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.
What I wouldn’t give to be in Copenhagen next month.
I believe the philosopher Conan said it best when asked what is best in life.
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their ManBearPig.
Ok, maybe I took some liberties with that last part.
The 2/2/2005 email (buried in a 2/3/2005 email) that purports to be from Jones to Mann where Jones says “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” to my mind, goes far, far beyond the crime of deleting emails. Unless Jones can convincingly deny that email, I can’t be comfortable with him in a position of responsibility where he could actually carry out such a crime against science.
First, thanks to Anthony and all the moderators
Second, the corruption is just as bad as we thought
Third, the revealed information is better than we thought
Corruption in gov’t and science is the real story.
Roger Knights –
Thanks for the explanation on the UK vs US spelling thing.
I looked at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX news sites, and no one has picked up this story yet. It is on the Wall Street Journal blogosphere, though.
Regurgitating what I said at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/msm-catchin-on/#comment-12213 :
Harrabin’s post http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm probably shows the outline of the coming PR response: “it’s embarrassing but not really damning”. For that reason, climate skeptics would be well advised not to focus on displays of rudeness or self-pity in the leaked documents – that is to play into the hands of the harrassment-by-FOI and “normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists” apologias. You should try to direct the limited attention of the media to the most tangible smoking guns, especially clear and undeniable cases of fraud and deception. You should provide the background information to help non-climate-mavens to (as much as possible) understand and see for themselves exactly why the chosen excerpts prove unjustifiable misbehaviour. And you’ll have to do it all fairly quickly, before CRU’s spin wins by default and before the attention of the media wanders again.
@ur momisugly sean (16:04:20)
“At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster [snip – no outing!] did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which
got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he’s already done some of the initial work in debunking
this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I’ve heard back from him, and we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike”
Found Here. Do control F and search for Tamino
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=987
What will happen now that this information is in the public sphere? What will be done with this information?
Justin & John,
It is you two who are gullible. You invoke melting icecaps and glaciers. First, not all glaciers are melting, some are increasing in size. The are mainly driven by local microclimate, not “global climate”. The ice caps, as seen at Cryosphere Today, have been increasing in size since 2007 (total sea ice area):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
If you include water vapor, the dominate greenhouse gas, humans account for 0.02% (2/10000) of global greenhouse gasses. If you think that’s significant alongside solar forcing, you’re delusional.
It’s wonderful to see the contortions the CAGW camp went through to push their unscientific agenda finally exposed to the light. Now watch the cockroaches scurry around…
I love the smell of auto exhaust in the morning…it smells like victory! =:-D
(THANK YOU to whoever bravely leaked this info!)
CP Joe is up to a whopping 23 comments on his posting of this news story (4 or 5 are from dhogaza!). So why is it that WUWT is supposedly neck and neck with Climate Progress in those internet awards?
I notice in the emails that Mann is quick to suggest legal threats against critics. Could this be the same Mann who wrote “the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud.” I think we should be told.
Motl´s blog has some excellent excerpts from the emails:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html
[snip]
Confirmation then that all the crud over cru hiding temperature data is just that – crud. Cru do not have permission to distrubute!!!!!
Madman I missed that. Got a link?
Kindest Regards
************************
Roger Knights (14:23:32) :
“Folks, this isn’t so much about the science as it is about the INSTITUTIONS that are at work in “climate science”
……………
Its a puppet show and the screen just fell down. THAT is the story. I will take a major journalist to cover that story.”
I bet this puppet show is in operation in other scientific disciplines.
************************
A scarier question is how many “social engineers” occupy the British government and might actually help these guys out of a jam?
Google lists the story as picked up by NYT, Fox, Guardian, BBC, Wired, Register, WSJ blogs the journal Nature, Science mag blogs, Times Online, Examiner, Grist, DailyTech, Slashdot, NRO and many others, including RealClimate and scienceblogs.com
AirVent, Lucia, CA, WUWT, Pielke Jr & Sr are not mentioned.
Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html
“A link to the Russian server first appeared on 19 November on a relatively obscure climate-sceptic blog. The server was shut down just hours later, but the stolen material had already been distributed elsewhere on the Internet.”
Amazing that such news could be spread so quickly from a “relatively obscure” source.
*****************************
anonym (16:33:58) :
Regurgitating what I said at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/msm-catchin-on/#comment-12213 :
Harrabin’s post http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm probably shows the outline of the coming PR response: “it’s embarrassing but not really damning”. For that reason, climate skeptics would be well advised not to focus on displays of rudeness or self-pity in the leaked documents – that is to play into the hands of the harrassment-by-FOI
*************************
It can hardly be called harassment when the information should have been published long ago. It’s more like scientific obstructionism.
geo (16:30:02) :
The 2/2/2005 email (buried in a 2/3/2005 email) that purports to be from Jones to Mann where Jones says “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” to my mind, goes far, far beyond the crime of deleting emails.
———————–
Agreed.
Was the data requested by ¨the two MMs¨ ever released to them?
Ecochemist says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
20 November 2009 at 7:56 PM
Gavin,
I hope you guys will come clean soon. I do appreciate your (finally) allowing differing views post even if it has to come through in such a personally troubling way for you.
First off, I never wish anyone ill will, however I will admit I am not exactly rooting for you at this point. I just wanted to make that clear so you understand where my opinions lie.
Second, I think that you can try to explain away a “trick” all that you like, however I think most reasonable people can understand what is going on. A “trick” used in science is putting the data into the proper context. I work with marketing people who are utterly useless when it comes to science. So I must essentially use “tricks” to put my data into proper context. I do not have to use “tricks” to change the outcome of my results.
Third, I think it is difficult to ignore several things found in the emails. They range from tax evasion (don’t deposit more than 10k at a time!) to outright bullying of the peer review process.
Fourth, and this is the point I would like you to address adequately. Yes, I said adequately and by that I mean without your usual snark and with absolute sincerity. It would appear that in the context of these emails that there is a combined effort to withhold information from those who may want to challenge your findings. Let’s not be childish and ignore it and play word games… it is now a fact. There also seems to be an aligned effort to stifle the efforts of science contrary to your opinions and findings. This may be by influencing the peer review process or controlling reviewers and editors. So, what in your opinion, can be done to ensure that there is a proper debate of the science and facts in an open and public way? I’m sure that being a man of integrity you feel that raw data should be supplied as well as all supplementary data in order to recreate results. So surely you would support complete and open debate on the subject. You don’t have to worry about being wrong. Most scientists… good scientists… are wrong most of the time. It is not about right or wrong, but more about the work you do. There is a value in climate science and most citizens have no problem offering a few bucks to support it. Do you think there is a too closed off circle tied around Michael Mann as was shown in M&M? It would surely seem that he makes a compelling point. This is why in my science-based line of work we sometimes need to go to outside independent sources. So, with all of that said, what do you think can be done to make the system better so that the people can be sure that the science from here on out is completely truthful and able to be replicated?
Thanks.
Alleged CRU emails– searchable
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
sean (16:04:20) :
Commenters above state that Tamino’s identity was revealed. Can someone provide a link?
[SNIP. Sorry, no outing. ~ Evan]
ALL YOUR CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE BELONG TO US
“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.”
“Let’s just move on and stick to the science.”
I (and many other skeptics) been trying to “stick to the science” for a few years now and inevitably in discussions the warmists fall back on the “consensus” argument; the “peer review” argument; and various ad hominems. Sorry, but the warmists have made their bed and now they must sleep in it.
JMHO.
Standard recovery procedure in most IT organizations after a Hack, is to do a complete rebuild of the effected servers, and restore from safe backups prior to the hack, as it is impossible to be sure some trojan has not be hidden in the server, without doing a complete reinstall of all the operating system software.
I suspect that is what is going on.
Larry
More:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513195
“Trevor, I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree
with Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…”
– 0959187643.txt
Haha, who said there’s no such thing as a free lunch, especially when paid for by Esso (ExxonMobil).