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.
Niphredil (21:10:27) :
I think it was james bond, he always saves the day
No, I think it was Courage the Cowardly Dog. 🙂
David Alan (21:24:14) :
Alarmists are about to reap the whirlwind
That looks to be the case.
As mentioned above by another poster… why are we referring to this as “Hadley CRU”? The Hadley Centre is part of the Met Office:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/
While CRU is a completely different location AFAIK:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
The latter is at the University of East Anglia and home to the following staff (as seen in the email headers):
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/
Notably Professor Phil Jones:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/
So presumably the title of the bl9og should read “Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released” (i.e. omit the Hadley reference).
Sadly the “Hadley CRU” thing is all over the blogosphere now…
Just got this from my RSS reader:
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….
Robert Wykoff (21:32:02) :
this is SuperNova!!!!!
Svensmark shows that supernovas cause cooling. This news could put manmade global warming on permanent ice.
CodeTech (00:17:43) :
Well said….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Here is a copy of a genuine email from Dr. Don Keiller to the BBC Radio4 (Planet earth under threat)
12. At 04:59 PM on 24 May 2006, Don Keiller wrote:
All to often we hear that there is a scientific “consensus” on climate change and its causes.
If this were the case why then is increasing evidence to the contrary being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
I could go on almost ad infinitum about such evidence, but I will restrict myself to one recent paper.
Briner et al (2006) Quaternary Research (65), pp. 431-432.
Check it out at http://www.sciencedirect.com.
Evidence is presented that some 8500 years ago the Canadian Arctic was 5 degrees C WARMER than at present. Also note that carbon dioxide levels were some 100ppm LOWER than at present.
Try and equate this with the modern myth that increased atmospheric CO2 = increased warmth.
(Dr. Don Keiller) Environmental Science research Centre, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge.
This file may be either highly significant, or a deliberate ruse to throw off the climate realists.
Of course it’s not a ruse. You can tell it’s not a ruse because there’s absolutely nothing incriminating in any of it.
Patrick G said it right:
“But that doesn’t mean they are IT experts, or know how to do a basic service on their car, or know the best time of year to plant cherry tomatoes.”
Given that the email traffic alleged indicates that they believe they deleted it, they will not issue a categoric denial if it’s true. Having said that, if they take days / weeks to issue a statement you know they are having IT experts look at what actually can be dug up if they have to through the doors open to investigators on their network.
If true this is the bombshell of the decade.
The text
“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”
is not only correct English, its very much the sort of wording used for Government/Civil Service reports (as someone who produced these for many years)
Which rather does imply an internal mole rather than an external one.
Some figures of interest from a quick search of the email:
Name Mentions
McIntyre 109
McKitrick 32
Christy 52
Pielke 17
Spemcer 12
Lucia 2
WUWT 8
It is also quite plain that they find reading a “skeptical” blog easily as abrasive as skeptics do a “believers.” Also it’s quite clear that some conscientiously monitor skeptical blog sites including CA and WUWT. More striking though they BELIEVE in AGW. If there were no really serious issues like the proposed Copenhagen treaty hanging in the offing, it would be funny. There is a remarkable level of insecurity and paranoia reflected that is particularly disturbing. Were they as confident of their work as they purport to be, they would far less frequently appeal to arguments of authority and they would be ready to discuss methods and data in a more collegial frame of mind. Instead, it would appear that at least some writers really believe that many skeptics are funded and backed, bought and paid for, by energy, big oil and (laugh here) government groups.
Keith Minto (22:27:03) :
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.
2000 pages? How, o how, did that many emails get grouped and released?? It must have taken long time to put that all together before letting it out. The explanation at the end of this rabbit trail will be interesting.
~ctm I would appreciate an explanation of what I said that was snippable in the previous post.
[Please email me personally at sharkhearted@gmail.com and don’t publish this as it is not important to everyone else.]
But I am intrigued and would like to know.
Thanks. Chris
Reply: email sent. ~ ctm
> Ric Werme (23:11:33) :
> From: Phil Jones
> To: santer, Tom Wigley
> Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
> Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
> Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler
>
> Ben,
>
> When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to
> abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one
> at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all
> about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing
> with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental
> Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very
> supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief
> Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is
> going on –
Wow, heads are going to roll over that email…
D. King (22:52:41) :
If this turns out to be real, the implications will be devastating
to science.
I think it will be good for science. It will be a wake up call to clean the ugly sores caused by bad science.
By my count that is at least 6 people who colluded to comit FOI fraud.
Repost From Erick Barnes at Air Vent,
1024334440.txt
From: Ed Cook
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Esper et al. and Mike Mann
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:20:40 -0400
Hi Keith,
Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in
Mike’s recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your
response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his
letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this
whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are
clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you
actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly
stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as
bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit
more objectively.
Ed
>I have just read this lettter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to
>death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical
>area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature
>representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of
>regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the
>increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over
>the last few years , and … (better say no more)
>Keith
I don’t see anything in these e-mails that is damning at all. What I am seeing is a lot of people reading snippets of conversations and technical details they don’t understand, and then assigning some hidden meaning to the e-mails.
For example, I refer to doing something with software as a “trick” all the time, it doesn’t mean I’m actually tricking people. You have all gone conspiracy crazy nuts.
Ah! A Tinker, Tailor fan…
[REPLY – And perhaps high time for a celebratory pink gin with the Lord of Admiralty down at Percy’s club. ~ Evan]
Zeke the sneak
I detailed the ‘rules of the game’ in my article carried here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896
Hadley got £153 million since 1993 from the UK Govt and are the prime contributor to the IPCC. What arrangements Cru has I don’t know. They are separate but interlinked organisations.
Climate change is not a ‘scientific ‘ matter requiring lots of highly complex equations to try to prove some theory on how climate changes due to man.
History tells us this current warming era is nothing new. This has everything to do with power, politics and control.
Tonyb
Don’t use this information at all. Three reasons
1) it could be a trap. It is all to possible it has been tweaked and once it goes public that you use this kind of higly suspicious data you will be damaged beyond repair.
2) It infuriates the opposite party. I mean, the conversation they though was private is now being reviewed. I don’t know about you; but I would be disgusted if this happened to me. Stay courteous.
3) It doesn’t add anything usefull. I mean, the data will either prove IPCC or the sceptics right. If you can wait another 10 years, and you should be able to do that, nature itself will prove your case.
Nev (00:35:03) :
Just got this from my RSS reader:
Did you post this same at Climate Audit yet? They might like to know.
The ‘marooned’ jpeg is quite humorous. 🙂
Just in time for Copenhagen. Watch them spin this one for all its worth. But strange, have not seen it reported by the likes of the BBC, CNN ABC etc, strange indeed.
Mind you, here in Sydney it has been pretty hot, 39c today where I live and still around 30c right now 8:15pm, some November hot records broken too.
Amazed that obvious story dropped so soon as first maybe update from Phil Jones admitting is a much bigger story as well? Sorry to be such a pain…LOL