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

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked E-Mails
Friday, November 20, 2009

Lets see if RC can smooth over this one:
From: Phil Jones To: “Tas van Ommen” Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18 Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004 Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Tas,
Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about Law Dome
(yet), nor about any of
the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope)
that he won’t. I
had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature
data we use here
in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from
individuals and not
directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through
GCOS.
I wonder what “hid” means in Statistician-speak?

http://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&source=hp&q=climate+scientists&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dntl978l4pqqM5M&ei=iz8HS5zLGtPTlAeQqM2FBA&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQqgIwAA

NO DENIALS so far… many hours have passed.. and one, at least, has admitted it’s real emails from CRU (don’t quite remember who but it’s in the headlines)..
no doubt about it. These people are happily conspiring to nudge, tweak and shade the data toward saying what the global masters at the UN want it to say..
damning, damning..

Robert Wood of Canada said
“For someone to have produced the document “The Rules of the Game”, there must be institutional bias involved; this document is meant to guide people “in on the trick” in PR spin. It was developed by someone on the taxpayer’s dime.
It’s well worth a read; we have seen these techniques played out time after time. Now, when used, a good journalist will say “Yes, but that is just spin, as you have been trained”.”
Yes and they also developed:
The Delphi Technique — http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm
“The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is “…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out.” The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools….”
The USDA tried this technique on farmers within the last year or two and were caught at it, therefore “The Rules of the Game” comes as no surprise since it is from the same bunch of no good slime.
The USDA also had the gall to tell its staff to address farmers at the “sixth grade level”
So if you fell like you are treated like a mushroom you are not alone, it is now government policy.

1255553034: Wigley to Michael Mann
>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
>>>
>>> Tom.

Looking for the Jones et al paper mentioned in
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/a-new-paper-has-appeared-urbanization-effects-in-large-scale-temperature-records-with-an-emphasis-on-china-by-jones-et-al-2008/
I found the AGU server down. Funny.
From Pielke above, part of the Jones paper abstract:
“We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time.”
The conclusion:
“With the first issue, there is a clear UHI influence in temperature records from centrally-located sites in London and Vienna of 1.5° and 0.3°C, respectively. The effect of this excess warmth (due to the city being there) however is irrelevant to temperature trends, for the periods studied.”
I’d really like to see the paper to find out what documentation there is on these claims.

For who is interested, here are the links to MSM publications today including the NYT:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/cru_climate_hack/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/emails_cru_east_anglia_climate.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/11/an-anonymous-hacker-has-broken.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzY5ZDI4MjFmYjEyYjVhNGIwZjlmNDViNDdmMWJhNTY=
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Karl B. (09:36:25) :
“@ur momisugly Adam Grey
You know what bothers me the most, which you apparently missed?
It is asking fellow colleagues to delete emails, in an email, with a subject line containing the letters “FOI.”
Let me know if you don’t think that isn’t egregious.”
Karl, what is egregious is self-proclaimed skeptics jumping to conclusions based on skethcy data. The context of these emails are not known, for the most part. any half-rate skeptic would reserve judgement until things became clearer, instead of proclaiming this that or the other. the stoush over the mneaning of the word ‘trick’ is just another example of contributors here being more interested in shoring up their predispositions than applying the sort of objectivity real skepticism demands.
I don’t claim to know the context of the deletion suggestion. The general comments of the emails I’ve read corroborates that the authors trust their science is right and have no need to distort it, and that skeptics/denialists are wrong. There are emotional comments and perhaps some are ill-advised.
Here’s potential context for FOI resistance – from one of the emails.
“One of the problems is that I’m caught in a real Catch-22 situation. At present, I’m
damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he
requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: “You see – he’s guilty as charged!” on his website.
You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU issue, Tom.
During much of that time, we’ve had to do science in “reactive mode”, responding to the latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I’d like to dictate my own research agenda. I don’t want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of Steven McIntyre.”
This totally comports with what is said in public – that McIntyre, Douglas etc do bad science in bad faith and dealing with them is not worth the effort.
Whether or not this has anything to do with the suggestion – certainly shoddy form idea per se – of deleting emails, I don’t know, but neither do you. You may be satisfied that this is damning, but how much skepticism informs such an opinion? Rather, eager denialism presumes.

This is from Science’s Instructions to Reviewers; but all journals have the same policy.
Conflict of Interest: If you cannot judge this paper impartially, please notify us immediately. If you have any financial or professional affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, please describe those in your confidential comments.
Confidentiality: We expect reviewers to protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and ensure that it is not disseminated or exploited. Please destroy your copy of the manuscript when you are done. Only discuss the paper with a colleague with permission from the editor. We do not disclose the identity of our reviewers.
From: Phil Jones
To: Tim Osborn , “Tett, Simon”
Subject: Re: Bristlecones!
Date: Fri Jul 29 16:30:35 2005
Cc: Keith Briffa
Simon……………….I have reviewed the CC paper by Wahl and Ammann. It reproduces all the mistakes MM have made, so they know how and why their results have been achieved. I can send you the paper if you want, subject to the usual rules.

“This is for those who you who still doubt there is NO conspiracy.”
Here is more…
Another PR man who worked for Al Gore is Stan Greenberg, husband of Rosa Delauro (D-CT)
“…He is also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming….” http://tpm.apperceptive.com/profile/Stan%20Greenberg
Greenberg Carville Shrum who directed Campaigns in 60 countries (including Tony Blair in the UK) and was responsible for the Bolivia fiasco. Stan Greenberg “…specializes in research on globalization, international trade…” http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Stanley_Greenberg
“ Greenberg’s work for private sector organizations – including major corporations, trade associations and public interest organizations – focuses on managing change and reform…. Greenberg has conducted extensive research in Europe (particularly Great Britain, Germany and France), Central and South America (Argentina and Brazil), and Africa (South Africa). He specializes in research on globalization, international trade, corporate consolidation, technology and the Internet. For organizations, Greenberg has helped manage and frame a number of issues – including education, school financing, American identity, the economy, environmental regulation, international trade, managed care, biotechnology, copyrights, privacy and the Internet….
Greenberg has advised a broad range of political campaigns, including those of President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore, Senators Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman and Jeff Bingaman; Governor Jim Florio and gubernatorial candidate, Andy Young; former Vice-President Walter Mondale; and a number of candidates for the U.S. Congress. For many years, he served as principal polling advisor to the Democratic National Committee.
“Greenberg works jointly on private sector projects with prominent Republican pollsters in the United States – including Fred Steeper (pollster to former President Bush), Bill McInturff and Linda DiVall – to bring a bi-partisan focus to public issues….” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stanley_Greenberg
And How about the money trail???
“But the entry that really sent my Democratic strategist friend ballistic was the one for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat. La Rosa–tied for #48 on the Richest list–gets the lion’s share of her wealth from her husband–Clintonista pollster and campaign strategist Stan Greenberg. Says Roll Call, “DeLauro’s primary asset is a 67-percent stake in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., a Washington-based firm run by her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Her share in the company nets the Representative $5 million to $25 million. She has a partial stake in two other polling/consulting firms. The first is Greenberg Research, of which she and her husband own 100 percent, and Sun Surveys, in which she owns a 60 percent stake. Neither of these is as lucrative as Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, however.”
My bud the political warhorse snorted, “Hell, she first ran for Congress she didn’t have a dime–I was one of her biggest contributors. And Stan Greenberg, who worked for me back when he was starting out, used to have holes in his socks!” Noting that Congressional wealth is usually closer to the higher than to the lower estimates on the disclosure forms, my dour Democrat gasped, “That means they’re making around $50 million! These people shouldn’t be running Democratic campaigns!”
So, if you want to know why the national Democrats seem, in this campaign, to have a tin ear where touching the hearts and minds of the working stiffs is concerned, think about this: the three partners in the Democracy Corps–Greenberg, James Carville, and Kerry’s chief message-shaper Bob Shrum–are all multimillionaires. And yet their counsel–preferred in an endless series of free Democracy Corps memos distributed to the party elite well before and during the presidential primaries, whose content (or lack of it) they helped shape–is taken as gospel by Democratic liberals feverish for victory. Well, as the old Texas populist Maury Maverick Jr. used to say, “a liberal is a power junkie without the power.” 
http://www.mlive.com/forums/farmington/index.ssf?artid=624
The information released from CRU just confirms a lot of other information I have pieced together and the picture is not pretty.

Since all sources point toward the hacked emails being legit we can soon move on from that to “what’s next”.
It’s clear that Jones, Briffa and Mann are center figures and should be in serious trouble. If I was the Dean at Penn State, i would get Mann in my office and have him explain himself before i kicked him off the planet in a hurry.
What do you think will happen, if anything at all?

Sweet Jesus!