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.
Is this really an outside hack? An internal whistleblower (who may have made it look like a hack) seems just as likely to me.
From: Phil J*nes
To: Tom W*gley
Subject: Re: paleoT
Date: Fri Jul 15 11:06:31 2005
Tom,
This Briffa series is just a three site average (trees from Tornetrask, Polar Urals
and
Taimyr) – all in northern Eurasia. It is therefore for a limited region and is likely
just the summer, whereas some of the others have regressed on annual T for
the NH (or north of 20N).
Of these 3, the first two are in most of the other series (Esper, Crowley, Jones, Mann)
and also for HF in Moberg. Not sure whether Taimyr is in any of the others.
Esper uses a different standardization approach, but should have most of the
same trees, but only TRW. The others use our reconstructions which have MXD
is as well.
Have you tried these correlations after extracting the LF trends (say residuals
from a 30 or 50 yr filter)? Would expect some of them to be much, much lower.
Keith’s reconstruction that would be much better is the one that goes back to
only about 1400. Do you have this? Go here [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
then click on paleo data, then on obtaining and look for Keith’s – it says 600 years in
the title. You can get the data.
Cheers
Phil
At 21:57 14/07/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
I eventually refiltered all the paleo data and have compared these
with likewise filtered MAGICC output. Very interesting results.
Can you comment, off the record, on Keith’s paleo series.
Here are correlations of individual series against the 7 series average.
(Different series lengths, but essentially same results over common lengths.)
SERIES 1000-1610 1610-1995 1000-1995
Briffa -.272 .262 .207
Esper .583 .917 .687
Crowley .879 .946 .902
Jones .773 .917 .861
Mann .760 .856 .822
M&J-NH .929 .965 .936
Moberg .904 .856 .871
Correlations with the climate model are not the same — but Briffa is
again the clear outlier.
Why?
Tom.
GOOD WORK GUYS ,KEEP THE PRESSURE ON THESE COMMUNIST SCAMSTERS .
1121439991 by the way
just check that info with this video it matches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8 but this i the real worry and goal of the scammershttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9VeqKUkfqA
I have no doubts this will hit mainstream media either very soon or in weeks ahead…and heads will roll. I think that we should be gracious in our victory and not persecute or demean any of these people. After all they were probably well intentioned academics who simply lost the plot (and many scientist do, I am one of them..) and we should remember that the only contention here was that Anthropogenic CO2 is/was responsible for increased averaged global temperatures. Other issues are pending but not related to global temperatures such as overpopulation, waste, local land use and I’m sure and hopeful some of those brilliant minds will find employment in these areas such as environmental science etc…
“NikFromNYC (03:16:56) :
1105019698.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: “Parker, David (Met Office)”>, Neil Plummer
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
Cc: “Thomas C Peterson”
Neil,
Just to reiterate David’s points, I’m hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a different base period is the key one in my mind.
…
Personally I don’t want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil”
And there we have the “reason” people. Income protection.
1121869083
Our only concerns have been that we should
1/… be clear what we wish this Figure to illustrate (in the specific context of the
MWP box) – note that this is very different from trying to produce a Figure in such a
way as to bias what it says (I am not suggesting that we are, but we have to guard
against any later charge that we did this). We say this because there are intonations in
some of Peck’s previous messages that he wishes to “nail” the MWP – i.e. this could be
interpreted as trying to say there was no such thing
It seems that president Obama had the foresight to address the CRU issue in his inaugural address back in January’09.
“We will restore science to its rightful place….”
“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”
“Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old.”
An obvious follow-on would be that EPA CO2 endangerment needs to be put on ice until a public enquiry is conducted in the UK to determine the depth of the alleged fraud.
The emperor that used to have no clothes is finally de-throned. A velvet revolution, of sorts. Happy days.
To me this is very damnimg – they admit conning the IPCC
From : Phil Jones [1]
To: Kevin Trenberth [2]
Kevin,
Right on ! Assumes precip doesn’t change – i.e. it’s constant. Difficult to do much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps. Ch 4 has swallowed this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn’t even aware of it.
Can’t decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn’t there and the Swiss Glacier people didn’t know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I’m glad someone has tried the approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely isn’t enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I’ve not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I’ve not been able to get the supporting material. This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better science than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February. Susan has been sending a few emails to Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series – some of which she’s not thought through.
Just be glad we haven’t got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
Very late into this discussion, but as I look more closely, the story of Dan Rather and GW Bush comes to my mind.
It can very well be a trap. Be VERY careful and take everything with a grain of salt.
But will it even get a hearing in the mainstream press or media ???
This morning the main climate stories are about mammoth dung and the predicted 6c rise in global temperature
These emails prove they are very good at influencing media presentations
Left a tip with Drudge, probably the 200th.
Files here.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T
1134497252
> Phil,
>
> Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75
> thru
> Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88,
> Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.
>
> Also — more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented
> by a single
> box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It
> would be
> better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.
>
> I have had to do this in my code — but you really should fix the ‘raw’
> gridded data.
>Tom
confirmed by Hadley
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf
Scott Mandia, here’s something for you: Please explain why Greenland was warmer in the 1920-1950 period than in the current warm period.
See e.g.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2816.1
Excerpt fra abstract:
Year 2003 was the only year of 1840–2007 with a warm anomaly that
exceeds three standard deviations from the 1951–80 base period. The
annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude
than the 1994–2007 warming. The recent warming was, however, stronger
along western Greenland in autumn and southern Greenland in
winter. Spring trends marked the 1920s warming onset, while autumn leads
the 1994–2007 warming. In contrast to the 1920s warming, the 1994–2007
warming has not surpassed the Northern Hemisphere anomaly.
1098472400.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: MBH
Date: Fri Oct 22 15:13:20 2004
Cc: santer1@llnl.gov
…
…
…
Point I’m trying to make is you cannot trust anything that M&M write. MBH is as good a
way of putting all the data together as others. We get similar results in the work in the
Holocene in 1998 (Jones et al) and so does Tom Crowley in a paper in 1999. Keith’s
reconstruction is strikingly similar in his paper from JGR in 2001. Mike’s may have
slightly less variability on decadal scales than the others (especially cf Esper et al),
but
he is using a lot more data than the others. I reckon they are all biased a little to the
summer
and none are truly annual – I say all this in the Reviews of Geophysics paper !
Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the
last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C
on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but
years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Cheers
Phil
Theo (03:12:34) :
Just an analogy, The German fascists kept meticulous records of their crimes
Stop analogising. There’s no need to descend to their level.
BBC about to report it – just checked with them by phone.
To the hacker; Thank you. You have done the world a great service.
A recap of the story with a few select excerpts:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate–Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
I think the journals, (i.e. Nature, Science), will be interested in reading some of these emails. If they want to distance themselves from this they will need to enforce their standards.
I have looked at the data…there is no mention of planetary influence, and solar influences in general are not questioned.
But it looks to be all about “faking it for mutual reward”
The overwhelming theme is the “teams” paranoia of the sceptic blogs sites and the threat to their existence that we provide.
A job well done so far.
Can anyone honestly say that this has come as a real massive surprise? I mean, really?