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

UPDATE: Response from CRU in interview with another website, see end of this post.

The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.

UPDATED: Original image was for Met Office – corrected This image source: 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.


The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
1.6K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr S Jones
November 19, 2009 10:23 pm

Hadley and CRU are two different centres, belonging to two different institutions, several hundred miles apart.
There is no “Hadley CRU” here, just as there is no “New York D.C.”
The headline should reflect which was hacked.

Bernie
November 19, 2009 10:24 pm

The emails suggest that Wegman’s social network analysis had real substance to it.
However, while the e-mails are interesting, isn’t the real treasure trove the data and the code?

Editor
November 19, 2009 10:26 pm

BTW, the filename on the Emails is the time in seconds since what Unix calls “the Epoch”, the start of time in the Unix world:
tux:mail> grep ‘^Date: ‘ *.txt | tail -10
1256760240.txt:Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009
1256765544.txt:Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000
1257532857.txt:Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700
1257546975.txt:Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
1257847147.txt:Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:59:07 +0100 (CET)
1257874826.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
1257881012.txt:Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:23:32 -0500
1257888920.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 16:35:20 2009
1258039134.txt:Date: Thu Nov 12 10:18:54 2009
1258053464.txt:Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44 -0000
tux:mail> python
Python 2.4.2 (#1, Jun 21 2007, 14:06:12)
[GCC 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux)] on linux2
Type “help”, “copyright”, “credits” or “license” for more information.
>>> from time import ctime
>>> ctime(1258053464)
‘Thu Nov 12 14:17:44 2009’
>>> ctime(1256760240))
File “”, line 1
ctime(1256760240))
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>> ctime(1256760240)
‘Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009’

November 19, 2009 10:26 pm

Interesting Folder naming for mbh98-osborn.zip…
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1000
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1000-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1000-FIXED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1000-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1100-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1200-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1300
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1300-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1400
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1400-CENSORED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1400-FIXED
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1450
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1600
mbh98-osborn/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1750

Keith Minto
November 19, 2009 10:27 pm

I hope I am not out of order transferring this from Lucia’s site, please delete and accept my apologies if this is so……………….
Steve McIntyre (Comment#23773) November 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pdf.
I’m having trouble getting into CA right now.
I made up a pdf of the emails to help browse through them and it’s over 2000 pages. Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine.
It is really quite breathtaking.

Editor
November 19, 2009 10:27 pm

[Oops, my previous comment was sent before its time. And editing, and additions.]
BTW, the filename on the Emails is the time in seconds since what Unix calls “the Epoch”, the start of time in the Unix world:
tux:mail> grep ‘^Date: ‘ *.txt | tail -10
1256760240.txt:Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009
1256765544.txt:Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000
1257532857.txt:Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700
1257546975.txt:Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
1257847147.txt:Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:59:07 +0100 (CET)
1257874826.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
1257881012.txt:Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:23:32 -0500
1257888920.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 16:35:20 2009
1258039134.txt:Date: Thu Nov 12 10:18:54 2009
1258053464.txt:Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44 -0000
tux:mail> python
>>> from time import ctime
>>> ctime(1256760240)
‘Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009’
>>> ctime(1258053464)
‘Thu Nov 12 14:17:44 2009’
The messages are not just for one person, but it appears they may be
a log of all traffic that went through uea.ac.uk. I’d expect a lot
more files, but I haven’t looked for omissions.

Mike Abbott
November 19, 2009 10:28 pm

Harry Eagar (19:59:24) :
“I’m not providing the filename or sender’s name because I do not know if the documents are real or not. As others are saying, we need to be careful because these documents may be manufactured plants. However, if the one I quoted from is real, it provides possible evidence of felony tax evasion by ’someone.’ ”
That’s from Mike Abbott, who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
It sounds very much like a felony (in the US), but the crime would not be tax evasion but conspiracy to evade the money-laundering reporting statute.
None of Abbott’s other posts have any better claim to anybody’s attention than that one, either.

I’m a CPA with a tax practice and I do know what I’m talking about. I only posted a snippet from the email exchange. Clearly, a plan for evading U.S. income taxes was discussed. In my original post I referred to a possible felony. That is because I have no way of knowing if they actually carried out the act. I’m sure this matter will receive abundant scrutiny.
Harry, you wouldn’t happen to be THE Harry Eagar from the Maui News, would you? If you are, a blogger named the Maui Curmudgeon wrote an interesting article about you on the Maui Almanac. The title was, “Wake Up and Smell Harry Eagar.” Did you happen to read it?

November 19, 2009 10:28 pm

PS. At 10:24 PM pacific time, I checked RC comments on the latest post. Saw nothing referencing the Hadley Hack. I did however see one comment that stuck out. It was # 127 4:20 PM:
#
Don’t skeptics ever post here?
No, seriously.
Comment by [snip’d by sonicfrog] — 17 November 2009 4:20 PM

I guess this guy doesn’t come ’round here much.

LarryOldtimer
November 19, 2009 10:31 pm

And go to exactly WHAT authorities???????
I was in the “old” USAF. Got a complaint? Go to the chaplain and get your T.S. card punched, lad.

Thomas
November 19, 2009 10:32 pm
Rod Gill
November 19, 2009 10:36 pm

Some have said why would they put this into email? My long experience has been that the higher up the academic chain people get, often the less common sense they have and the more they know about less and less.
I therefore feel these emails are more likely than not to be mostly, if not entirely, real.

DaveE
November 19, 2009 10:37 pm

Roger Knights (16:44:30) :
I’m with you on the meanings of trick
I use programming tricks, meaning non-obvious techniques.
DaveE.

November 19, 2009 10:39 pm

[ Frank Perdicaro wrote: “It might be valuable to construct an email relationship web using the To: and Cc: and From: and Bcc: fields of the emails. It could be a directed cyclic graph with no information on the content of the emails.”]
Recall that the Wegeman report already *did* a full social analysis of Mann’s peers and concluded that peer review was compromised due to the fact that Mann was coauthor with every climatology group around. It even included charts of the social hubs of co-authorship.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Here are the co-authorship charts that explain how Mann may very much be the Machivellian center of the entire AGW sphere of influence:
http://i49.tinypic.com/w7zlsx.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/2i7bcd3.jpg

Editor
November 19, 2009 10:39 pm

A couple realclimate notes I can’t resist:
Part of the original announcement, sent to a long list:
tux:mail> cat 1102687002.txt
From: Gavin Schmidt
Colleagues,
No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.
In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:
http://www.realclimate.org
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.
Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
‘refutations’ of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.
———-
What it’s become:
tux:mail> cat 1139521913.txt
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go
there personally, but so I’m informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d
like us to include.
You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…

jon
November 19, 2009 10:44 pm

too bad we don’t have public floggings anymore. this would be the type of occasion where one would be appropriate.

November 19, 2009 10:45 pm

OK. I agree we need to be very wary of this. But, for those who are doubting because it seems so bizarre that these smart people would write and have these e-mails saved,
There is absolutely nothing to doubt in this regard, many university scientists are notoriously computer illiterate in regards to data security and recovery, many use macs thinking it has special security magic powers. Steve Wozniak who invented the Apple computer thinks macs can’t be hacked because they are not PCs.
Do not underestimate the stupidity of so called “smart” people.

Mike Abbott
November 19, 2009 10:46 pm

Bernie (22:24:23) :
The emails suggest that Wegman’s social network analysis had real substance to it.

Excellent observation. Wegman nailed it.

Punch My Ticket
November 19, 2009 10:47 pm

Clearly, a plan for evading U.S. income taxes was discussed.
Good grief. It’s an email from a Russian to a Brit. How would US income tax come into it?

D. King
November 19, 2009 10:52 pm

If this turns out to be real, the implications will be devastating
to science. International conspiracies? Political manipulation?
The waist of money in the EU……heads will roll. U.S. political
careers will end. The EPA will look stupid, along with the
Supreme Court. Poor NASA, and all the good people that
work there. My God….

RonPE
November 19, 2009 10:53 pm

I wonder how many years we’ll wait to find out who ‘Deep Throat'(the hacker) is?

Roger Knights
November 19, 2009 10:54 pm

This does not appear to be written by someone whose first language is English.”
Maybe he speaks Fortran. (I.e., some programmers aren’t very fluent in natural language.)
[REPLY – I read that thread and I disagree. The grammar is just fine and so is the usage. In fact, it’s above par for “American”; it looks like Ynglish (sic) tp me. ~ Evan]

Mariss Freimanis
November 19, 2009 10:54 pm

I downloaded the FOI2009.zip file. What an unbelievable trove of information! Better than any 1,000 page best-selling novel. I’ll be reading a lot this weekend.

November 19, 2009 10:57 pm

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

Richard
November 19, 2009 10:58 pm

HOW TEMPERATURE CHARTS AT HADLEY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED TO MAKE SURE THEY AGREE WITH THE CURRENT WARM PERIOD BEING WARMER THAN THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD – FROM DEEP COOL
At 14:10 15/01/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Phil,
The attached piece is very good, impressive in the detail you’ve been able to dig up on this. Won’t pass this along. [No idea what the mysterious “this” is – Richard]
A couple minor comments:
1. I understand the point of the 50 year smoothing, but I think it would still be very useful to show were the most recent decade is on this scale. a lot of the recent warming is washed out by the padding at the end. People will look at this and say “see medieval peak was warmer than present”. but that doesn’t follow because so much of the warmning has been over past two decades.
2. I would not reference Wegman report as if it is a publication, i.e. a legitimate piece of scientific literature. Its a piece of something else! It should be cited in such a way as to indicate it is not a formal publication, wasn’t peer-reviewed, i.e. could be references as a “criticism commissoned by Joe Barton (R, Exxon). [ad hominen – tut tut Mr Mann]
3. I think that Stefan/Gavin were hoping to do something on RC sooner than the timeline you mention. What do you think about this? Do you want to forward the message to them and tell them the timeline you have in mind?
talk to you later,
mike
p.s. thanks very much for the ‘nomination’ :), but you flatter me. I think that someone
farther along in their career such as Keith is more deserving at this time.
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Thanks.
On 1) Putting the last few years in zooms the CET curve much higher. Tim took out the last few years. I need to make this clearer in the caption. Padding is an issue with a 50-year smoother.
2) I agree Wegman isn’t a formal publication. This was the highest profile example I could come up to show abuse of the curve. if you know of any others then let me know.
Even Tom Crowley shouldn’t have used it. There is a belief in the UK, that a curve of UK/CET past temperatures (by summer and winter) exists. It doesn’t, but the winter curve from Lamb is probably a lot better than the summer one.
I’ll let you know on time-frame when I hear from a few more I’ve sent the piece to.
Cheers
Phil

Greg
November 19, 2009 10:58 pm

This is hugely interesting and should be fun to watch unfold.
An additional minor note of caution though about reacting to what appear to be loaded words. I see a lot of terminology here that needs to be understood in the context of people who routinely handle data. Several have commented on “tricks” which I hear all the time (working in clinical research) when describing entirely legitimate approaches to reformatting a data set. Another is “censored” data. Data for patients that didn’t comply with the protocol for example are routinely and correctly “censored” from the per-protocol analysis.
Just important not to read jargon as plain English and jump to conclusions based only on that.
Of course, the existence of an agenda beyond pure science is something I find personally unsurprising, and clearly demonstrated in these alleged emails!

1 15 16 17 18 19 65