UPDATE: Response from CRU in interview with another website, see end of this post.
The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.
UPDATED: Original image was for Met Office – corrected This image source: www.cru.uea.ac.uk
I’m currently traveling and writing this from an airport, but here is what I know so far:
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents
The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.
It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.
I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.
Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments
I’ve redacted email addresses and direct phone numbers for the moment. The emails all have US public universities in the email addresses, making them public/FOIA actionable I believe.
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
Cheers
Phil
“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com)
“
Reported with great sadness
Timo H‰meranta
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Timo H‰meranta, LL.M.
Moderator, Climatesceptics
Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
01620 Vantaa
Finland, Member State of the European Union
Moderator: timohame@yxxxxx.xxx
Private: timo.hameranta@xxxxx.xx
Home page: [1]personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
Moderator of the discussion group “Sceptical Climate Science”
[2]groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
“To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
shows only a lack of imagination”. (Kari Enqvist)
“If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion.
What do you do, Sir” (John Maynard Keynes)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)xxxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxx.xx.xx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
References
1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley
Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not
without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.
My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.
I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this –
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate
change.
Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
then…
I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
it.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?
Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
Cheers, Peck
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) xxx-xxxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
–
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +xxxx
fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag.
Developing story – more later
UPDATE1: Steve McIntyre posted this on Climate Audit, I used a screen cap rtaher than direct link becuase CA is overloaded and slow at the moment.
UPDATE2: Response from CRU h/t to WUWT reader “Nev”
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html
The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
“Have you alerted police”
“Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”
Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.
“Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….
UPDATE3: McIntyre has posted an article by Jean S at climateaudit.org which is terribly overloaded. We have mirrored it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
Sponsored IT training links:
Improve 646-205 exam score up to 100% using 642-813 dumps and 642-902 mock test.
“It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag….”
… and into the box.
I think the hackers just gave them the perfect occasion to “purge” their system of other inconvenient data… “The hackers made lots of damage in our system and many important data files have been erased”… of course they will forget that there have backups, or maybe those are already “reused!?!
On another note, they do have a very nice building but it must be very expensive to heat in winter, and produce lots of CO2.
WOW! That’s all I can say right now
Be careful here. It is not unusual for files released by hackers to contain all kinds of nasty stuff, from viruses and worms to simple worthless junk. I’m not saying that it *is* bad, just tread carefully with this stuff.
Surely they were not dumb enough to actually leave this series of what looks like outright complicity to obscure laying around where the janitor could read it?
Finally. Finally. Finally.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Awww, now that’s a shame.
Some people are going to be swallowing their tongues over this.
I agree with the sentiment expressed above about blanking e-mail addresses for safety’s sake.
Other than that all I can say is “Oooooohh!!!!! that’s an almightily HUGE bollock which has just been dropped!!”
The lid is coming off a rather nasty can of worms here. I wonder if Mr. Jones will be permitted to retain his publicly funded position if the rest of these revelations are as startling as the meagre few released above?
Anticipation mounts!
Shazzsam!!!
There is nothing more dangerous than leaking out temperature numbers to humans. \
There must have been thousands of hours invested in tweaking, adjusting and smoothing actual numbers to make them look better.
This is bigger than the story about the black Friday Walmart specials ad being release online 8 days early.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Holy crap, if that’s what it sounds like there a smoking gun.
Smoking gun? More like a blazing armoury!
My, my, my. The emails may be more important than the data.
Huh?
“Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Does this say what I think it says?
Where can I get the other 60 megs
Link please
BE CAREFUL!!!!! The validity of this needs to be very carefully checked before ANY claims are made.
This looks way over the top to me. There’s lots of mundane content that might be real, but the discussions of how to fake the data (“hide the decline”) are much less nuanced then one would expect considering all of their public postings. They have very elaborate ways of creating hockey sticks and they would use their elaborate terminology in their personal correspondence.
What decline?
Brent in Calgary
hmm.. strange.. it isn’t aprils fools day, is it? 😀
Roger Knights (13:37:07) :
“It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag….”
… and into the box.
And into the river maybe?
Probably still a crime to have hacked into CRU’s systems, however haven’t there been some judicial findings in the UK recently where the severity of the world’s climate change was used to justify the actions and the activist was released.
Maybe uncovering an alleged fraud of these proportions would come under the same category?
Well, as it apparently contains correspondence with people such as SteveM, it should be rather quickly known. But it looks like someone got a copy of someone’s mail spool. Who knows what might have been deleted.
“And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.”
Breathtaking.
I would tread very carefully…and view these with AT LEAST as much skepticism as the ‘normal’ stuff these authors publish.
If authentic…one only wonders who gets the tv/books rights for this stuff?
Has anyone thought of passing the links for this to some of the handful of MS journos who are skeptics? They might find it very interesting….
Also, is any of this stuff data that was stated to be no longer available? If that was (its from memory, I’m not sure) as a result of a FOI request in the UK, I believe lying about it is a criminal offence…
yep. if you want to keep something secret, never ever ever never ever write it down, say it over the phone, put it in an email, put it in a voicemail, text message or any other electronic format. this stuff just doesn’t go away (even if you delete it).
oops.
Eric (skeptic) (14:04:50) :
Keep in mind that email was from 1999. Things may be a lot more nuanced now b/c they’ve been forced in that direction, but back then they pretty much had free reign.
Beware Hitlers diary.
“Trick” might not be as damning as it seems. He might have used the word as an informal synonym for “technique,” in the same way that programmers will speak of “a neat hack,” meaning technique, not reprehensible kludge–although that’s what it sounds like to an outsider.
If the word “trick” can be found used as a synonym for technique in other e-mails, this defense could be made to look credible.
Still, on the surface, it does look like something in the vein of, “We’ve got to get rid of the MWP.”
PS: This is a plot-twist so fantastic it couldn’t have been used in Michael Crichton’s Fear. The truth is stranger than fiction.
Maybe the Met’s new sooper-dooper supercomputer has done a HAL on them.
One Slim Possiblity.
Question. Did this original data could have come from maybe a disgruntled individual to do with The Hadley Centre and sick of all the fraud and falsifications. To Cover His or Her tracks. Then dumped the data on a Russian hacker FTP. So to get the info out?
PPS: “Breaking” has another connotation.
Has anyone thought of passing the links for this to some of the handful of MS journos who are skeptics?
How about actually providing link. None of the sites or links i have gone to have the file.
I think Steve Mosher is playing a joke on us.
Link or it did not happen.
For some reason it appears that the link is being kept hidden and nobody is posting a link to a copy of the file. So we have to take some people’s word for what is going on and can’t independently verify what is being said. So … I am going to grab a couple of grains of salt until I can read it for myself.
@chillybean
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
*** start quote***
“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com)”
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
Cheers
Phil
*** end quote ***
[snip]
for Keith’s to hide the decline.
just remember we are assuming what this is referring to. We *could* be wrong, but I doubt it.
“Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:”
The relevant material starts at comment #101.
Easy does it folks, if some things sound too good to be true, they probably are…….
This doesn’t ring true to me. I absolutely don’t believe it. It’s entirely possible an archive was accessed, yes, but the subsequent correspondence could have been spiked before it was released. I don’t want to believe Scientists actually do things like this (above). I’m not a conspiracy theorist you see. I prefer the cock-up theory, as Steve McIntyre admirably demonstrates time after time.
The day started well with News.com.au pulling an online story about 6 degree temperature rises and methane exploding from the ocean, but this has made my day! I wonder if the dog will cough up all the missing homework?
WWOWWZZA! soon the CYA begins
“Opens popcorn.”
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
never mind Jean S provided a link at The Blackboard
aaah the whole AGW house of cards continues to collapse – and just in time for Copenhagen!
cockup and conspiracy are not mutually exclusive.
sceptics …
be exceedingly sceptical !
deniers…
deny it’s real – until you have the same level of proof you demand from the alarmists
get the forensics done
and then ……
Eric (skeptic) (14:04:50) :
quote
This looks way over the top to me. There’s lots of mundane content that might be real, but the discussions of how to fake the data (“hide the decline”) are much less nuanced then one would expect considering all of their public postings. /quote
I agree, it looks as though this “intelligence” has been “enhanced”. They would not “hide the decline”, they would “adjust the trend” – those in the know would understand which direction the adjustment would take. There would be no need to spell it out.
This has the smell of misinformation to me. It is all too convenient and laid-out on a plate.
Most cyber attacks are opportunistic and against soft targets. I doubt that CRU has gaping holes in their security systems, precisely because they fear the risk of attack from people wanting access their data. If the base information is real, then it would be a sophisticated attack. But for what purpose?
The leak/hack is convenient given the timing with Copenhagen. The real question is, “Who would gain by putting this in the public arena at this time?”
Freezedried (14:10:55) :
Beware Hitlers diary.
I have to second this note of caution. There’s information, misinformation, disinformation, misdis… well you get the idea.
We in the UK are well aware that the current government aren’t too fussy about how they spin and smear so just remember that (unless they find a particularly good reason for suspending democracy) there will be a general election next year and the ruling Labour Party are currently odds on to lose heavily.
This audience of all should be skeptical of this allegedly hacked data trove. It would not be beyond reason to speculate that folks could ‘bait’ the data with false emails, temperatures, whatever to make gullible AGW skeptics look like fools once the ‘prank’ is admitted. Proceed with caution and guarded enthusiasm.
This is certainly pretty massive. This crap is not good news for the probity and reputation of science more widely. Who can we trust now? All end up diminished.
Climateaudit is down again.
Imagine what Delingpole will make of it.
And EU has new president, determined to impose green tax on all his slaves to save world from climate change.
I was sleepy, but now I am totally fresh.
This smells like misinformation to me too. Please be skeptical, guys!
There is a link to the files by Jean S over at Lucia’s
Interesting to see how much Mr biased-as-heck BBC reporter Richard Black is under the thumb of a Mr Mann….
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
>>>> its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat
>>>> at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was
>>>> formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
>>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it
>>>> might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I
>>>> might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
This stuff could be earth shattering ! Or at least Climate Shattering. This news has to get out to FOX News, Glen Beck and the rest of talk radio to get it out to as much of the public as possible and as soon as possible.
We all know darned well that the TV news networks, ABC ,NBC, CBS and their cable affiliates will not even pick it up, let alone cover it.
If it is as bad as it could be, it might very well be the death blow to AGW !
If this hack has been enhanced, are we supposed to care? I think an inquiry is in order, and the net effect will be that someone has some big time explaining to do and necessary revelations to be made.
I believe “hide the decline” refers to the divergence “problem” with tree rings at the end of the 20th century.
Ok, I have looked at the file and it *looks* like something that was zipped up as part of an FOI request. Looks like a collection of various files and emails that were placed in a directory and zipped up. No telling where the file was found or who grabbed a copy if this file was sent off to someone else, say, a legal department or something, for review.
Lot of stuff in there and I am not going to open any word documents. Funny .jpg file in there, though and a lot of climate activist stuff.
If it looks too good to be true it probably is.
Let’s hope they don’t shut down the system so nothing can be got.
Your tax money at work:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2exn2ty.jpg
Anyone checked the ZIP for malicious hacker and cracker type files? 🙂 I’d like to unzip it but don’t know if I dare… 🙂
Maybe this is an attempt to shut down all of us sceptics with one swifth blow by virus. 🙂
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t?
As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we
actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our
original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly
deniable accusations,
m
p.s. any word on HadCRU Sep numbers yet???
On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin, Mike, Andy,
It has taken Keith longer than he would have liked, but it is up. There is a lot to
read and understand. It is structured for different levels. The link goes to the top
level. There is more detail below this and then there are the data below that.
You can either go to our main page
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ then click on the link
or directly here
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
I’ll let you make up you own minds! It seems to me as though McIntyre cherry picked for
effect.
There is an additional part that shows how many series from Ch 6 of AR4 used Yamal –
most didn’t! Also there is a sensitivity test of omitting it – which comes from the
Supplementary Info with Osborn and Briffa (2006). As expected omitting it makes very
little difference. To get to this follow the links from the above link.
McIntyre knows that the millennial temperature record is pretty robust, otherwise he
would produce his own series. Similarly the instrumental temperature is even more
robust, which he also knows.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [3]p.jones@xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: xxxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [4]mann@xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [5]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[6]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [7]p.jones@xxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [8]mann@xxxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [9]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[10]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
3. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
1256735067.txt
Obviously, Steve has yet to see these postings.
Fascinating, although I would say that unless we know the exact provenance of this file, it is totally possible that this has been salted with fakes.
CA seems to be down at the moment, at least in the UK.
Incredible.
This somewhat premature “Christmas Present”, still unwrapped, could turn out to be an atomic bombshell under the IPCC report and the Copenhagen Climate Treaty, if handled in a professional manner.
Next steps: Analysis of the data, conclusions, legal evaluation and strategy.
I wonder what the possibilities are to secure the computer data by an independent legal entity to ensure permanent loss of files due to a cover up.
I think Lord Monckton is the ideal person to make a fast plan.
He will know which strings to pull.
Speed is of the essence.
Has anyone done a “robust” sort of virus scan of the document to determine if it is safe to download and upzip it, or to open the files in it?
Well, the emails may be fake, but are they accurate?
i don’t think this is a “hack”; I suspect that this is an interim collection of documents, mail messages, and fortran code produced as part of responding to a FOIA request that leaked prematurely.
Well, there is that declineseries.pdf document that looks interesting. Looks to me like it shows little correlation between temperature (what I am guessing the red line is) and ring density or width. The second plot for each series seems to be a delta or difference between temperature and density/width and it if that is what it is, then it looks like a serious “divergence” problem.
But if it is true -and that needs verifying-what on earth are we all going to do with ourselves now?
Can I popose a renunion party to talk about the good old days scheduled for this day in five years time?
tonyb
Bolding mine.
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
The zip file at
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/
expands to 168 MB!
No way this is a hoax, no one would have the stamina to fabricate all this stuff!
“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”
…….Keith Briffa
…….Allegedly
The zip file in question expands to 4662 files of 157Mb. I’ve scanned them with 3 good commercial AV products which all found no suspicious files.
But to be on the safe side, I’m only looking at them under a non-admin account (XP)
There’s one helluva lot to wade through
“Anyone checked the ZIP for malicious hacker and cracker type files?”
I am opening only text and pdf documents directly from the zip file, I might unzip it on a linux box and go crazy with grep over the weekend.
Weyhey, paranoia reigns supreme! But like a bathroom turd, the facts always float to the top and bob around a bit… looking forward to more revelations re. the science that really matters. (Yep, still grumpy; but some of the earlier articles on this site momentarily cheered me up.)
Hmmmm… Well if someone “created” this stuff they took a lot of time in doing it. My guess is that it is most likely genuine. However it does not matter what peoples intents are. Data is what is important. 61 Megs can either contain a lot of information or none at all depending on what is in it. Personally lets stick with the facts. People say all kinds of inflammatory things to each other. Disregard those and lets keep working to real understanding of climate and science, just because they are biased does not make them wrong. What makes someone wrong is when data shows they are wrong. Worry about the data is what I say.
Like others have said – I’d be, well, you know…skeptical.
Yeah, I’ve got my copy too. If this is a stunt by some well-meaning skeptic, then I say hunt him down and throw the book at him. There needs to be two investigations… one on the provenance of this stuff, and one on the content.
This smacks of a “drag”, a device to create a scent trail to lure the hounds in the absence of a fox. Jolly good ride, but no kill at the end. Hope I’m wrong.
No way.
O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!
Apparently the truth is stronger than we thought…
Open science is the best science.
I have no idea what is going on here.
I note wiser and cooler heads, no pun intended, are treating it with caution.
But if it has a basis in fact, that is these are not forged documents, then there are quite a lot of questions to answer.
But then it always amazes me how careless people are in leaving written evidence about the place. The methods of communication may have changed but there are always people too lazy or too self important to understand how their scribblings might betray them.
Assuming anybody was bothered to collect, collate and interpret these these billet doux.
Kindest Regards
“Worry about the data is what I say.”
Great idea. The problem is, if the substance of these e-mails is correct, they’re talking about corrupting the data to prove their point. That’s way beyond merely letting off steam in an inflammatory e-mail. It’s out and out fraud.
‘”Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.”‘
lol.
What p’s me off is
RulesOfTheGame.pdf
Anthony, CA is crawling right now. Is it being slammed by people wanting to see more?
I’ve figured it out. It is a conspiracy to crash WUWT and CA and LUCIA. It seems the whole world is hitting these sites and even WordPress is struggling.
Devilish cunning.
@TonyB (15:12:51) :
But if it is true […] what on earth are we all going to do with ourselves now?
Can I popose a renunion party to talk about the good old days scheduled for this day in five years time?
Nah – we’ll all still be here dealing with the next hobgoblin 😉
unfortunately, it looks a bit too good to be true. If it is, perhaps it’s a preemptive strike to immunize themselves from any last minute real revalations or expose’ and perhaps as a tool to discredit high profile skeptics. It’s even possible that a lot of the data might possibly be real – then again…. It will be interesting to see the response from this and how they spin it.
Unfortunately, even if this turns out to be false, I no longer think that the implications about those invoved are unrealistic of what went on.
Holy Carp!
As an IT person, I can say, that to fake all that information not to mention keeping the email headers consistent, is near impossible for that volume of information. You would need some serious funding of manpower to do such a thing.
I’m going to parse through as much of it as I can.. Any keywords I should be looking for that anyone can suggest?
…walks like scam, smells like a scam and it’s even yelling “SCAM, SCAM, SCAM!!!….
Don’t miss the possibility that this file doesn’t need to be hoax or legit. It can be both. There could be a lot of the real thing in there, and seeded here and there some manufactured evidence meant to discredit. An ideologically motivated hacker (as this seems to be) smart enough to hack CRU is smart enough to do such a thing.
I’m not saying that’s what happened here, but one must not rule out the possibility.
I’m waiting for the response over at RC…
No wonder they “lost” the data!!!
It seems that Phil Jones reads WUWT – he notified Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann about a post seemingly hours after it was posted.
See mail #1237474374 for details.
He also makes a reference to the comments made at CA so I guess he also confirmed he reads Climate Audit too: “The responses are even worse than you get on CA.”
I find it hard to believe that someone would have had the spare time to forge those messages. There are too many names, titles, addresses and phone numbers presented in too many formats. Yeah, you could write a script to get some of it done but you would have to have carefully studied their correspondence to get it right. That part of the script would take quite a while to complete, and then one would have to spend a good bit of composing the actual content (mimicking each author’s style/voice), which would also be a tough task.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline
Deliberate manipulation to get the desired result????
Be VERY wary of hacks.
TIFF, JPEG, PDF, ZIP, MS Word and several other formats have been
cracked and are very good infection vectors.
If I had to pick through this stuff, I would run XP VMware, on a Mac.
On the Mac I would log in as a non-admin user. Then log into XP
under VMware as a non-admin. Run the whole thing on a removable
disk.
Open all PDFs on a non-Adobe PDF reader. Change all the TIFFs to JPEG
and JPEG to TIFF using something like GIMP. Open all Word files with
OpenOffice and save to .odt form.
Tomcity is an ISP company located in the city of Tomsk, Siberia, Russia. Here is the result of my lookup:
mnt-routes – TOMLINE-MNT
source – RIPE # Filtered
status – ASSIGNED PA
% Note – This output has been filtered.
nic-hdl – SK3784-RIPE
tech-c – ZMOD-RIPE
person – Sergey Kazakov
address – Tomsk, Russia
country – RU
mnt-by – TOMLINE-MNT
netname – TOMCITY-NET
origin – AS25446
route – 88.204.24.0/22
inetnum – 88.204.24.0 – 88.204.31.255
phone – +7 3822 228666
descr – TOMCITY-NET route object
fax-no – +7 3822 452121
e-mail – neiks@iao.ru
admin-c – ZMOD-RIPE
role – Tomline ISP Tech role
remarks: trouble – 12/5 phone number +7 3822 228666
Is this the watergate of climate science
“…..My guess is that it is most likely genuine……”
Maybe. Is it ALL genuine though? Or is it 99% genuine with a little salt added here and there?
Almost too good to be true.. but delicious reading. I wonder if the mainstream media will run with any of it. They have run headlines on a lot less than this in the past.
If this is real, this part looks particularly damning:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
For those who think the defence may be: “Fake!”. Who has the time to fake 60 MBytes of probably mind-numbing daily boring stuff – and tables of data that can be verified?
No, this is huge 🙂
We may find out whether the dog really did eat the data, or whether this whole global warming scam is a dog’s breakfast 🙂
I scanned the zip file with AVG and it reported no problems. It recursively scans the contents of the archive, including contained archives.
The emails are just plain text and would not be a risk.
Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?
Does the person who posted that file at the Russian FTP site have the courage to come forward and identify himself? You can identify yourself to Steve, Anthony, Jeff or Lucia simply by posting a comment with your real e-mail address and asking them to contact you. The rest of us will never know who you are and they will never reveal your identity. But the provenance of this material needs to be proved.
1255496484.txt
> The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
> and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the
> August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
> warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
>
> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are
> tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO.
> Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It
> surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to
> El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time
> since Sept 2007. see
> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
>
> Kevin
>
> Michael Mann wrote:
>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its
>> particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC
>> (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly
>> a weather person at the Met Office.
>>
>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might
>> be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might
>> ask Richard Black what’s up here?
>>
Hi rich, It’s mann, can you spin some BS for me, Sure no problem…
If it smells this bad it is worse than we ever imagined. I think this may be the tipping point right here, right now in this one .zip file.
Roger Knights (14:15:11) :
PS: This is a plot-twist so fantastic it couldn’t have been used in Michael Crichton’s Fear. The truth is stranger than fiction.
Roger, I have it on questionable authority that this is Michael working “en phantasmagora” to add what Sir Alfred Hitchcock describes as “a juicy piece of plot.” This might be worth hanging around for.
**********************************
From: Ben Santer
To: P.Jones
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700
Dear Phil,
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
**********************************
Oh dear. There was not a bigger leak since Britons and Polish cracked Enigma and Americans did the same with the Japanese Purple code.
Indeed, it is funny this comes out as Steve’s work is getting serious exposure.
Regardless of the content, damning or not, hacking is illegal.
It smells a bit fishy but if true, we should see some very interesting times ahead indeed.
Ray
‘On another note, they do have a very nice building but it must be very expensive to heat in winter, and produce lots of CO2.’
Why should it be expensive to heat? It’s a greenhouse, isn’t it?!!!!!
Well I’m not too sure this is something to be overjoyed about.
Somebody who has the capability to break in and get this stuff, also has the ability to surreptitiously change things too, including corrupting data.
It may sound like a lark to some; but it is potentially extremely destructive.
The proper way to address this sort of “data secrecy” issue, is to convince the owners/possessors of the information, that it is in the best interest of science for them to make the data available; and that to not do so without a very good reason, simply brands their published “output” as “suspect”.
Hackers are not heroes in my book; more like juvenile delinquents or worse; common vandals.
One of these days; somebody is going to get smart, and just shoot some of these computer vandals; well after reading them their Miranda rights anyway.
I would say you did the right thing here Anthony in expunging the e-mails etc. OK to be reporting what IS a news item; but no point in becoming an accessory after the fact.
Having had several years of computer design work erased irretrievably by an IT nincompoop who’se aproach to installing an unwanted upgrade to M$ Internet Explorer, was to simply reformat my entire C: hard drive; and then for good measure to also reformat my entire D: backup drive; while blowing up the motherboard in the process; I’m not at all amused by people who get their kicks crashing into someone else’s system with malice aforethought.
In my case, a single sheet of paper accidently printed out, and filed under some non-descript heading; enabled me to retrieve the important details of the final result of that three years of lost work; the result of which has so far resulted in the worldwide sales of now more than one billion of the product resulting from that research.
Concur re zip file, no virus. Also the grouping looks plausible.
I’d only just said over at CA a few hours ago, “It would be nice to use the Team objection as a reason to press for disclosure of CRU data, as Juraj V suggests.” oh heck… what a disclosure…
From: “Michael E. Mann”
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
1054757526.txt
I don’t inderstand all of it, but I do know what putative is:
–adjective
commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed
I hope this helps.
What an Inconvenient Truth. Nothing that was unsuspected, though… This is going to be an atomic bomb that the Russians launched against Global Warming…
Ecotretas
Someone who has the file, please post it to http://wikileaks.org/
Let us see if this leak evolves legs.
I hope some of our skeptic friends will carefully read this. If any of this shows items of interest, it needs to get to Breitbart or other still-independent media so that it can foced into the public square. The data needs to be carefully preserved.
And for our AGW true believer friends: do not bother with the argument that this should not be reviewed since it came from possibly disreputable means. Lefties have never hesitated to use information gotten from gray sources in their attempts to put info in the public square.
Let us stay focused on the information, and let the chips fall where they may.
AGW promoters have for years gotten away with secrecy, self-dealing, inflammatory hyperbole, personal attacks, and non-reproducible claims. If someone in Hadley finally got a belly full and has released a large amount of data that stinks up AGW dogma, too bad.
I don’t know, this seems very convenient. I actually believe that most of the content is real, but like other posters I wonder if there might be unflattering salted entries throughout. We musn’t forget that these archives, regardless whether they appear to have been bundled as part of some FOI request or not, were hacked. Hackers prove by their hacking that they are not honest, so what guarantee do we have that they did not salt a few juicy phrases here and there?
Whoever looks deeply into this should be very, very careful about any conclusions.
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
See attached note.
Comments?
Tom
Bulldust (15:52:36) : said
“Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?”
At 15:52:36, Bulldog
Tonyb
John Anderson (14:21:03) :
“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com)”
“Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news !”
Of all the bits I’ve read, that is the one (if true) that really turned my stomach…
I 100% concur w/previous posters advising CAUTION and SKEPTICISM.
Consider how perfectly timed the realease is with Copenhagen. Curious, no?
Could be a blackmail attempt that didnt’ stick, could be a gov’t entity w/an agenda, could be anything.
Before believing anything, apply the principles of good science to uncover facts. Then what you believe at least has a chance of being true.
I’m downloading now. Massive file. This will provide juice for years. The dog that ate the homework just vomitted.
Antonio San (16:02:59) :
“ndeed, it is funny this comes out as Steve’s work is getting serious exposure.
Regardless of the content, damning or not, hacking is illegal.”
I think in this case it may well come under “whistle-blower” protections. The mole needs to reveal himself to someone who will be able to vouch for authenticity.
O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!
Again, today, I was looking at a childs book that goes like this:
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I wonder why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she’ll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider
[mentally rewrote here] that squiggled the WorldWideWeb inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
I wonder why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she’ll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a bird
Well how absurd
To swallow a bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider…. etc
….she swallowed a cat to catch the bird… just fancy that, to swallow a cat
… she swallowed a dog to catch the cat… how very odd, to swallow a dog
…she swallowed a cow… I wonder how she swallowed a cow
…she swallowed a horse… she died of course.
George E. Smith,
I would normally agree with you, but this is nuclear, if true. The more people that have access to this “info” to examine it independantly, the better.
@ Frank Perdicaro (15:45:55) :
“Be VERY wary of hacks.
TIFF, JPEG, PDF, ZIP, MS Word and several other formats have been
cracked and are very good infection vectors. ”
ermm…with the exception of a possible macro in a Mickeysoft Word document the other file types are passive and not useable as carriers for malicious code.
Interesting…but remember the Godwin Grech saga!!
I suspect an insider got mad and leaked this. We don’t know if its been edited, though.
A good verification step would be to examine the emails that went to/from other institutions and put in a specific FOI request at those institutions for verification.
There are also numerous internal documents, data and source code that are bundled in this package.
Be cautiously skeptical for now. The truth will emerge.
George E. Smith (16:06:15) :
George, I’m half tempted to agree with you…. most hackers are vandals and should be dealt with summarily. If this information is really true, however, the hacker has just exposed a crime far more monstrous and consequential than his own. If the data is not true, then let’s you and I get together and track the miscreant down and administer a little IT justice….
A bit too many “revealing” statements for this skeptic to believe in that file right now.
Also, consider that if it turns out to be true, there’ll be plenty of time to digest it properly. If it turns out to be fake, anybody “falling for it” will destroy his or her reputation for centuries to come.
I say, leave the sediment reach the bottom on its own.
Just a brief review suggests to me that this is real. There is Fortran code, AWK stuff.
Yes, this is real. Historians will be digesting this 100 years from now.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Question: What is the WMO statement? What does WMO stand for?
Trick? Hide the decline?
[snip]
Re: Robert Wood of Canada (15:51:22) :
For those who think the defence may be: “Fake!”. Who has the time to fake 60 MBytes of probably mind-numbing daily boring stuff – and tables of data that can be verified?
—
You wouldn’t necessarily need to fake all 60MB, just add a few fake smoking guns and then any authentic data would potentially help mask it. For people that have the data, are all the emails to/from one recipient, and do they have the full email headers, ie message ID and mail path?
Get an old machine and use CD bootable Ubuntu on it. Ubuntu isn’t susceptible to most Windows viruses, but with Open Office will open Word files.
My post has got swallowed.
oakgeo,
To answer you in brief, bunk.
Leaking government docs is a long held tradition in muck raking and investigative journalism.
From the famous ‘Pentagon Papers’ during Vietnam, where documents acknowledged to have been stolen were determined by the US Supreme Court to still be in the public domain, to the current war on terror, where the NYT regularly leaked classified information of on going, lawful secret operations, busting into government files illicitly ahs been fine.
We actually do not know that Hadley ahs been in fact hacked.
They may very well be claiming they have been hacked what happened was a disgruntled, conscience driven employee simply down loaded his or her e-mail record and published it for the world to see.
‘Hacking’ is a very easy way to raise doubts about the information, as you demonstrate.
‘Hacking’ also gives hadley, and others, an excuse to purge files in the name of security.
Frankly, I bet that no hacking took place, in the classical sense. I bet this is an employee who is tired of the AGW promoters cynically and falsely creating power based on fear of the climate.
I suppose it means the sharp 1998 – 1999 decline from El Nino to La Nina (as it’s dated 11/99).
ummm, I thought the dog ate the data.
As Peter West and others are saying : “BE CAREFUL!!!!! The validity of this needs to be very carefully checked before ANY claims are made.” and the hackers could have “seeded here and there some manufactured evidence meant to discredit”
Resist the temptation. In the end it’s the actual climate and the actual science that matter, not what people have said.
…
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don’t know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit …
Richard (16:25:45) :
“What is the WMO statement?”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statement/wmostatement_en.html
“When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied:
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.””
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/24/uk-met-office-and-dr-phil-jones-pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain/
This may not be a hacker but an inside job. Some normal human being tire of science being used for political purposes. Very interesting.
I’ve run it through AVG as well and it comes up clean. Total files 9700 and zips within zips.
This is not to say that there isn’t something nasty lurking in there. AVG is good enough for my normal work but if someone really wants to [snip] us all up I’m sure they could find a way.
On the other hand the timing is so serendipitous that has to be suspicious in itself. Anyone with a couple of hours to spare could read Le Carre’s ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ and learn a bit about how to deflect attention from what you don’t actually want your opposite number to see. Conjurors are good at that as well.
And I’ll repeat what’s been said above: If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Be warned.
On the other hand, it would be nice ……
RC has gone strangely quiet, just like how the guns stopped as Luke began his attack run on the Death Star…
if real, this seems like it could be the Russians or the Chinese trying to derail Copenhagen. the timing seems too coincidental…
What I find amusing is that if the emails are genuine then the main players in this drama will be sitting in front of their computers unable to email each other to discuss it just in case it gets hacked again.
I guess the phone lines between the UK and USA will be busy tonight.
There is no doubt that at least part of the email corpus is “real”. For just one small example, there is 1182346299.txt which has a McIntyre email in that McIntyre posted online himself http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741 That same txt file contains a quoted email from Douglas J. Keenan which was matches an excerpt by Keenan in his Energy and Environment article (http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf)
The issue is whether the rest of that email and all the others are original and have not been altered in some way. When I google for small parts of phrases from the parts allegedly written by Jones, I come up empty. It doesn’t mean much, except that his public correspondence and phrasing seems to be quite different from his private messages.
I thought Shrodinger’s cat was invisible.
A whistleblows perhapos but at the end of the day, these people have not released data as per science process. So the emails of themselves appear credible in the face of previous actions.
But all data should be treated cautiously until checked. Even leaked emails.
I’m reposting the comment I made earlier, offering a possible extenuation of the “trick” e-mail, since several subsequent commenters haven’t taken it into consideration:
==========
“Trick” might not be as damning as it seems. He might have used the word as an informal synonym for “technique,” in the same way that programmers will speak of “a neat hack,” meaning technique, not reprehensible kludge–although that’s what it sounds like to an outsider.
If the word “trick” can be found used as a synonym for technique in other e-mails [please search for that word!], this defense could be made to look credible.
Still, on the surface, it does look like something in the vein of, “We’ve got to get rid of the MWP.”
This looks fake to me. This story should never have been posted here, until it was verified. This story damages the credibility of wattsupwiththat.com.
re: Richard (16:25:45) :
WMO is the World Meteorlogical Organization.
They have a list of their annual statements here:
http://tiny.cc/9Ows9
Whether or not any e-mails have been “modified” by even the addition of a comma can, and most likely will, now be uncovered by a discovery request in a civil suit (using US terminology). All senders and recipients cannot claim to have lost the e-mails now.
By the way, is anyone surprised at this – I mean the content ?? Obviously, its
“publication” is a bombshell of a surprise, but wasn’t it pretty obvious that the hokey stick, Steig and Briffa were just the errrmmm tip of the iceberg ??
I think it’s pretty amusing that anyone here would be taken in by this stuff. In fact it’s comical. Like breathing on an ant nest – someone has you all running around and falling over each other in your eagerness to trumpet evidence of ‘the Great Global Warming Fraud’.
Wise up folks. You’re doing yourselves a disservice. You can do better than this.
Emails 1256735067 through 1256760240 have some interesting comments about Yamel and Climate Audit. Seems to be some searching question being asked here!
—–Original Message—–
From: Keiller, Donald
Sent: 02 October 2009 10:34
To: ‘k.briffa@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ‘p.jones@xxxxxxx
Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly
since I hear that you are unwell.
However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much
discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a
number of key papers by you and co-workers.
As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate
starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole
scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of “teleconnection” by which certain trees respond to the
“Global Temperature Field”, rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature
in a linear manner.
Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use
inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find
difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.
As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do
not agree with the accepted science.
There is a saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers,
further detailed explanation is urgently required.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller.
Source – 1256760240.txt
—————————–
From: Phil Jones
To: “Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science)”
Subject: Yamal response from Keith
Date: Wed Oct 28 12:26:39 2009
John,
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
This went up last night about 5pm. There is a lot to read at various levels. If you get
time just the top level is necessary. There is also a bit from Tim Osborn showing that
Yamal was used in 3 of the 12 millennial reconstructions used in Ch 6.
Also McIntyre had the Yamal data in Feb 2004 – although he seems to have forgotten this.
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was
doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jonesxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Source: 1256747199.txt
————————–
Just some highlights…
FYI the IP address from the mail header a couple posts above is legitimate. A reverse lookup says it belongs to the server ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk, uea being of course the University of East Anglia.
Mike Jonas (16:33:15): “In the end it’s the actual climate and the actual science that matter”.
Agree, but if actual science now is partly based on tricks, then “what people have said” here has some validity. If one can nail this statements like this to the Hadley people the destruction of the climate bandwagon may occur somewhat earlier than otherwise… (If it’s true it’s criminal, isn’t it?)
Rereke Whakaaro (14:37:56) :
The real question is, “Who would gain by putting this in the public arena at this time?”
Exactly. How would Al Gore and Jim Hansen and fellow warmists profit from this?
Is it possible to run a grammar & spelling check to see if the emails are consistent for a particular author? For example, the use of the term “with-holding” supposedly written by Phil, as opposed to “withholding”.
Moderators, I suggest you redact phone numbers and email addys from posts as has been done with the original article. I’d also erase the direct ftp addy as well.
There’s likely to be big trouble with this.
No, no, no… it just cannot be true, our “favourite scientists” are talking about the recent cooling and how to “explain” this? Just take a look at the names involved, it is unbelievable, scarier than anything else in this topic:
From: Michael Mann
To: Kevin Trenberth
Cc: Tom Wigley , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
or here is Phil Jones about his urbanization paper which were published in 1990:
I have another paper just accepted in JGR coming out on Chinese temps
and urbanization. This will also likely cause a stir. I’ll send you a copy when
I get the proofs from AGU. Some of the paper relates to the 1990 paper
and the fraud allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang. Remind me on this in
a few weeks if you hear nothing.
Cheers
Phil
PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage – so wrong it is unbelievable that
Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I’d never
said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just
shows how up to date he is.
[2]http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151
At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Roger Knights (16:44:30) :
Stop wasting your time. “Trick” has a meaning, and it is widely understaood. You cannot undermine that.
I downloaded the zip file, unpacked it, browsed a bit. I opened a .pdf file entitled “RulesOfTheGame.pdf”. Very interesting document. Most compelling is that I broke open the metadata for this file. The file date stamp is Oct. 3, 2006, the metadata says it was created Oct 14, 2005 using QuarkExpress v.6.1 (released in 2004). All properties and metadata for this file definitely appear genuine to me.
Interesting that this document describes methods of convincing the public of the “crisis”.
Excerpt:
a new way of thinking
Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:
5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.
6. Use both peripheral and central processing Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.
7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.
8. Use transmitters and social learning People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.
9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.
Jabba,
No Capn that’s wrong, if you put a cat in a box it it is not invisible. Only unobserved. When you open the box the cat may be dead or alive, but if the latter it is likely to be bloody furious at being put the in box in the first place.
Which is why elf and shufti now require full protective equipment before opening the box.
Kindest Regards
I believe I can finally use the phrase: Fraudsters!
Skeptism comes naturally to this groupl
Get a FOI request in to verify if these are real….. That way, all will be revealed.
Brian (16:44:55) :
“This looks fake to me. This story should never have been posted here, until it was verified. This story damages the credibility of wattsupwiththat.com.”
You should never have been posted here, until it was verified. I’ve heard this “credibility” story more than once, and the site continues to gain popularity.
Another thought – it is possible that the perpetrator (hacker or insider) has not yet released everything. There could be more files yet to come …
ADVICE
DON’T CLICK ON ANY LINKS FROM THESE COMMENTS, PARTICULARLY
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/XXXcoming/free/XXXXXXX.zip
Okay, to anyone who thinks this is not real… wow… I have been going through it and if this is a fake it is a dang good fake because it has lots of information… I do not believe this to be a fake though what true use it is in the fight against climate alarmist and the current group of intellectuals who at times seem like they take what they do seriously while at the same time slamming anyone who disagrees with their analysis will soon be up to public scrutiny.
That being said it is the science that matters not the scientists. However I do believe this is another cause for opening up the books and letting people who are not in the inner circle have a look at what they are doing. One of the emails I read said that by not doing so it looks like they are hiding something, I actually agree with that, so stop it and make the data publicly available.
Here’s a quote from one of the emails:
“Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.”
I’m not providing the filename or sender’s name because I do not know if the documents are real or not. As others are saying, we need to be careful because these documents may be manufactured plants. However, if the one I quoted from is real, it provides possible evidence of felony tax evasion by “someone.”
I’ve had private email conversations with one person whose name and messages are to be found in the “mail” folder; so it happens that the person shows a certain form of dyslexia and the pattern of the mistypes this person makes are easily recognisable and consistent across this person’s writings. Isn’t much, but it is something. Also, some details referring to the person’s life are accurate as far as i can tell.
Here’s my take:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
While downloading the zip file, I noticed that Sergey has his Parental File listed.
In it are listings such as Warcraft and Bollywood. Didn’t pry any further, but seemed a little odd for a Russkie, or not.
Just downloading my copy as I write, for posterity if for nothing else. Putting on my tin foil hat here, I’d say if it turns out to be true, then it gets the politicians and the MSM off the hook as far as this AGW meme goes. Just posted this message over at RC:
It appears the Hadley CRU server has been hacked and 62MB of zipped files made available over the internet. Is this an elaborate hoax, or can anyone provide a comment/clarification? Thanks.
Unfortunately, it just got swallowed, no “Your comment is awaiting moderation” or anything
“tricks” was the least offensive bit I saw in those emails. Try googling “tips and tricks” and see all the results you get.
Someone this skilled to have hacked CRU would not have made up emails from whole cloth. It’d have been micro edits of some of the existing emails he stole. Not saying it happened, but if it did that would be what it was.
As people go through this stuff, please be on the look out for refrences to Fenton Communications. Fenton will be the link to Al Gore.
@Squidly (16:54:50) :
Thanks for posting that excerpt. I hadn’t got to that one yet. That is pure spin with more than a whiff of professional assistance.
Jabba,
The cracking of TIFF, JPEG is well documented. Buffer overruns
in carefully constructed images can execute arbitrary code in a
variety of common decompression libraries. PDF is a wicked
vector of destruction — I have personally written PDF files that will
delete all the contents of a hard disk. As early as 2000 the
security problems of PDF were openly discussed by Jim King, the
chief scientist at Adobe. There are currently several open ones.
Need to hide your return vector in PDF? Hide it as variation in
the kerning between a few letter pairs, and encode the result in
SIXBIT. That one is hard to spot.
It was just last year Microsoft patched another Enhanced Metafile
vector overrun bug in MS Word.
Do a quick search on “PDF exploit” or “TIFF vulnerability”
This one is huge.
Compare what Trenberth says here : http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2009/10/10/dr-william-gray-and-dr-kevin-trenberth-debate-global-warming/
…while exactly at the same moment he writing :
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
***The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.***
Lucy Skywalker (16:06:47) :Concur re zip file, no virus. Also the grouping looks plausible.
I’d only just said over at CA a few hours ago, “It would be nice to use the Team objection as a reason to press for disclosure of CRU data, as Juraj V suggests.” oh heck… what a disclosure…
Where the heck is this topic on CA? couldnt find it – has it been pulled?
Just to make sure everyone is reading from the same page, I downloaded the file from http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/ at 0100 UTC on 20091120 and ran the md5 hash creator on it. For those who would like to verify the authenticity of their download, here’s the hash:
#md5 FOI2009.zip
MD5 (FOI2009.zip) = da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4
A cursory glance through several of the files gives me the feel of authenticity, but YMMV.
OT: If this mess “Kevin and I will keep them out” turns out to be real, then maybe just maybe people will take PKI seriously.
The director of the CRU admits that everyone “in the know” realizes that Mann’s original 1998 Hockey Stick was faulty. So much for the National Academy of Sciences having vindicated it (with faint praise but still praise).
Mann only used the last century of 1000 years of data for selection of which proxy series to vastly emphasize and it spit out Bristlecone pines since they alone showed a massive change in that single century. Had they showed a downswing they still would have been selected and a reverse hockey stick would have resulted, as it results half of the time when you feed his algorithm random data.
The main thing I take home from these so far is how the scientists transform from laughing at pesky and persistent skeptics to having their whole lives revolve around each and every post on the ClimateAudit site! It shows very clearly that “deniers” are not considered crackpots worth ignoring at all even within the very core of academic scientists. They really are running around putting out each and every fire and altering each detail of their latest papers in appreciation that those details are exactly what will be scrutinized. They are tying themselves in knots over the skeptical community.
From: Phil Jones
To: Tim Osborn , “Tett, Simon”
Subject: Re: Bristlecones!
Date: Fri Jul 29 16:30:35 2005
Cc: Keith Briffa
Simon,
If you go to this web page [1]http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
You can click on a re-evaluation of MBH, which leads to a paper submitted to Climatic Change. This shows that MBH can be reproduced. The R-code to do this can be accessed and eventually the data – once the paper has been accepted.
IPCC will likely conclude that all MM arguments are wrong and have been answered in papers that have either come out or will soon. MBH is just one curve of many – more now than there were in 2001. MBH is still in the spaghetti of curves, and is not an outlier. If there are outliers it will be Esper et al. and another one.
Bristlecones are only crucial to the issue if you are MM. They misused them, by their PCA application. This is all well-known to those in the know.
I have reviewed the CC paper by Wahl and Ammann. It reproduces all the mistakes MM have made, so they know how and why their results have been achieved. I can send you the paper if you want, subject to the usual rules.
MBH have all responded to the same requests as IPCC got from the US Senate. Their responses are all posted at [2]http://www.realclimate.org/
The skeptics have shot themselves in the foot over this one.
Cheers
Phil
All the TOP people in this field are emailing each other discussing how they can continue to perpetuate the …
I can finally say out loud what my data analysis says must have been happening now.
Once I read every single document that is.
Glenn (16:50:50) :
Moderators, I suggest you redact phone numbers and email addys from posts as has been done with the original article. I’d also erase the direct ftp addy as well.
There’s likely to be big trouble with this.
That’s damned good advice. Please follow it and/or consult with an attorney. This is a very serious matter. PLEASE use caution!
magicfingers4 (17:05:23)
why not click on links?
Dom (17:14:30) : Where did that email come from? The hacked site? Whats the address of the site?
“The cracking of TIFF, JPEG is well documented.”
I have checked the files six ways to Sunday. They appear to be legitimate and clean so far.
Robert Wood of Canada (16:13:14) :
I’m downloading now. Massive file. This will provide juice for years. The dog that ate the homework just vomitted
——————————————————–
Errk!… I know, just dragging my fingers through it now, looking for chunks…;-)
For what it’s worth, IMHO this is from a mole within.
The hacking claim is a red (green) herring that attempts to minimise damage and aspires to get a positive by writing this off as a reactionary attack by evil-forces, financed by shatanic capitalism.
Somewhere, within that organisation, there lurks a person brave enough to spill the beans. Yup, laddie or lass, you crossed a line but History will treat you with much respect!
Dunno who you are but you are a Hero
STOP !!!
What if we are being PUNKED!!!! What if WUWT is the site that has been hacked and this is FAKE news?
Just asking….
JT
Be careful, don´t jump to conclusions, it could be a trick or forged.
however I am downloading now on a Linux Box.
I want to see it for myself.
Cheers.
My question: even if this is real stuff, -nobody here assumed the Team weren’t politically savvy people willing to advance their agenda by many means-, to which point this might be a way to legally attack and shut down blogs such as CA or WUWT and others ahead of Copenhagen?
As McIntyre commented: “Unbelievable.”
It seems that a small warmist clique has been brought out into the open.
I am sure they are going to feel the heat of being exposed.It is a pity it has to be exposed by an illegal activity to expose the overt hostility of honest science research.
I have long suspected that a few people were not being honest in what they do and write,now we have the evidence that they kept a lot of stuff under the rug.
“There’s likely to be big trouble with this.”
Maybe but not with anyone who has the file now. It is far too late. The URL is posted on at least a half-dozen sites and if the file is not in Bit Torrent by now, it probably will be in a few hours. The file is out in the wild and there is nothing that can be done to people getting a copy of it now.
This is an epic fail for CRUT. There is massive collateral damage with this. It describes how these “scientists” were coordinating to manipulate opinion and obtain funding, even Tamino’s identity is outed in those emails.
This is a earthquake in their world.
Folks, unless your mail is on your own mail server, do not ever assume that a deleted email is actually deleted. At work, EVERY email written by EVERY employee is saved in case it is needed by “discovery” in case of a lawsuit. If an employee deletes an email, it isn’t really deleted. A copy is saved for some number of years in case it is needed.
Joseph in Florida (16:34:52) :
…
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don’t know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
I wonder if this is the imfamous Tom P of CA fame?? Hmm
One day there will be another St Bartholomew as many people will have enough of the green guilt spewing… watch out!
I’m thinking that if this material turns out to be genuine, some of the folks in the emails may consider a long holiday in Cuba. No one will find them there, Al Gore has erased it from the map…
The interesting and potentially explosive news is if, as reported, the MBH code is now in the open. This would allow the allegations to be tested once and for all. It is also most unlikely that the old fortran could have been invisibly faked, so it is a potential test for the validity of the stuff. Does not of course show that it has not been selectively edited.
Hope this posting stays on for at least 3 or more days (or updates on same)
@ sunsettommy
The Pentagon Papers were stolen too.
This isn’t a trial. No one need worry about rules of evidence. Only science.
This is huge.
I don’t see the person who did this as a “hacker”, so much as a whistle blower.
The entire mail folder of this file has had its archive date artificially set to Jan 1, 2009 00:00:00. Several of the data file dates have also been artificially changed. There is a high probability that although the origin of the data is genuine, it has been doctored by someone. The file needs to be examined by experts before putting much stock into its authenticity.
no way this is for real. must wait and see.
Downloaded it and the dog wouldn’t touch it. Went after the squeaky toy instead.
@richard :
Got it here : http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
In in an email from thread from Michael Mann called “BBC U-turn on climate”
Dom (17:14:30) :
“From: Kevin Trenberth
[…]
***The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.***”
First hit on a search for “August BAMS 09 Supplement on 2008” returned:
“The supplement is well done, and contains liberal web-links to the original data sources. As usual, one may disagree with some chapters, findings or hypothesis. But it seems at a first glance, that “inconvenient” results are not silenced. For instance the chapter on SST correctly relates that the 2007/2008 SST was much cooler than during the 2002-2006; the corresponding figure showing the World Ocean heat content does not use dirty tricks to hide the practically unchanging SST from 2005 on. Interestingly the subpolar North Atlantic, Labrador and Irminger Seas are cooling down (which would explain the ongoing recovery of the Arctic sea ice extent). I really recommend to download this BAMS supplement.”
http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/bams-state-of-the-climate-2008/
The main page http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/ and article above written by “Francis Massen”, apparently a sceptic:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/
This is the internet and the entire file with all the names, phone numbers, addresses and content are out there now in multiple sites being downloaded, scrutinized and distributed.
By tomorrow a million people will have come across it while the media tries to catch up.
Anyone advising the removal of numbers etc is being rather silly.
Richard (17:17:44) :
Lucy Skywalker (16:06:47) :Concur re zip file, no virus. Also the grouping looks plausible.
I’d only just said over at CA a few hours ago, “It would be nice to use the Team objection as a reason to press for disclosure of CRU data, as Juraj V suggests.” oh heck… what a disclosure…
Where the heck is this topic on CA? couldnt find it – has it been pulled?
——————————————————-
The discussion is on the WSJ Europe topic, Richard.
“”” Robert Wood of Canada (16:18:05) :
George E. Smith,
I would normally agree with you, but this is nuclear, if true. The more people that have access to this “info” to examine it independantly, the better. “””
“”” Robert E. Phelan (16:23:57) :
George E. Smith (16:06:15) :
George, I’m half tempted to agree with you…. most hackers are vandals and should be dealt with summarily. If this information is really true, however, the hacker has just exposed a crime far more monstrous and consequential than his own. If the data is not true, then let’s you and I get together and track the miscreant down and administer a little IT justice…. “””
Well I certainly am not the arbiter of any other person’s sense of ethics; to each his own.
Does it occur to any here how chilling it is for open communications if one is always aware that some Knight in shining armor may take it upon himself to invade those conversations; and spread to the four winds; with no regard for what the consequences might be.
The leakers of “The Pentagon Papers” will get no medals from me; no matter what their crime may have uncovered.
There’s that old bar joke line:- Hey lady, would you sleep with me for a million dollars? Well sure; your place or mine ? Well would you sleep with me for ten dollars then ? Hey, what kind of a girl do you think I am anyway ?
Well we already established that; now we’re just haggling about the price.
Well if you can be had; for a price, who would want to take you into his confidence on anything, for any reason.
As to the Hadley information; release of it in this way is of little concern to me; because I simply never put much faith in it as Science anyway; same as I don’t think GISStemp is worth the paper it is printed on.
And as for the apparent (and I do mean apparent) subterfuge revealed in these released files; well perhaps it is hardly news.
As a steady reader of SCIENCE as well as Scientific American for now many years; I am quite convinced that the organised bodies behind some of these scientific organisations are willing to go to any ends to keep the taxpayer slush fund going in support of their members.
That does not mean every member of those organisations is a crook; I am sure many are dedicated researchers; maybe most of them; but it is quite apparent that the organisations have an agenda that is separate from the promotion of science.
Taxpayers, through their governments will always support science; it is silly to not do that. That is not the same as providing a permanent welfare slush fund for those who are quite happy to be supported on the backs of others.
And incidently, I feel the same way about corporate welfare recipients; who greedily grab for taxpayer grants to fund their pet dreams, that rational financial investors wouldn’t touch.
Bottom line is; nothing that is revealed in this hack job, serves to justify what these intruders have done; well with the disclaimer, that that is my opinion. You see I don’t have a price, for which I can be had; those that do can live with it.
Riiiiiiiiiight. Time to send in the “clean-up crew” (the cleaners as it were) eh Iscariot?
Or, should we call you ‘Baghdad Bob’, maybe ‘Comical Ali’ perhaps??
Do your more restrained compadres Joel Shore or Phil Clarke have a ‘take’ on all this too?
.
.
I’m sure that many of you have already figured this out, but if you sort the emails/.txts by name it puts them in chronological order. 0826209667 starts at Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:41:07 and 1258053464 ends it on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44.
I like when Mike Mann warns Phil Jones about what he forwards to Andy Revkin:
“p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like
”
I wonder what Andy will think when he finds out his buddy Mike doesn’t trust him!
Well I thought email 1255550975 was quite interesting:
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
>
> Tom Wigley wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
>> relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
>> ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
>>
>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
>>
>> These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
>>
>> Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of
>> warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
>> agree with this.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
>>> are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
>>> two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
>>> The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
>>> smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was
>>> about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
>>> canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
>>> weather).
>>>
>>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
>>> tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
>>> Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
>>>
>>> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>>>
>>> The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
>>> moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published
>>> in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
>>> more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
>>> inadequate.
>>>
>>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC
>>> are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with
>>> ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real
>>> PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the
>>> switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for
>>> first time since Sept 2007. see
>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
>>>
Ok downloaded, scanned, read a couple of emails. This is genuine as….. no doubt about it.
I’m thinking it’s authentic. I suppose someone associated with the Team could be playing an elaborate trick on skeptics and luke-warmers, but why invest all that effort and to what end? I suppose there could be a Merry Prankster among the dullards there, but I doubt it.
If it is authentic, I doubt you will find manufactured bogus material. Seems to me that the person(s?) doing this has a clear purpose and would not compromise the full product by altering documents for affect.
On the one hand (as Le Carre points out), topicality is always suspect. But on the other hand, topicality is a direct draw . . .
A long time ago, I adopted the assumption that every email I wrote was a permanent and public document. It is amazing what people will candidly confess on email.
I have the same md5 hash as W. Earl Allen (17:19:02), namely
da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 FOI2009.zip
Or comment in hallways, eh, Dr. Deming? (Har! Har!)
I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve been forwarding this link and a summary (Phil Jone’s email) to politicians, radio announcers and newpapers all lunchtime.
Hopefully something will get stirred up 🙂
“Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH landN of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”
“The latter two are real for 1999”
Well, at least the latter two for 1999 are real… that’s integrity, right?
I feel sorry for these guys, they were just trying to game the system, right?
Who can blame them for trying to profit from AGW, Gore and Soros are doing it, right? We are all being too hard on these guys, if their fake data gets us off evil oil won’t it all have been worthwhile? Besides, this is the last gasp for Global Socialism and these guys are doing their part to bring a collective paradise to planet earth… All in all, these few are heroes… (sarc off)
Mike Bryant…
*****************
Brian (16:44:55) :
This story damages the credibility of wattsupwiththat.com.
********************
People keep saying this, but it is BS. In the case where game-changing information is involved – shoot first, ask questions later. Right now it is more important to get it into the public. It will be parsed beyond belief later.
Has anyone told James Inhofe?
Steve S. (17:50:58) :
[…] Anyone advising the removal of numbers etc is being rather silly.
Unless that is your professional opinion as an attorney practicing in this area, I stand by the recommendation to redact names and numbers until such a professional opinion is obtained.
There are a lot of speculators out there like George Soros and GE and Al Gore that have a lot at stake betting that the world will go green on climate change. This has got to have caused huge historic earthquakes in their plans to benefit financially from the Cap and Trade schemes worldwide. This will most likely be the undoing of the AGW trade.
I cannot get onto Climate Audit. Very busy perhaps.
in reading the e-mails off of this comments section it seems to me that the text is too obvious. i.e (sarc) dear mike, i think we are exaggerating the warming too much with these bogus graphs so lets tone it down” sincerely, keith
I will be the happiest guy on this cooling planet if its real tho…
Furthernore, it is WUWT that is at risk by posting names and addresses, not the individual readers posting that info.
I downloaded a copy onto my Linux system. I don’t have time
or inclination to look too deeply. A couple things though.
The full set of .pdf files:
tux:FOIA> find . -name ‘*.pdf’ -print
./documents/080222_ZMZeng_Inputs.pdf
./documents/SOAP/SOAP-proposal-briffa-osborn.pdf
./documents/idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf
./documents/Extreme2100.pdf
./documents/osborn-tree3/declineseries.pdf
./documents/osborn-tree6/summer_modes/briffafig_page1.pdf
./documents/osborn-tree6/summer_modes/briffafig_page2.pdf
./documents/communicating_cc.pdf
./documents/hadcrut3_gmr+defra_report_200503.pdf
./documents/CRU-sr-external-input.pdf
./documents/CRU-COF_Report.pdf
./documents/ADAM second-order draft.pdf
./documents/tdutch.pdf
./documents/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
./documents/080214_SUNYA_draft.pdf
./documents/defra.pdf
./documents/MannHouseReply.pdf
Anthony and WUWT don’t get much attention, I guess the Team reacts
the same way as we do at RC. The only Watts reference is really
more about general chatting, but kind of interesting general
chatting.
(I deleted Email and phone links and other sundry stuff and somewhat
reformatted to reduce wordwrapping):
tux:mail> cat 1245943185.txt
From: Michael Mann
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Skeptics
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:19:45 -0400
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
Hi Phil,
well put, it is a parallel universe. irony is as you note, often the
contrarian arguments are such a scientific straw man, that an effort
to address them isn’t even worthy of the peer-reviewed literature!
mike
On Jun 25, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Just spent 5 minutes looking at Watts up. Couldn’t bear it any
longer – had to stop!. Is there really such a parallel universe out
there? I could understand all of the words some commenters wrote –
but not in the context they used them.
It is a mixed blessing. I encouraged Tom Peterson to do the
analysis with the limited number of USHCN stations. Still hoping
they will write it up for a full journal article.
Problem might be though – they get a decent reviewer who will say
there is nothing new in the paper, and they’d be right!
Cheers
Phil
At 15:53 24/06/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Phil–thanks for the update on this. I think your read on this is
absolutely correct. By the way, “Watts up” has mostly put
“ClimateAudit” out of business. a mixed blessing I suppose.
talk to you later,
mike
On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin,
Good to see you, if briefly, at NCAR on Friday. The day went
well, as did the dinner in the evening.
It must be my week on Climate Audit! Been looking a bit and Mc
said he has no interest in developing an alternative global T
series. He’d also said earlier it would be easy to do. I’m 100%
confident he knows how robust the land component is.
I also came across this on another thread. He obviously likes
doing these sorts of things, as opposed to real science. They are
going to have a real go at procedures when it comes to the
AR5. They have lost on the science, now they are going for the
process.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology
503 Walker Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [3]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[4]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
If this turns out to be real I can just imagine all those guys saying:
“It’s all Al Gores fault. He invented the internet.”
“A FORMER shipbuilding firm has expressed an interest in buying the Exeter-based Met Office, it has emerged.”
“But a union representing more than 1,250 Met Office staff insists that the agency is not for sale, saying privatisation had previously been dismissed as ‘unworkable’.”
“How can a centre that is a key contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be privatised and still be expected to provide impartial, objective information?”
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/VT-Group-says-interested-Met-Office/article-1529365-detail/article.html
How can it now?
so these guys may be buffoons, so what? Is there science buffoonery?
Leo G
Gotta just love that objective organ of The Truth- the BBC.
You’ve been informed that cockermouth is rather floody and that the bastion of Climatic Catastrophe has just been ‘hacked!
You’re going with cockermouth and dissing the big story- bejasus, I’m really peed off that real-people are going through Hell tonight and, I know, that no amount of sympathy can compensate for their pain.
BBC, stop this selective nonsense that allows straining at gnats in preference to allowing the easy alimentary progress of camels!
Throw out the spinners, resurrect the values and those who valued the values and made the corporation the envy of the world
Wow!!!. I am again dazzled with the collective knowledge of the posters at WUWT. fm
This is absolutely real. There is no way to fake it. Hadley CRU are the Enron of science. Let’s hope they go down.
The content is exactly as one would expect. It isn’t surprising or shocking.
Bolding mine. From 1139521913.txt:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go
there personally, but so I’m informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d
like us to include.
You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…
mike
Re: George E. Smith (17:53:08)
I agree with your opinion to a point, but I also view the material that has been made public as just that; public. My understanding of what I have read so far is that all of the material is covered under FOIA. For that matter it was all made possible by spending taxpayer money.
However, it does make me uncomfortable prying into other people’s personal correspondence.
Unzip on an old computer you don’t use anymore.
If this is in the public domain then it doesn’t matter what Anthony Watts posts here. It’s public. These people are toast because the other scientists will run for cover torching each other. I can guarantee you there are many professional climatologists that will have their work discredited by this release. All you have to do is show the email cc list to each recipient and ask Whats this about? Now as for the data well the not for government grant crowd of scientists are hard at work looking over the data and comparing it with the publications, interactional data with say IPCC, and other releases now and in the past. I’m sure we will being seeing many many “gotcha” obvious fabrications and cherry picking to support the mantra mass hysteria of AGW. Commenters need to jump to the bottom line and look for any direct connections to government officials that might prove a direct link. I doubt there are many but if the data is false then the story must be false or at the very least greatly exaggerated. I wonder if this could be payback to the SOROS crowd for breaking the Russian Rubble? Just a thought.
George E. Smith (17:53:08) :
“…nothing that is revealed in this hack job, serves to justify what these intruders have done…”
George, if I have been remiss in posting on your blog and telling you how much I appreciate your efforts and point of view, forgive me, please but I really do. We agree on a lot. But not this. In my IT days I devoted considerable effort to keeping snoopers out of sensitive files…. but I was not above monitoring transactions when I suspected that my principals were being cheated. At one customer site I felt compelled to create a transaction register to document where material was disappearing…. sure enough, there was over $5 million of unaccounted for material. Management didn’t want to know.
In this case, I am management and I do want to know. I was willing to tell my principals what I’d done and what I’d found. I expect the hacker to do the same. Keith Briffa and his colleagues are committing crimes against humanity. God forbid we should violate their constitutional rights in exposing them.
Mike Abbott (18:19:41) :
“Furthernore, it is WUWT that is at risk by posting names and addresses, not the individual readers posting that info.”
Not necessarily true, as several legal problems encountered by other Internet sites evidence. WUWT is moderated, plus the claim of offending material in a post originates with an individual not affilitated with WUWT is not an ultimate defense. Anthony could be posting under an alias. WUWT could be “audited” at the least.
And it doesn’t matter how many violations of privacy have occured on the net. Each one is a violation, unless the person(s) themselves willingly provide that information.
Good old Phil….
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc: Ben Santer
Tom,
I’ll look at what you’ve said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don’t know the other panel members. I’ve not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
Shouldn’t certain individuals cited in these exchanges perhaps be placed on (academic) suicide watch, or something to that effect?
Sort of like, “Please put your hands above your head where we can see them; please advise us where you keep the keys to the building/your office; please back away slowly from that computer terminal; you have the right to remain silent; anything you say may ….; etc.; etc.”
If real, shocking and in need of a special prosecutor both in the U.K. and here in the U.S.
I see “peer review” written all over this … as in a Monckton peer review?
I verified the md5 hash of the zip file on another computer:
da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 FOI2009.zip
md5sum.exe for windows can be found in various places on the internet, if you run linux you probably already know how to use it. If anyone downloads a zip file with a different hash please post the location of the new file here so we can figure out what changed.
Tom in Texas (14:08:37) :
“And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.”
******************************************
Where do you see this statement?