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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.