The University of East Anglia released this statement yesterday:
Climatic Research Unit update – 17.45 November 23
It is a matter of concern that data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites. The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine. We took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation and have involved the police in what we consider to be a criminal investigation.
The material published relates to the work of our globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. CRU’s published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.
CRU is one of a number of independent centers working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are willing to have their research and theories subjected to scrutiny by the international scientific community. The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way.
The raw climate data which has been requested belongs to meteorological services around the globe and restrictions are in place which means that we are not in a position to release them. We are asking each service for their consent for their data to be published in future.
In addition to supporting the police in their inquiries, we will ourselves be conducting a review, with external support, into the circumstances surrounding the theft and publication of this information and any issues emerging from it.
Comment from Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit:
The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct +is 0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”
The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram – not a scientific paper – which was used in the World Meteorological Organisation’s statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 (WMO-no.913).
The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.
Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.
The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
With this reply, as far as I am concerned UEA just arrogantly lashed themselves to the deck of the Titanic.
“We are the real victims here, blah, blah, blah.” Predictable. More predictable than the weather, of course. 😉
“The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”
I find that “to hide the decline” makes this statement, as a whole, very untoward.
So, having been observed apparently suborning the peer review process, Dr. Jones appeals to peer-reviewed scholarly journals as his bona fides. How interesting. And we should be impressed–why?
Well thats dandy, but I am frankly more dismayed about “hide the decline” than “trick”. Seems unlikely to me that “hide the decline” can have a colloquial double meaning.
What a joke.
We are peer reviewed. (Pal reviewed?)
We are independent and engage in open debate. (And if you say otherwise, you will be quashed.)
All the revelations are out of context. (Is you is or is you ain’t my baby?)
We’ll get you and your little dog, too.
And forget about getting any raw data.
These are not the droids you were looking for. Move along.
“The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”
I thought he said three days ago that he couldn’t remember why he used that language.
I’ve mentioned before that I have no trouble with the word “trick” but have lots of trouble with the word “hide.” Someone else, I think Gavin on RC gave a similar partial defense and also ignored any concerns about “hide.”
As for personal information that was leaked, a lot of the Email addresses, especially for UEA personnel, are listed in various papers and abstracts scattered throughout the web.
Based on this response, there doesn’t seem to be much call to feel sorry for what UEA is going through. today.
“It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate…” That would be a nice _change_.
The point is that if the proxies were giving the wrong answer for post-1960, what makes them so all-fired valid for 1560?
“It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”
Because… it’s just impossible for scientists to do anything untoward…
“CRU is one of a number of independent centers working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in…”
punking the science, cherry picking data, forcing out adversaries, massaging statistics, spending your money, redefining peer review, covering up reality, and generally anything we can do to advocate for our position.
At least that’s what it sounds like to me.
Who owns the data for the medieval warming period?
No comment on private ownership of the e-mails?
How does Jones define peer review? Are “peers” facebook pals?
Why did he “unfriend” Stephen McIntyre?
“The following email, which I can confirm is genuine …”
email contents:
“I’ve just completed [a task] to hide the decline [in temperature].”
Emphesis mine.
Phil admits he is hiding something. What else is he hiding?
And ask the residents of prisons and they’ll tell you that they’re innocent — it’s all an unfair misunderstanding.
So it was a clever thing to do “to hide the decline” Ergo it was a clever thing to do to try to misinform scientist who might have expected the highest integrity and quality information from this group.
I don’t see that interpreting the “trick” in this manner helps to absolve the guilty.
As usual the BBC majors on the issue of hacking and stealing data and not fraudulent manipulation of data which seems to be of little consequence. After all global warming is proved … you just have to “count” the scientist who support it
Tony Berry
This enire statement is a complete crock . I especially liked the peer review part – how long can these guys continue to spin their wheels before they run out of gas ?
Professor Phil Jones: ‘We have not yet begun to go down with the ship’ cannot keep his story straight.
Yes, philincalifornia, 3 days ago PPJ couln’t remember what he said 10 years ago, or anyone for that matter, but apparently, he has been struck by a lightning bolt over night.
I can see clearly now, the data is phony.
I predict a severe shortage of eggs and crow. Please, please, please, all fools jump on the The SS Titanic Mass Delusion. Next stop, a watery grave of disgrace and shame. and hopefully, loss of all present and future government grants.
It is interesting that the Communists were militantly atheistic (except during the Great Patriotic War when churches were reopened temporarily) . I guess a population that believes in the Lord is somewhat skeptical of human poseurs.
What a pathetic response from UEA and Phil Jones. I suspect that once outsiders decend upon them – and that won’t take long – they won’t be so stridently defending themselves.
I await for a rebuttal which is made up solely of the ‘illegally taken’ emails.
Izzat “Nearer my God to thee” that Phil Jones is singing to AlGore ?
Well the Titanic just sank quietly after running afoul of global warming; but it was different for HMS Hood.
The Hood just plain blew up after taking one hit from the Bismarck.
It remains to be seen whether UEA and CRU are yet going to blow, or whether those two gentts are just going to salute at attention, as the rising sea levels start creeping up their legs.
Keep a stiff upper lip chaps; it’s the proper British thing to do.
“When I use a word,” Professor Jones said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Professor Jones, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
UEA and Jones didn’t dig their hole any deeper with that attempt at a defense, but they didn’t get very far in climbing out either.
When does Jones find himself out the door with a couple boxes of desk contents in his trunk, and will it be final or will it be termed a six-month leave?
Note the careful avoidance of the real issue which is spiking the peer review process based on preconceptions as to what the results “should be.” It reminds me of the geologist who asks in a low voice with his hand out to recieve payment “Which way do you want the ground water to flow?”
Is “hide the decline” used “colloquially as in a clever thing to do.”
Science at work
APE
From Lewis Carroll to Monty Python.
Prof. Jones: “Come on and fight, you coward!” King Arthur: “But I’ve just cut your leg off!”
Prof. Jones (pauses): “It’s only a flesh wound.”