the course of the ten-day event – and won’t all be there at the same time.’ However, he refused to say how much the corporation was spending on the talks or how many of its staff would be going to the capital by plane.

    The Government has yet to announce how many people it is sending to Copenhagen. Mr Brown has promised to go, along with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband. One insider said: ‘It’s a standing joke here that the BBC will have more people there than the Government. On the last summit we sent around 30 people.’ In contrast to the BBC’s delegation, Greenpeace is sending just two people from the UK, while Friends of the Earth pans to send 12.

    Susie Squire, of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: ‘It’s unnecessary for the BBC to send so many people – and hypocritical. It’s out of touch with what most licence fee payers are thinking. After the scandal about BBC waste, you’d think they would be tightening their belts.’

    Six to seven tons of carbon dioxide is equal to the carbon footprint of 18 Kenyans for one year.”

    …not that it makes a blind bit of difference to the climate how much carbon dioxide is produced by anybody doing anything. It’s just that those BBC staffers don’t even believe their own propaganda anymore.

  36. Thanks for your great work Anthony, you are a hero of all Life on Earth.

    Can’t wait to see the self inflicted incitements that fall out from this leaked information assuming it’s not been falsified.

    How do we know it’s good leaked information anyhow?

  37. “Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.”

    Will they also temporarily remove all comments about AGW by the AGW alarmists now that it has been exposed as a likely fraud? All scientists must now rethink their positions and come clean. We need to know the truth. If we don’t know then get together and find it. This is serious, not some joke as billions of dollars and millions of lives are at stake.

  38. “First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

    Ironically this is quoted on the back of the Futerra Communications “Rules of the Game.pdf”

    Sweet – bring on the endgame

  39. Mods: This is all very interesting, but what people really want to know – assuming this revelation about Hadley is significant enough to dismember or seriously damage the entire AGW hypothesis – is:

    How will this debunking/scandal effect my 401K, my house value, what kind of car I drive, the value of the dollar, international trade, my job, the cost of groceries, gas, and electricity, etc. ? How it will impact the political balance of power over the next 3 years, and other mundane issues of concern to the average ( US ) citizen.

    Ordinary folks don’t give a rat’s fanny about the “science” or the internal shenanigans of some obscure research center. They care about how and when it might impact them personally in ways they may not even realize.

    How about some words of wisdom for all the “Joe Sixpacks” out here in the real world?

    Reply: Stay out of show business. ~ ctm

  40. Lindzen Trashes “Global Warming”

    After nine climate scientists, all believers in global warming, are interviewed by Tom de Castella in the Financial Times today, Dr Lindzen has his say.

    The FT doesn’t want me to reproduce the whole article, so here’s the link, and Dr Lindzen’s contribution:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f1d9f856-d4ad-11de-a935-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

    The sceptic

    Name: Richard Lindzen
    Age: 69
    Nationality: American
    Position: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Expertise: Atmospheric dynamics

    Richard Lindzen is by turns charming and cantankerous. “That is the stupidest question I’ve ever heard!” he yells when I ask whether global warming is occurring. Later, as I outline the layman’s notion of what warming means, he barks: “Stop this bullshit!” When I cite a spokesman for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change saying the world warmed by 0.6°C over the 20th century, he puts it down to the natural variability of the climate.

    Raised in the Bronx and educated at Harvard, Lindzen is the most respected of the climate change naysayers among other scientists. Arguing that CO2’s impact on climate has been overstated, he says that emissions can keep growing with no consequences. The pre-industrial level of CO2 was 280 parts per million, we are now at 380ppm and the negotiators at Copenhagen want to stabilise it at about 450ppm. But Lindzen says we can safely climb past 10,000ppm. Even if for some reason there is an impact, we will have ample time to see it coming, he claims.

    Contrary to what the models say, he argues that the world has not warmed over the past decade. We’ve underestimated natural variability, he says. And in the context of “only” 0.6°C of warming, the argument that man has caused most of it is not tenable. His critics say his emphasis on the past 10 years is a red herring.

    Assertions of climate change were not based on a 10-year trend but on a 30- to 50-year period.

    Lindzen is convinced that global warming will one day be exposed as a con. “I hope,” he says, “it’s in my lifetime.”

    Personal stance: Drives a small car, uses energy-saving light bulbs and says he probably uses less energy than “the climate change activists in Washington with their Mercedes”.

  41. Daniel o Connell( the Irish liberator) said “educate that you might be free”.
    Keep it up the war is still to be won.

  42. Pyromancer76 wrote:

    Now, what’s next? How about scientists taking back all their professional societies — deep-six those board members who voted for AGW or “global warming” or climate change”, demonized CO2, and supported the IPCC and Copenhagen without a vote of the membership. Everyone should be “purged” and new bylaws written and approved by the memberships to prevent a similar conspiracy from happening again.”

    Yes, the republic has no need for such scientists. Here’s something I just posted on the “Breaking” thread with the aim of preventing science’s bureaucracy from getting the bit in its teeth and running off half-cocked:

    A reform I suggest would be to create a board of overseers, chosen more or less at random from the membership of scientific societies, to oversee their boards of directors and executives, and to counteract, like a balance wheel, activities of extremist/activist infiltrators.

    I also posted this: “Science” needs to climb down from its high horse and pay attention to its responsible critics (like academics involved in Science and Technology Studies—i.e., the sociology of science), especially the reform proposals of constructive critics like Henry Bauer. (E.g., he’s suggested that there should be a “science court” where disputed or fringe issues could be debated and evaluated by expert panels.) My own main suggestion is that scientific funding agencies should be split up into half a dozen competing smaller agencies, to encourage more long-shot funding (such as DARPA backs) and to discourage the development of monolithic group-think.

    Without lots of institutional reform, “science” is liable to become just another professional “conspiracy against the laity.”

  43. I just posted a question on the Whitehouse Blog, asking if the President will have any comment on this Hadley scandal. It will be interesting to see if they gen something up, and what form it might take, given the administrations position on Climate Change. I’m not holding my breath, but just prodding them a bit. Might be worthwhile if everyone else did the same.

  44. Let me give you a tentative congratulations, subject to peer review of course! This is the price of success, Anthony. We see a hockey stick and we try and knock it down!

  45. Good one.

    Not bad not bad at all. It seems the voice of reason works.

    Anyway me thru looking for merminks me and mine we hunts the fearsome blubber whales that steals too much oxygen and emits too much poison methane.

    Fearsome Beasties.

    When we leave safe arbour, they bless our poons.

    The great hunt begins, not bad for a Lubber, not bad at all.

    Now we hunt.

  46. Slightly off topic, but we shouldn’t get too excited about recent expose on the CRU!

    What Jones et al could be looking to is the classic British tactic. Bring in the Police, which they have done, have an exhaustive (& by definition expensive) investigation will take place, all data will sub-judice, & therefore illegal to view or discuss, after an 18 month investigation, bodies will be selected for interview & charges made, then their lawyers will counter & demand at least 6 months for trial preparation, a trial date will be set for 9 months later, then a lengthy drawn out trial will be undertaken, say 3 months with recesses & adjournments, then the defence lawyers move for a mis-trial, then a new date is set, another 6 months goes by. By that time those concerned will be able to fabricate something better to cover their rear ends. Perhaps I am too old & cynical? Thank goodness for the internet!

  47. The sad part of all this, it that 90% or more of the population don’t know what is happening. They only look at little clips on the news that mann ops men is killing the planet and change channel to look at Oprah.

    The media will simply talk less about the warming.

    All this is a fight between two groups of elites.
    — In one corner, you have the skeptics with a excellent knowledge of the sciences involved.
    –In the other corner you have alarmist of all sorts who feel guilty and need to buy indulgence.

    Another hockey stick I would love to see would be in the number of news stories in the main stream media, but I don’t see this as possible. Mainly because it takes honesty and humility to admit you where wrong.

  48. Amongst all the praise being heaped on WUWT, CA and the rest as they lay out the implications of this material (which I’m delighted to endorse), let’s not forget the folk who got it in the first place – technically competent and politically astute with it. Look at the timing.

    I wonder if we’ve seen all of it yet – there might be more.

  49. Seems that it is not so good for your job position to disagree with global warming movement:

    > On something completely different – just agreed to review another
    > crappy
    > paper by Chappell/Agnew on Sahel Rainfall. Chappell is out of a job –
    > and still
    > he tries to write papers saying the Sahel drought might not have
    > happened!

    >
    > Both are just time wasters – but necessary to do unfortunately.
    >
    > Weekend away with the family now – back Monday!
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil[/quote]

    Sahel HAS seen more rain!!!! thats not debatable. But not in line with AGW horror.

    text 1188557698

  50. I think (bearing in mind that it’s late on Saturday night and I’ve had friends around for a dinner party – excellent wine, but the food I cooked was ordinary) that this blog has reached a tipping point and Anthony has got only 92 months to save the world. Or is it Charles has only got 92 months? Though it might be Gavin? Or Mike? Keith even? Somebody? Someone should do something about this. Someone else. Such are the evils of strong drink. I’m going to bed.

  51. @ ctm . :) Ok, I can take a joke. :) It would be nice tho, if somebody would put it in the context I mentioned. After all, the issue does have impacts outside of the scientific world.

  52. I would like to join with the others in extending my heart-felt congratulations to WUWT and, of course, CA and all the others. This is an astounding development. The emails provide a damning indictment, but they’re probably just the tip of the iceberg. Most likely the really damaging emails were on their private accounts and so will not be revealed.

    There could also be some interesting revelations when all the data files have been explored and analysed, but that will take time. I note that in one of the internal zips there are many files with names that contain the word ‘CENSORED’. Old hands at CA and WUWT can probably hear the alarm bells ringing. It will be *very* interesting to see what Steve M makes of these!

    In the past I’ve felt very pessimistic about the whole rotten business of climate ‘science’, but I do see some reasons for hope. Here’s one. I’m a long-time reader of the Daily Telegraph, one of the UK’s leading newspapers. I have been disgusted by the Telegraph’s biased and one-sided coverage of climate change. But it may be changing.

    A short month ago I would have made this true claim: that in its coverage of climate change the telegraph *never* gives the other side of the story. But I’m happy to say I can no longer truthfully make that statement. A few recent examples in the printed Telegraph:
    1. Recently one of their main writers, Simon Heffer, stated explicitly that he does not believe in AGW.
    2. Another of their main writers, Charles Moore, today has an excellent article on the moronic nonsense of wind power. He comes perilously close to saying that he is a climate sceptic.
    3. Yesterday the Telegraph carried a short climate change report. About half of the report was devoted to comments by Viscount Monckton.
    4. Today the Telegraph has a two-page spread about Nigel Lawson, who was Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. It uncritically mentions his sceptical beliefs about climate change.

    One could say that these things are ‘unprecedented’. Perhaps the tide really is starting to turn. However, in today’s printed version there is not the slightest whisper about the CRU story. This is a bit ironic, for it was the Telegraph that blew the story about MP’s expenses wide open earlier this year. This story, just like CRU, was made possible by a leak of confidential data.
    Chris

  53. I would just like to say well done. I have read this blog for a while and seen the way in which you have been insulted and abused on other sites.

    Vindication I’m sure feels good.

    Well done for everything.

  54. From: J Shukla To: IPCC-Sec Subject: Future of the IPCC: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500 Cc: Ian.allison@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, neville.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx……

    great stuff:

    “”There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for action”.

    1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?

    I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for “action” at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly referring to science based adaptation.

    For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the city of New Orleans – or more generally about the habitability of the Gulf-Coast – using climate models which have serious deficiencies in simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes”……….

    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=861&filename=1202939193.txt

  55. Anthony, Anthony, Anthongy, [ tsk, tsk, tsk]

    If we have learned only one thing from this blog, it is this. When the data is not favorable to AGW, it must be read UPSIDE-DOWN.

    Thus, yesterday was the LEAST busy day on WUWT.

  56. Congrats on a great feat – this looks like some of the best news for a couple of months. But to all those already popping champaign bottles, I’d say: hold your horses. This matter isn’t about science, it’s about politics, and power. There’s too much at stake, too much has been invested by the likes of Mr. Gore and whoever is backing them.

    I’d say this will end up white-washed in the end, also thanks to the means through which the data was obtained. Just look at for instance Charlie Sheen’s 20 Minutes … Or the Lisbon Treaty – a year ago this looked like a sheer insanity that could hardly be taken seriously by anyone who actually read it; problem is almost no one did, including politicians (most of whom were actually ready to sign even before the text was available to anyone, themselves included). Or the Codex Alimentarius, etc.

    Also bear in mind that this news spreads like wildfire only in the English speaking world, but when it comes to all the other languages populations it will be slowed down and distorted by the media reporting it (that’s already happening, as there’s no point for them to re-print the original English texts and they seldom link to the original source even if ‘legit’ or official) – it’s the same as if the rest of the world didn’t have access to the original raw data to be able to ‘peer review’. So passing this info onto the non-English speaking nations will be up to local personalities trusted enough by sufficient numbers in local populations, but also depending on those personalities’ view of the whole matter.

    Just my 5 cents, sorry for a lengthy post :)

  57. What is the evidence that the files were hacked? An assertion by Jones? I believe it was an inside job.

    How likely is it that a hacker would have the coincident ability to obtain the files from outside and know what files would be of interest? And also be aware enough to use the loaded term “FOIA” in the filename?

  58. Two thumbs up for Anthony and the Mods!
    (BTW, that always sounds like a Motown group to me. :o))

    But I believe Alan the Brit (03:02:18) has it pegged.

    “[...] investigation will take place, all data will sub-judice, & therefore illegal to view or discuss, after an 18 month investigation, [...] lawyers will counter & demand at least 6 months for trial preparation, a trial date will be set for 9 months later, then a lengthy drawn out trial will be undertaken, say 3 months [...] lawyers move for a mis-trial, then a new date is set, another 6 months goes by. [...] Perhaps I am too old & cynical? Thank goodness for the internet!”

    And I’m not really very sure there will ever be a trial in the UK or a congressional inquiry in the US. This will all get stonewalled and then swept under the carpet and a few people might take an early retirement… that’s all.

    BUT the “consensus” has now been shown for what it really is and the various journals might just open up their pages a bit more. So I heartily second Alan’s “Thank goodness for the internet!”

    Now I think I’ll just go over and sit in the cynics corner with Alan tB.
    .
    .
    P.S. I didn’t catch a reaction from anna V. Did she weigh in?

  59. Geoffrey Lean at the Telegraph is ignoring this. (Well now, there’s a surprise. Probably hasn’t been told what to think yet!)
    His piece today is that the floods in Cumbria are “proof” of global warming. He’s not getting an easy ride, I’m pleased to say.

  60. From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Stefan Rahmstorf Subject: Re: urgent help re Augusto Mangini Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:35:51 -0600 Cc: Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa

    Hi Stefan – Valerie was the lead on the Holocene section, so I’ll cc her. I agree that your approach is the smart one – it’s easy to show proxy records (e.g., speleothems) from a few sites that suggest greater warmth than present at times in the past, but our assessment was that there wasn’t a period of GLOBAL warmth comparable to present. We used the term likely, however, since there still is a good deal of work to do on this topic – we need a better global network of sites.

  61. I’ve decided to save the casually curious from the need to download 61MB of stuff, unzip etc. by sticking the emails (with addresses futzed and some phone numbers ditto) on my webserver along with a fairly basic search engine.

    Now anyone can search for “M&M” or “FOI” and see everything that shows up – no need to rely on journalists or bloggers potentially selectively quoting emails. Also if you see a quote on a page with a somewhat cryptic reference such as “1103647149” or “1103647149.txt” you can paste the numbers in to the “Open” box and get the file displayed for you.

    The tool is here

    http://www.di2.nu/foia/foia.pl

  62. Well if being a party to a criminal computer break-in is what it takes to get people to read this blog, go for it!

  63. “Dig into your pockets, and dig deep. Let’s keep this ball rolling.” Ralph

    Indeed! But deep is not needed if many heed.

    Next month for me. I is broke this one.

    Thanks for the reminder.

  64. Thanks for hard work Anthony. It is blogs like this and CA that have the pressure on for truth, no matter what that is that has driven this. Be it a leaker or hacker it was the quest for truth that has won. The “Fat Lady” isn’t singing yet, but I think I can hear her warming up. Thanks to all truth seekers, yes that’s all of you here at WUWT!

  65. Anthony Watts is both brilliant and a class act.

    The CRUtape letters and Meltdown Mann will be a game changer.

  66. P Gosselin (01:18:08) :

    Ditto!!
    I hope this all leads to corrective action at the state, legal and media levels.
    The entire world has been defrauded. THERE HAS TO BE COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES.
    When I think about all
    1. The “green taxes” I’ve paid,
    2. The costly regluations that had to be dealt with
    3. The tax money paid to fund this fraud
    4. The tax money paid forall these bogus studies
    5. The taxes paid to fund the IPCC
    6. those damn expensive climate conferences
    7. the political time devoted to a non-problem
    8. all the scientists who had their careers ruined
    9. all those green subsidies for renewables
    10. all the kids in hunger because of biofuels
    and so on,
    It’s time that these people be investigated, indicted and juste meeted out.
    Yes, I think if we all assembled in a class action suit, we could finally get this ball rolling.
    Reconcilliation? No way!
    Those fraudsters can thank their lucky stars they aren’t living in the Old West days.

    I’m gonna bring this up with a lawyer I know and see what avenues are possible. They took, correction, THEY STOLE, enough of my money.

    _____________

    Good idea P Gosselin,

    May I suggest a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT against all those involved in this fraud, LAUNCHED IN THE USA.

    I woud also suggest that there is ample cause for criminal charges – these fraudsters make the Bernie Madoff’s of this world look like rank amateurs.

    Thisis no longer a matter for scientific debate.

    It is now time for civil and criminal prosecution.

    Regards, Allan

  67. I don’t want to comment on the story rather on the main stream media reaction. I have been following this story since Thursday PM and I periodically checked both the NY Times and the Washington Post to see even a report of the data theft. Nothing until after 6 PM on Friday. The mainstream media don’t like to see their carefully crafted tapestry torn apart. They were litterally so frozen in their tracks they could publish NOTHING, even in electronic format, for 24 hours on a story that has implications, allegedly, for the future of the planet and a meeting that will save the planet from inevitable destrcution. Anthony, my hat is off to you and the other bloggers who broke this story. We are witnessing a revolution in real journalism while the traditional newspapers sat on their thumbs and became more irrelavant.

  68. Its the ultimate in whistle blowing and could possibly spare BILLIONS of our grand children from being snagged in the drift net of the Global Warming industrial machine, I’ll sit on that jury right now. Taxation is generational theft, detaining terrorists is done so without their being read Miranda and scientists went the way of religion falsifying their message in order to scare the peasantry into submission before their altar of Global Warming but all was done for the “common goody goodness” so that makes them one and all “the right thing to do”. Get over the “how they were caught” and back to the shining fact that science, the pursuit of ultimate truths, was being fabricated. Any falsification in scientific method is abomination and no amount of spin can “pretty up” that ugly truth.

    My grandchildren thank whomever is the whistle blower/hacker and we sincerely hope you take solstice in your part of saving the society of man billions better spent elsewhere. Imagine 100 billion spent on bioengineering crops for harsh climates or the same spent on aids research.

    As for whatsupwiththat readership, everyone who is a regular reader knew why to frequent this blog and no so do a lot more folks. I’m not surprised as there had to be at least a few hundred thousand curious minds unaffected by Jabba the Gore’s apocalyptic fantasies.

  69. Fun to be part of it. I got my own hockey stick out of it. Now, if I could just use it to bash (insert Senator’s name here) soundly about the head and shoulders, we might get somewhere.

  70. “Nigel Brereton (01:59:09) :

    RE J.Hansford (23:48:09)
    In the end, it is the science that wins.

    Unfortunately the focus in the mainstream press at the moment is on the criminal act of hacking not the criminal act of falsifying data.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm

    Hopefully at least one paper here in the UK will pick up the case and run with it. Do not forget that The Telegraph exposed the expense scandal of Westminster MPs and the public prosecution service decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute the individual who sold the files to The Telegraph. This is definitely in the public interest and I would assume that once it is exposed the prosecution service will not launch a prosecution in this country if the files are genuine and fraud has been committed. There was also the case of the Home Office suppression of information where it was not considered in the public interest to prosecute the “leaker” or the Conservative “shadow Home Secretary” who used the information.

  71. Well done Anthony! Days like this really show the old-world media for what it is… a dinosaur.

    I am tempted to feel sorry for the likes of the BBC and the Guardian who still try to control the agenda (believing it is their birthright to do so) – and left in the tail-lights of sites like WUWT… looking weak, timid and hopelessly out of touch with the public’s intelligence and need for ‘robust’ reporting.

    It amazes me when they report that large majorities of the public (with a healthy curiosity and internet access) are sceptical of AGW… and yet they STILL can’t acknowledge why that is.

    The Guardian is up to its eyeballs in debt. And it’s common-knowledge that the BBC’s sprawling, tax-funded, empire (and left-wing bias it no long bothers to disguise) is due a fundamental dismantling come the next government.

    (A telling fact can be gleaned from today’s Telegraph home-page… Not a single whisper about the scandalous ‘CRUgate’ bombshell – yet scroll down to newspaper’s list of “Most Viewed” pages… and James Delingpole’s blog entry on the subject is Number 1)

    With the growing popularity and vitality of internet sites like WUWT and an ever-present appetite for REAL news from the public… who is going to miss these lumbering old-world hypocrites?

  72. I am a layman who has been interested in the topic of global warming for many years now. I have concluded that man made global warming is hogwash, but very dangerous hogwash. I would wish to thank the manager of this site, and its contributors for doing very important work. Please keep at it. The truth will come out. So, if no one has ever said thank you, may I do so now. THANK YOU! Best regards, Jim

  73. Congratulations Anthony!

    I’m waiting for the AGW’ers to disclose that these were deliberate fakes designed to help an internal inquiry ferret out a leak. Of course, they’ll have to have a public hanging to make it stick…or should that be hockey stick?

  74. I took up a suggestion above and donated $20 to WUWT. Not so long ago I did the same for Climatechange.org in recognition of S. McIntyre’s sterling work. I would encourage fellow readers and contributors to do the same. A lot of small contributions will all add up to allow Messrs Watts & McIntyre to continue their excellent work to expose non scientific behaviour in the scientific community associated with climate change research.

  75. ‘Circling the wagons’ indeed! Consider this paragraph from Real Climate’s response to this delightful contretemps.

    “More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.”

    Clumsy, clumsy attempt at legerdemain. If you don’t want to deal with what is said, then misdirect the audience to consider what is not said, a set which is always vastly larger. And here, what is not said is what no one in your opponents’ camp ever claimed; it is a straw man, an unrecognizable and crude caricature of sceptics’ concerns. The next step in this tango for two left feet would be to compare your opponents to 9/11 Truthers or to Obama Birthers.

    But perhaps the construction of straw men can prove revelatory of the ‘texture’ of thinking of the constructor. In Depth Psychology this is called ‘projection'; the projector here begins and ends with notions of ‘conspiracy’ and ‘paranoia’.

    De te fabula narratur?

    In between this framing vision of delusive mentation are sandwiched allusions to specific absences. George Soros ghosts in– there is no evidence of his existence, we are told, in any of the CRU material; he does not ‘nefariously fund’ climate research. But surely he *does* fund climate research, nefariously or otherwise. Another piece of crude misdirection, in this case deployed by exploding a highly connotative stink bomb of an adverb in front of a demurely well-behaved, denotative verb.

    Of course, Big Oil *does* ‘nefariously fund’ the AGW deniers.

    There is in the leaked material ‘no admission that global warming is a hoax’. But who would expect one? For Phil Jones at al to be hoaxers, they would have to believe consciously that the science they are ‘pushing’ is false; a liar has to be a truth-knower. But surely there are degrees of belief and of acknowledgement of truth. It seems to me entirely possible that men the likes of the Team, men who were trained up in an appreciation for scientific method, might harbor half-acknowledged doubts about the fundamental truthfulness of the hypothesis they have vested their whole careers in, and which has provided them with a privleged lifestyle (all that hectic, carbon-spewingjetting to spots like Tahiti). What does Phil Jones think of the validity of CO2-driven global warming when he wakes up at three in the morning?

    ‘There is no evidence of falsifying data.’ Really? Perhaps no ‘dispositive evidence’, as the lawyers would say. But surely there is circumstantial evidence.

    Enough. I recommend to one and all a reading–or better, a fiftieth re-reading– of George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’.

  76. Congratulations to all. I haven’t had that much fun in years.

    I’m surprised you all have noses left, after leaning into the grindstone that hard.

    Well done.

  77. Thank you. Hats off to Climate Audit, Ice Cap, Junk Science, Climate Depot, Greenie Watch, SPPI, Watts UP With That, CO2 Science and many other sites and the men and women behind the the movement to expose this fraud.
    As Tax Payer and I who support real climate research, I thank all of you.
    It’s time to investigate NASA, EPA, and IPCC to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.
    Set My CO2 Free.

  78. My Brother suggests that Academic Charges on all the Phd’s (Pile Higher and
    Deeper) be brought through their issuing Universities.

    Because the nature of the granting of the Phd requires certain adherence to academic integrity and “Lux et veritas” (Light and Truth), there is (technically) a method to withdraw the Phd based on such actions.

    I think if a couple of “Prominent” types lost their Phd’s that would be wonderful.

    (Of course, this is less likely to happen than Obama getting up and announcing that “Health Care is Dead” and “We have the best private system in the world, why change it?” HAHAHAHA!

  79. I wonder why and how RealClimate censors allowed this to appear…. see the response from Gavin Schmidt here (#440).

    Dear Gavin and Colleagues,

    I can absolutely agree with you that breaking into any computer system and obtaining private information is against the law and considered to be an unethical way for getting the details of something. In your post, you try to minimise the impact of the recent information leak by saying that it will not have any effect on the current state of climate science.

    Sure, it won’t have any measurable effect but it reveals perfectly your way of thinking. You can call me a skeptic, a lot of people do so, but to label someone with skepticism is absolutely unnecessary in case of science. One thing must be clear for anyone: you clearly believe in the theory of anthropogenic global warming, instead of continuous criticism towards your own thoughts and belief. The lack of ‘healthy skepticism’ in your way of thinking is obvious even from most of the posts on this site. You often commit well-known logical fallacies, such as referring to an authority, talking about a scientific consensus (argumentum ad populum), and many others in order to show your viewpoints as the only acceptable ones. Mentioning a consensus is pointless, because reality is not determined by popular vote.

    In the recent past, one of your common argument was the small number of peer-reviewed publications on the skeptic side. Now it is evident that in some cases you prevented the possible appearance of controversial papers in the most respected journals. Of course your case is not unique, as an economist I’ve seen group-think and censorship in my own field, too. Please avoid such dishonesty, because with such behaviour you risk that your credibility will be completely destroyed in the coming years.

    Furthermore, I and maybe lots of reasonable people would highly appreciate if any author or commentator on this site aren’t going to use the word ‘denier’ for a person who do not accept the theory of man-made global warming. As I’ve seen it in recent years, nobody denies the fact that the globe had been warmed significantly since the begginning of the 20th century. The exact amount of warming remains uncertain, but the direction of change is clear. Our question is only about the role of man. It is evident that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it is also evident that CO2 is only a minor component of the total greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. CO2 molecules can only absorb and re-emit heat on relatively narrow bandwiths of infrared radiation. The doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels can only cause a negligible increase in global temperatures.

    The validity of the whole anthropogenic global warming theory depends on the existence of positive feedbacks, mainly caused by water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas. Theoretically, water vapor feedback relies on the Clausius–Clapeyron equation. If the atmosphere warms, it can and it will hold more water vapor – the absolute humidity will increase. However, 60 years of global radiosonde measurements shows that the absolute humidity in the middle troposphere is decreasing. The problem with the AGW theory is nothing else than there is no evidence for it. We have two empirically observed facts: global temperature has risen by about 0.6-0.7°c in the 20th century, and CO2 levels are also increasing due to the combustion of fossil fuels. But we know that CO2 alone couldn’t have caused the observed amount of warming.

    In the 4th IPCC report we can read an argument that the observed warming cannot be explained by natural variability, only when we include the effects of increasing amount of greenhouse gases (amplified by positive feedbacks). Climate models rely on the assumption that most of the warming observed in the last 30-40 years have been caused by anthropogenic factors. A model which is based on a certain theory cannot prove the very same theory, this is also a common logical fallacy. The argument about “observed warming cannot be explained by natural variability” has another problems too. Literally it means that “we cannot think of anything better” – argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    Kindest regards from Hungary,

    Adam Soereg

    PS: Really sorry for any grammatic mistakes, English is not my native language though.

  80. Alleged CRU Emails – 1255558867.txt

    This is a must read, they can`t figure out why their models don`t agree with reality, (it is a travesty says Trenberth).

    > 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.

  81. Congratulations to Mr Watt and all the mods for a tremendous public service.

    Upthread, a parallel was drawn with the MPs expenses in Britain – it started out as a lot of little stories that suddenly caught fire when the Daily Telegraph bought the data and put 30 researchers onto it.

    With the CRU files in the blogosphere – and I assume a lot more is up someone’s sleeve – it will be impossible for the MSM to ignore this for much longer. Delingpole made a really good point – almost all of their contacts are AWG lobbyists, scientists or sympathisers – no wonder they are feeling a) stupid, b) compromised and c) lost for what to do next.

  82. Poor Andy Revkin seems to be suffering from cognitive dissonance. From today’s NYT

    “Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.”

    Who, exactly, among the ‘climate sceptics’ has claimed that the leaked material shows a ‘conspiracy’?

  83. We’ve already had the utterly tasteless article by Geoffrey Lean in the Daily Telegraph, linking the tragic floods in Cumbria with AGW…doesn’t it stink?

    Well done Anthony…keep up the good work.

  84. Joe Romm at Climate Progress also has a hockey stick.

    I checked the last eight threads of his The most recent was about the CRU info release. It had 42 comments.
    In reverse order the previous threads had the following number of comments
    2, 2,2,,3,7 and 2. The CRU topic which he cut and pasted from Real climate had more than the previous 7 topic combined. 42 is a very high number for Climate Progress. People into science don’t go there. It is mostly a leftist site to promote heavy taxes and government dominated “green” projects. They can’t tell us what green jobs are except all jobs at GE are green.

    This site has 100 times as many visitors and comments.

  85. Anthony will be getting a $100. donation from me, and I will be purchasing my own weather station from his stash.

    Meanwhile, all Anthony did was to say,
    “Whoa! Can we really measure temperature accurately?” and proceeded to try to find out.

    The lack of foregone conclusions in the studies posted here, the constant openness to any and all questions, and the lack of a political agenda is what has attracted many to this site as a source of dependable sanity, a refuge.

    Thanks Anthony, now get some sleep.

  86. Alleged CRU Emails – 1249045162.txt

    This is bloody scandalous.

    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

    > > morningand 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’tspecifically 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

    > > thoseworkshops 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. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that

    > > agreement – myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of

    > > data I have that are not released by NCDC),

  87. Molon Labe (04:47:29) :

    What is the evidence that the files were hacked? An assertion by Jones? I believe it was an inside job.

    I agree, but for somewhat different reasons. First the files are somewhat organized, e.g. the documents directory is nowhere close to how the files would be organized on the host system. Also the mail files look to me as though they were extracted from a database and the extraneous mail header lines discarded. I’m not familiar with all the mail server stuff that’s out there, but I would never design one with a timestamp with a one second resolution or without full mail headers.

    I’m also surprised that there’s so little personal Email, e.g., “Honey, please pick up a bottle of milk on your way home.” That’s a lot of mail to cull, and perhaps it was filtered by a program that did something like pass only Emails involving two of the AGW community. Hmm, it wouldn’t be difficult to do some processing on that and look for a such a list. Hmm, maybe tonight….

    So, who ever did this spent a fair amount of time doing it, and I suspect he’s a current or past employee.

    Jones asserts it was a cracker? His credibility right now isn’t very high….

  88. I would also like to thank all involved (especially the heroic efforts of the moderators to keep up with posts yesterday).

    Great news to wake up to yesterday. I spent most of the day just trying to catch up on the posts, as the news had broken long before I had the chance to check in and see it.

    As mentioned above a lot of folks who do not cruise these select group of blogs, have no clue by and large that this is going on. Please everyone take advantage of your six degrees of connection to the wider world and put advisory notes regarding this issue out in other online media that would not normally get involved in climate. Also let them know that with a few exceptions the mainstream media is intentionally ignoring a huge scandal, and they need to go to alternate sources to find out in real time what is going on.

    It is unacceptable that the major media outlets can black ball a topic and make it go away by ignoring it. Make sure the news leaks into other online outlets so a wider audience is aware of the recent events. All major scandals go through a period where they like a chain reaction grow relatively slowly then explode out of the tall grass into the major media.

    Larry

  89. OT but just posted this at Real Climate.
    “I am a skeptic layman. I think the mistake AGW believers made was when then [they] let people like Al Gore proclaim that the debate is over. This begs the question “Why are we all still posting on blogs?” As Gavin well knows in science the debate is never over. I hope my post is accepted, if not then it will further demonstrate why skeptic blogs abound on the net.”

    “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”

    “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”

    Einstein

  90. May John Daly be looking down on all this and smile.I, for one am not so hopeless.
    People are not as uninformed as one might think.Here in the USA our leap to give us the
    American NHS may be stalling.Cap’n Tax is dead.Next year is an congressional election
    year.I have done my best to spread the word about CRU.Even to my incense-burning
    under -Al Gore’s picture- lefty Neighbor. He’s caught up in the CRU mess. and is not happy.I have E-mailed most of my office about this-the internet is the modern printing
    press.The vanguard of the new information revolution I feel this is CRU information
    is indeed “A shot heard ’round the world.”…

  91. Peter S. (6:23),don’t even be tempted to feel sorry. Every individual has the personal responsibility to research conclusions that are immensely costly to the taxpayer and that might bring about dangerous actions of a regional scale. Carbon sinks? What happens when that carbon is released in a gigantic belch? Massive dumping in the oceans to alter temperature? Cap-and-trade taxation and policies that will impoverish every human on the planet except the corporate/government elites who will benefit? A century of contempt for science because our researchers are proven to be such frauds and with criminal intent (in relationship to science) — preventing publications in peer-reviewed journals, firing “skeptics”, giving grants/funding only AGW true believers, providing doctored research to political entities, refusing, and even damning, open debate to verify the science and falsify the hypotheses (the one and only scientific method), the “audacity” to imagine we humans with so little knowledge of a dynamic, chaotic system we call weather/climate can tell all with computer models? The list goes on and on.

    (I read Science Mag and Nature faithfully over the years and believed in “global warming” because the “peer-reviewed scientists” said it was so. But once more was afoot — public policies, taxation, regulations up the gazoo, and radicalized, ridiculous environmental organizations — I knew I had to see for myself. Show me. A version of the scientific method and of investigative journalism. It was very easy to find out the lies. And WUWT was very helpful.)

    I agree with P. Gosselin (1:18:08) who has been seconded by Allan M R MacRae (5:43:51). We need class action law suits filed immediately. Don’t stop for a breath of fresh air. We won’t find any until the fetid swamp is drained (sorry for using a wetland metaphor). CLASS ACTION SUITS or whatever other AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS are possible. I am glad to contribute.

    One reason why all deliberate speed is necessary is given by Alan the Brit (3:02:18) “…the classic British tactic. Bring in the Police…all data will sub-justice & therefore illegal to view or discuss” for a very long time.

    Yes, thank goodness for the Internet, for Anthony Watts and WUWT, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Id (where the files were first deposited in the U.S.), and everyone else who has worked so hard and so imaginatively for truth and the scientific method.

  92. Congratulations Anthony.

    I contribute hardly as I find I have very little to add. However, I appreciate your work and of those who contribute.

    A tremendous achievement and many thanks.

    Yours sincerely, Tony Osborne, UK

  93. @P Gosselin: Splendid idea. I believe, but I depend on legal advice, that every contributor to this blog has suffered actual financial loss because of the actions of these “scientists”. I will certainly contribute to Anthony again, and will join in any suit that can be brought against these individuals. Won’t matter to me if we do not prevail in the courts, I just want to read the discovery and the testimony.
    Let’s see, 180,000 hits times $5.00. Should be a reputable firm of legal eagles somewhere who’d like to earn that for starters.

  94. Great work! Now that is a hockey stick that I can respect. Without your and Steve’s efforts there would have been no focus. I can only hope that governments will take notice.

  95. If this story is true it will probably be the final nail in the coffin of AGW. Unfortunately it will give science a huge black eye. Fortunately it will give the politicians that supported this scheme an even bigger and well deserved black eye.
    But if the story is a hoax it will make the skeptics out to be wild eyed conspiracy theorists.

  96. Re: Adam Soereg (07:18:57) :

    “I wonder why and how RealClimate censors allowed this to appear…” [BTW, that was a fine comment, Adam.]

    .

    I also noticed this comment at realclimate, regarding the CRU emails:

    65. “This is just sad, on so many levels, for so many of us. I’ve been such a supporter and now this feeling of doubt creeping into me has me shaken and confused.”

    RC is suddenly allowing comments that would never have made it past moderation in the past.

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Although they still have a way to go before they’re up to WUWT standards of open debate.

  97. On one blog site raised hell that this was illegal, and not “whistle blowing”. It continued, a “whistle blower” would work WITHIN the organization.

    YAHHH SUURRRR, like telling the “godfather” his people are breaking the law.

  98. If Steve McIntyre were in the pay of the oil companies, as one of the emails claim, wouldn’t he have a server that could handle the traffic on days like yesterday? There’s scarcely better proof that he is exactly who he says he is that he’s clearly operating a very low bandwidth site.

  99. What a wonderful development. It could not have happened to a more deserving group of pseudo-scientists. I have been waiting for something like this for the the last 30 years since I have been fighting this war.
    George Orwell still said it best about these people:
    ‘In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.’

    Roll on the revolution.
    Step 1 Abolish the IPCC.
    Step 2 Defund the entire UN
    Step 3 Bring ‘accountability’ back to politics and science.
    Step 4 Remember, and heed the words of Eisenhower about government, funding scientists, leading to corruption.
    Step 5 Make it a strictly one-way ticket to Copenhagen, with subesequent expulsion to Siberia (old, Stalin style Siberia).

  100. John Peter (06:20:57) :

    I await with eagerness the take up in the Sunday papers this weekend. My initial thought is that I am going to be disapointed though.
    Maybe if we start enquiring at the news web sites prior to publication there will be some interest shown by editors.

  101. According to my calculations based upon your latest hockey stick graph, WUWT will receive over 3 billion hits a day by December, unless something is done to curb overclicking on websites. – James Hansen

  102. Certainly there’s got to be a LAW FIRM out there that is itching to take this case up. Britain would be the best place to file suit, or USA.
    I’m in Germany and I don’t see it being effective from here.
    If someone finds a LAW FIRM and sets up a legal fund, I’m prepared to throw in the first $500.
    My checkbook and pen are waiting.

    Personally I’d prefer doing this with a posse and a rope.
    But we do live in civilised times.
    I hope to hear news of a lawsuit.
    ANY LAWYERS OUT THERE?

  103. This will be like the OKeefe/Giles Acorn bust.
    Instead of focussing on the rot of a corrupt org, they’re gonna focus on prosecuting the courageous whistleblower.

    Also I’d like to see all scientists out there step forward and take a stern stand on this issue. This ought not be tolerated in any scientific field, by any professional. It’s time to purge the rotten apples.

  104. Why are these ‘Warmists’ so keen on all their jollies to Tahiti and Hawaii? One law for us and one for them, eh? I travel occasionally to visit family around the globe, not for jolly long-haul weekends. What a bunch of hypocrites they are, to be sure!

    What about the ‘cost’ to the planet of all their incredible over-sized conferences, including the planned binge in Copenhagen?

  105. Wow Anthony. I had my first experience with what I call big traffic and it’s nothing compared to your blog. I’ve got no idea how you do it. I’m completely swamped.

    Great work and thanks for the links.

  106. Great work. As to someone being in the pay of someone else, how about those who are in the pay of governments? Governments which decide just who gets the government grants in huge amounts? Governments wanting to find something or other to collect huge taxes by way of? Governments which will have been collecting large amounts of taxes regarding the fraud of AGW? And governments which were certainly wanting to tax people out of their eyeballs with AGW as a reason? A den of thieves comes to mind, and a large den of thieves indeed.

    Again, great thanks, Anthony. You are indeed a credit to your profession.

  107. I find the data used for this graph to be extremely robust! There should be no problem getting this through peer review. Good job Anthony.

  108. The lies and conspiracies of the global warming scoundrels have been exposed.

    It’s the End of the Global Warming Gravy Train.

    Tout le monde descend, s’il vous plait.

  109. Simon Filiatrault (03:11:42) :

    The sad part of all this, it that 90% or more of the population don’t know what is happening. They only look at little clips on the news that mann ops men is killing the planet and change channel to look at Oprah.

    Don’t be so sure about that.

    I was in my local Lidl store & mentioned that the sh1t was hitting the fan over climate science and the disclosures/leaks from CRU. The cashier at the till actually knew what I was talking about! He hadn’t heard of Lucias blackboard but you can’t have everything. He had heard of CA & WUWT though.

    DaveE.

  110. As a (retired) professional engineer from Canada, I am truly shocked by the contemptible behaviour of the scientists at Britain’s CRU. A total lack of ethics.

    Canadian Order of the Engineer inductees wear a stainless steel ring on the little finger of their working hand as a visible reminder of the oath of integrity and ethics that they’ve taken. This Oath of the Obligations of an Engineer, heart of the “Iron Ring Ceremony”, governed my 40 years in the field of electronics. The various provincial Orders in Canada closely monitor the activities and professionalism of the practice of engineering in Canada.

    These shameful and “so-called” scientists wouldn’t have lasted a day in the Engineering Profession in Canada. Well, at least that’s my impression after working with hundreds of colleagues for 40 years. What these men and women have done, and apparently continue to do, is despicable in the worst sense of the word.

  111. @ Phillip Bratby (00:43:24) :

    “Closing the stable door?”

    No, I don’t think so. There are legal implications for publishing leaked emails. I’d sooner blame fear of legal repercussions rather than political bias.

  112. This is my first time commenting although I have used this sites information to back up points in various arguments. But while in the War the “skeptics” are winning with this leak, the data still needs to be verified.

    E-mails need to be correlated to information released at the time of their publishing and more importantly the code that was included needs to be gone through and deciphered. I have no doubts that the information that was leaked is real, just by judging the reactions of the “faithful”. They are in mega-overdrive damage control and it doesn’t appear to be working.

    Even though is a major blow to the “faithful” it is also a major blow to climate science in general. It will take years for it to gain back its credibility. Although it shouldn’t be a challenge as long as the scientist follow standard scientific protocol.

  113. From: Phil Jones
    To: Tim Johns , “Folland, Chris”
    Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
    Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:24 2009
    Cc: “Smith, Doug” , Tim Johns

    Tim, Chris,
    I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
    till about 2020.
    I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
    press release with Doug’s paper that said something like –
    half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
    Still a way to go before 2014.
    I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
    where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
    scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

    I just can’t believe that I am reading something like this.

  114. So has anybody heard from the Goracle?

    Isn’t there some investigative reporter somewhere willing to shove a microphone in his face and DEMAND A COMMENT!

    Will the Nobel Committee DEMAND THE RETURN OF THE MEDAL AND FUNDS FROM THE fRAUD THAT IS THE GORACLE?

  115. “If this story is true it will probably be the final nail in the coffin of AGW. Unfortunately it will give science a huge black eye.” – David S

    My greatest fear regarding “climate change” has for several years been not the damage it will do to the Earth but the damage it will do to the reputation and authority of science when the myth eventually came crashing down. What chance controversial vaccinations, genetic modification or nuclear power when any scientific assertion will inevitably be met with “Science says? Yeah, like it did over climate change!” And frankly, who could blame them when science and its “authorities” have lost the plot this badly?

    One just has to read the distortions of the peer review process, the abuse for any who do not toe the party line, the sheer dripping contempt for those who dare to question their science and their blatant desire to rig the data (“about 0.15 degrees”) to “look right” to despair that people like this could ever lay claim to the title of “scientist”.

    I know it’d be stooping to their “denier” level, but seeing the sheer self-righteous religious fervour and blindness in these mails, I keep thinking the term “climate scientologists” is all too painfully close to the truth.

  116. There’s something wrong with Watts’ daily activity graph.

    How does he explain the Presidential Election Period? Everyone knows the period surrounding elections produce extreme internet activity, especially at political-oriented sites, and even more-so at hot issue related sites.

    Watts does nothing to explain the low increase in early Nov 08. I’d like to see his code and raw data.

  117. Folks,

    It’s easy – vote every politician who is out to save the world from “”””””Climate Change”””””out of office – and don’t frequent businesses who claim to be green.

    OK, so we recycle and try not to mess up the nest, that’s intellegent – not world domination.

    Mike

  118. Just for the record:

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/UKpga_19900018_en_1.htm

    1
    Unauthorised access to computer material .(1)
    A person is guilty of an offence if— .
    (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer; .
    (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and .
    (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

  119. It has only just begin, and what I mean is the backpedaling and denying that now begins by those we know were involved in these cover ups. It’s always the cover up that gets you the jailtime.

  120. I even saw the MWP at 11:01 and the LIA at 11:14. Great job. You have succeeded to keep all the information without sacrificing legitimate knowledge. You are the guy IPCC need. Everybody will be happy.

  121. WHAT A GREAT 24HOURS OR MORE. I just hope that some of our goverment leaders here in New Zealand have seen this as the goverment here on Tuesday looks likly to pass ETS into law. They say we will be paying $2000 a person till the year 2050. I just hope this will wake up our leaders eyes so that they can see the fraud that they have all been lead to belive.

  122. Annei (07:33:41) :

    Steven Mosher @ 00:35:05

    ‘The CRUtape Letters’….utterly brilliant.

    I agree. I move that we employ that term hereafter. Do I hear any objections? (None.) Passed by acclamation.
    ==========

    Roll on the revolution.
    Step 1 Abolish the IPCC.
    Step 2 Defund the entire UN
    …………
    Step 5 Make it a strictly one-way ticket to Copenhagen, with subsequent expulsion to Siberia (old, Stalin style Siberia).

    Hear, hear!
    ==========

    Arthur Glass (06:54:25) :

    ‘Circling the wagons’ indeed! Consider this paragraph from Real Climate’s response to this delightful contretemps.

    “More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.”

    Let’s give the devil his due. It could have been worse, much worse. Most of us here would have said, if we were asked how bad the content of their e-mails would be if they were hacked, that the revelations therein would have been considerably more Nixonian.

    If we try to overdo what these e-mails show, it’ll backfire. As Pyromancer said, the evidence in them is circumstantial, not dispositive. Hence we shouldn’t act as though it is. Most warmists and middle-of-the-roaders won’t want to join a lynching party. We should use understatement, and merely claim that these revelations take the shine of their halos. Say no more than that, and it’ll sink in.

  123. This is just great, as well as exposing fraud and corruption it has presented us, for a few years , a true litmus test of scientific or political integrity. What conclusions do we come to when it is mainly left leaning (and I include you Mr D Cameron) people who bought in to and sold on this bovine effluent?
    As to our leaders having been “lead” to believe, does this infer that all of us here, commenters as well, have extra-ordinary intelligence? without doubt there are lots here who are way smarter and better educated than me, mathematicians and real scientists, but all of us outshining the politicians by this gulf, cannot be, they knew where this train was going and now they and they alone should pay the fare, That nice Mr Soros who bought his good buddy that nice house in Washington has the money to pay us back(http://www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/archives/199701/msg00153.html)
    Well done to all involved

  124. so, where do we now get reliable global warming (or not) data?
    he scientific community has done a great diservice to us.

    John

  125. When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the scientific fraud which has threatened to subject the entire world . . . Let the revolution begin!

  126. I wouldn’t have found out about the “CRUtape Letters” for a while longer had not the very left leaning Idaho Statesman printed a very brief article about the leak. What surprised me is that the New York Times (the Statesman’s source) bothered to publish anything at all about it.

    Even odder was the Statesman ran the NYT article in the same spread as Thomas Friedman’s latest column, wherein the usually level-headed* fellow rants on about human caused climate change and overpopulation. Of course Friedman’s column got a lot more space. (Comments are closed on that article, wonder why?)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1258852196-dv8o23NFDuyu/rAHNB/aBQ

    *If you can, watch his show on “The other side of outsourcing”. A good one, IMHO.

  127. I think these revelations are getting to one of the Real Climate’s blog hitmen. RC usually has him attack any skeptic as ignorant of science and then they delete any response. Now all Ladbury can do is keep babbling variations of one of his usual lines “All I can say is “Wow, these people are stupid!”” . Ladbury often typifies the RC mentality that they are the only smart people, that they are the only true scientists, and everybody else is wrong. No need to ask questions, or have scientific debate. He expects everyone to just fall in line behind him and his ilk no matter what they are ranting. Now that is not very smart!

  128. Awesome work, Anthony.

    Now that the ice is broken, so to speak, it’s time to follow up and prepare for the counter attacks that are sure to follow. Ironically, RC, perhaps inadvertently, will provide some guidance as to what the substance of such attacks will be. Skeptics have been given a strong boost, but the alarmists have too much money and professional careers invested in AGW to concede without a fight.

    A few places to start would be with the editorial management of the professional journals as well as their counterparts in the popular scientific media. Hadley CRU may be at the epicenter of this gargantuan scam, but they’re only one node in a virtual network. Similar cabals exist at other academic and quasi-governmental institutions, many in the US, and these cannot be ignored.

    Misinformation and disinformation abounds throughout the internet, especially among those sites that the public usually turns to for general as well as specific information. For example, the person responsible for monitoring and editing all climate-related posts on one of the most popular info sites is himself a charter member of RC.

  129. Congratulations Anthony. A hockey stick to make the NHL proud.

    It would be very interesting to know Lord Monckton’s thoughts as well as those of columnist George Will on the CRU “leaks.”

    It would also be nice to see comments by Dr. Svalgaard.

  130. Anthony,
    it would be helpful to me and many other (new?) readers if a list of the more common acronyms used in the CRU emails was published.
    For example, it is simple to work out the CA=Climate Audit and MWP=Medieval Warming Period, but others are a bit beyond me, which reduces my understanding of some of the implications of these emails.
    I imagine such a list would be helpful to media who may wish to spread the story via the “MSM” but also need explanations of some acronyms.

  131. When you lie or present false information on a grand scale such as this, time is not your friend. They clock has just ran out on al goreo ,somebody just opened him up and ate the cream filling. Keep it up ,lets get some snow and ice/naoaa e-mails next.

  132. Two comments:

    1) steven mosher (00:35:05) :

    It would please me to no end if we just referred to this collection as “The CRUTAPE letters”

    I would like to second this suggestion – it’s brilliant.

    2) Unlike many of you I have not been pulling all-nighters since Thursday, but my husband is giving me reproachful looks as I remain glued to WUWT during all my free time. This is better than any detective story I’ve ever read or show I’ve ever seen – and well worth the price of admission. I hope there’s another hockey stick that materializes – a donation hockeystick to the Surface Stations project and to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit! I’ve certainly been motivated to do the right thing, something I’ve been intending to do for far too long! Well done to all you defenders of the search for truth both in science and in ethical behaviour -and especially to Anthony and his valiant moderators.

  133. Roger Knights: “If we try to overdo what these e-mails show, it’ll backfire.”

    Wise words. Nothing in these emails definitively supports claims of fraud and corruption. At most, the emails show people wrestling with the many issues of a complex subject, and how to manage the release of information.

    The FOIA request comments are on the surface troubling, but the context is unclear, so the proper sceptical attitude is to withold judgement until there is more clarity.

    The possibly embarassing aspects of the emails are the unguarded thoughts of scientists about their peers and especially their opponents. Some of these comments are not necessarily flattering to sceptics.

    Importantly, nothing in the emails undermines either the science or reality of climate change. Celebration at this time is premature, and is bound to turn to dissapointment in the long run.

  134. Not so fast Brendan… read um again… The Climate has always been changing and will always be changing, unfortunately you (nor anyone else) can not stop that, as it is natural… anyone ignorant enough to think we can remove CO2 and improve plant and animal life requires re-education from non-revisionists.

    Still, for AGW to be ongoing at this point, after so many REAL scientists have proven the truth for so many decades – this just adds more back up to many great, decent, people who are trying to warn the world that Mann, Hansen, et al deserve life sentences and all who went along with the fraud at least deserve time in prison and to be stripped of scientific credentials and degrees.

    Will that happen, not with the current corrupt administration, I doubt any mention will occur… , they are probably still going to try to pass cap & tax.

    I sent a letter to Sen. McCain and explained in 2 pages why his position could not be rationalized… I cited WUWT and CA… I also suggested he speak with Sen. Inhofe, if he still had questions… I do not think I was the only letter sent to him… but he has now come around!

    If your a US voter… you may want to choose a Senator or so and just explain what you have learned, at the least they will realize more of us know the truth…

    Perhaps this new data will cause a few “open minded” alarmists to rethink their positions?

    Keep up the good work – Anthony and Congrats.

  135. @Curiousgeorge

    “..but what people really want to know.. is:

    How will this debunking/scandal effect my 401K, my house value, what kind of car I drive, the value of the dollar, international trade, my job, the cost of groceries, gas, and electricity, etc. ? How it will impact the political balance of power over the next 3 years, and other mundane issues of concern to the average ( US ) citizen.

    Ordinary folks don’t give a rat’s fanny about the “science” or the internal shenanigans of some obscure research center. They care about how and when it might impact them personally in ways they may not even realize.”

    CuriousGeorge is correct – people have concerns about what will affect them personally.

    That’s why the issue to publicise is the evidence that the Team were ruining the careers of people who disagreed with them. That will strike a chord with all scientists – who here has not wondered at some time why they were passed over for a position? And that’s also a concern for every man in the street….

  136. Quango72 (20:38:47) :

    Anthony,
    > it would be helpful to me and many other (new?) readers if a list of
    > the more common acronyms used in the CRU emails was published.

    Up at the top navigation bar, click on Glossary.

  137. Brendan H (23:00:17) :

    “Importantly, nothing in the emails undermines either the science or reality of climate change. Celebration at this time is premature, and is bound to turn to dissapointment in the long run.”

    Climate has always changed. There, the injured animal is painlessly put to sleep.

    Now. What science is there to be ‘undermined’ exactly?

    We would not be searching, or shouting, for evidence if there was any.

    Conjecture is not evidence. Guesswork, confidence and models are not evidence.

    The alarmists have zero evidence that CO2 has or will “hurt” Mother Earth or her inhabitants. We would be clubbed to death with it if they did.

  138. Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate put together an excellent post about hockey stick slayers such as you and McIntyre. Gavin produced seven graphs with no Yamal or dendro evidence included showing trends that were identical to Gore’s hockey stick, for both CO2 and temperature.

    Both this blog and ClimateAudit are lively and interesting. Problem is, there is a reverse relationship to the actual scientific evidence.

  139. The gripe is not so much about the current temperatures; it’s about the Medieval period. There’s plenty of historical and archaeological evidence to dispute the hockey stick, quite apart from team reconstructions. Look at Loehle (also non dendro) and you get no hockey stick. Even Moberg shows an MWP, though slightly less than the modern optimum.

  140. Gavin is not going to go down easily… so lets be sure to cite him directly…

    mike roddy (09:11:32) :

    Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate put together an excellent post about hockey stick slayers such as you and McIntyre. Gavin produced seven graphs with no Yamal or dendro evidence included showing trends that were identical to Gore’s hockey stick, for both CO2 and temperature.

  141. While we’ve seen many pieces from the UK’s Telegraph, they’ve usually been from their columnist, Christopher Booker. Now, from this same paper’s news blog section, comes another writer, James Delingpole with his latest report on Climategate. Makes for interesting reading, especially this part of the article’s update:

    “And do check out Watts Up With That, whose traffic went through the roof yesterday, enabling to demonstrate scientifically that Hockey Stick is after all a genuine phenomenon – and not merely a figment of Michael Mann’s overactive imagination.”

    We’ve seen the WUWT hockey stick above. Just to show that the WordPress numbers aren’t a fluke, check out the latest figures from Quantcast that show the huge peak reached on 20 Nov with a slight drop following on 21 Nov (but still much higher than any previous daily peak over the past 6 months):

    http://www.quantcast.com/profile/traffic-compare?domain0=realclimate.org&domain1=climateprogress.org&domain2=wattsupwiththat.com&domain3=climatecrisis.net&domain4=

    Finally, from Alexa comes additional confirmation. It shows the rise in volume a bit in the Traffic Rank and even more impressively in Reach:

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com+realclimate.org+climatecrisis.net+climateprogress.org

  142. Leon Brozyna (11:27:53) : traffic through the roof

    What we need to do is to get rid of the previous peaks and the blade of the hockey stick would be so much more prominent.

  143. Jon Adams: “…Mann, Hansen, et al deserve life sentences and all who went along with the fraud at least deserve time in prison and to be stripped of scientific credentials and degrees.”

    So nothing new there, then. That said, you have overlooked my important point that it is too soon for climate sceptics to celebrate. Whatever these emails may reveal about the personal views and behaviour of some climate scientists, they do not amount to evidence of fraud and corruption.

    We have seen premature sceptic celebrations before: Monckton’s APS item; the Theon declaration; the EPA “Carbongate”; the Yamal series, all of which were going to bring AGW to its knees, blow it out of the water, turn the tide etc. None of these things happened.

    Of course, this leak is bigger than anything before, but to date we have seen no smoking guns that definitively point to fraud and corruption. It should also be remembered that climate sceptics have been crying fraud for a long time, and this no doubt accounts for some of the caution displayed by the mainstream media over the latest allegations.

    The more feverish the excitement over this event, the greater the disappointment when the excitement peters out.

    Henry Galt: “What science is there to be ‘undermined’ exactly?”

    Try IPCC reports, which cite a wide range of evidence from a number of scientific disciplines.

Comments are closed.