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.
BTW, kudos to the moderators. I noticed the incredible number of posts! Great work.
‘Lameman’ here…and i think you folks are missing the biggist story.
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
That is the story! Everyone, EVERYONE can understand that!
That is the line that causing Phil and Mann nuts!
[I emailed the story to PSU at about 6am this morning]
Yes, there is the science story, which few people will understand..but this email EVERYONE will understand:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
“The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
Why?
Because there is a natural tendency to “circle the wagons”.
Sadly, this circling of the wagons in scientific circles probably goes on far more than most people know about.
@James Baldwin F. Evans
Perhaps it will be like the scientific establishment supported Piltdown Man or eugenics… 😉
The AGW Conspiracy is crumbling bit by bit.
This revelation is but one aspect.
Circle the wagons as they will. These people have made me the fool for the last time. I will no longer even listen to them because they gave up their objectivity. Tarnished scientists are former scientists in my book.
Good riddance….bad rubbish.
Bulldust (15:41:17) : “Amazingly RC did post…” Not amazing at all. This is Gavin’s move-on moment. Like Yamal he will raise the noise level on the email discussions so that good points get buried. Then he will move on and censor all further discussion. With Yamal he needed more censorship right from the beginning because the evidence was so damning. While these leaked emails are damning, there are lots that he can easily and gladly explain to add to the noise.
Let the corruption continue to be exposed…..all of it…..
What is being said on CA and WUWT are probably the least of their worries. They have a lot more to worry about in their own academic circles now with having a lot of the talk about their fellow academics exposed.
What people were saying about whom behind their backs and what was being said about other institutions and various projects, etc. is going to do them a lot more long term career damage than anything we say here.
paul t (15:15:26) :
If we were talking about one sentence, and not a concerted effort to keep contrary papers from being published in order to keep one’s own research on top, then perhaps you would be correct. Unfortunately, from what I have read, there has been a concerted effort to do just that. On top of a discussion that seems to have broken tax laws, but I am no CPA, so I can’t say for sure.
There is also the issue of secrecy concerning the data. Why purposely delete the data when you are so VERY aware of FOI requests concerning it? The removal of data is what did Arthur Andersen in, and it is conceptually no different here. Actually, I take that back. Because this data is nothing more than temperature data, and it is, to be generous, weird that they are so concerned about it getting ‘in the wrong hands’.
When you read between the lines, that is what many of these emails seem concerned about, and there is much hand wringing about the data being public. Now what is the good reason for that? I would appreciate no more slippery answers, since I have highlighted the most concerning part of this ordeal.
Justin
“are you guys for real?
if you think analysis of a mathematical series and mentioning “hiding a decline” erases all the research related to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming you should be taken to a psychiatric ward.
#1 – out of context
#2 – doesn’t mean anything
Hell, I’ll do my own made up calculations today. Does that mean that global warming doesn’t exist? hell no.
Global warming is real, and no about of digging up silly emails is going to make that fact go away.
God, you people are like children. go read a book and become informed.”
Holy crap man, are you KIDDING ME HERE?!?!? Can you not READ? It’s ALL a lie. They lied about the whole thing. They MADE IT UP.
You got rocks in your head or what?? READ THOSE EMAILS!!!
Dr DoLittle (18:16:40) :
“Since all sources point toward the hacked emails being legit we can soon move on from that to “what’s next”.”
My predictions? The institutions (CRU, GISS, Penn State, NOAA, LLNL, etc.) will likely close ranks with the scientists involved and let them keep their jobs, but it may not matter. Their reputations will be stained in the public eye as the various dots are connected. They can and will reemerge in the scientific community, but never again will they have the influence and standing they once held. I suspect a lot of their colleagues will defend them, but some will disassociate themselves so as not to get entangled in this mess. I’m reminded of the current scandals involving ACORN – although ACORN still functions today, no one (politicians at least) wants to be associated with them!
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=485
At 14:35 21/01/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply.
The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so
they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code
would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written
one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
Sorry I won’t see you, but I will not come up to Norwich until
Monday.
Let me fill you in a bit (confidentially). You probably know the panel
members. We were concerned that the chair would be a strong person.
It is Jerry Mahlman — about the best possible choice. Richard Smith
is the statistician — also excellent. Dave Randall, too — very good.
As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen — but at least he is a smart
guy and he does listen. He may raise his paper with Gianitsis that
purports to show low climate sensitivity from volcanoes. I will
attach our paper that proves otherwise, in press in JGR.
Preparing the report has been a good and bad experience. I think
I had the worst task with the Exec. Summ. — it tied up most of
my time for the past 3 months. The good has been the positive
interactions between most of the people — a really excellent bunch.
I have been very impressed by Carl Mears and John Lanzante.
At meetings, John Christy has been quite good — and there were
good and positive interactions between John and Roy and the RSS
gang that helped clarify a lot. Outside the meeting, in the email world,
he has been more of a pain. He has made a lot of useful suggestions
for the ExSumm — but he keeps accusing the AOGCMers of
faking their models (not quite as bluntly as this). In the emails there
are some very useful exchanges from Jerry Meehl, Ramaswamy and
Ben detailing the AOGCM development process. We will be
writing a BAMS article on this in the summer — much of what happens
in model development is unknown to the rest of the community. The
‘faking’ idea prompted me to write a tongue in cheek note — also
attached. As far as I know, John will not raise this particular issue
in his dissentin views.
To accommodate dissenting views, the report will have a “dissenters’
appendix”, with responses. You will get this at some stage — the
deadline for dissenters to produce is Jan 31, and we will not finish
our rebuttals until mid Feb. The dissenters are John C, and (far worse)
Roger Pielke Sr. All of the rest of us disagree with these persons’
dissenting views. Roger has been extremely difficult — but the details
are too complex to put in an email. On the other hand he has made
a number of useful contributions to the ExSumm and other chapters.
Suffice to say that he has some strange ideas (often to do with the
effects of landuse change) that are interesting but still, in my view,
speculative — but testable.
We have yet to see the dissents — and it would not be ethical for
me to say any more than I have already.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Adam Grey (18:02:00):
“Karl, what is egregious is self-proclaimed skeptics jumping to conclusions based on skethcy data.”
Earth to Adam Grey: scientific skeptics have been asking questions regarding these issues for years without getting adequate answers, if they get any answers at all.
You’re right, it is sketchy data. So far. But there are a hell of a lot more answers in these emails than have ever been provided before, to skeptics or anyone else. You have it backward: these emails are the answer, not the question.
These emails show that there is big, big money flowing into the pockets of influential people, in return for their endorsement — even if they have to massage the data to get the answers their benefactors want. We can see how they routinely connive to get preconceived answers, rather than accepting the answers an unbiased planet is giving them.
Plenty of that big money is provided by organizations and foundations with an agenda. And that agenda is not pursuing scientific truth. It is orchestrated propaganda, designed to provide a disinformation campaign intended to alarm the populace.
You can see it throughout the emails. These climate alarmists whine about receiving straightforward requests for cooperation. They know that if they provide their raw data and replicable methods, their CO2=CAGW hypothesis will very likely be promptly falsified. So they stonewall.
But the Scientific Method requires falsification, if at all possible, as its primary tool for arriving at the truth of a hypothesis. And the essence of cooperation is openly providing all of the raw data and the methodologies upon request that were used to reach their hypothetical conclusions. Instead, they stonewall those requests. Their emails prove it.
These alarmist prima donnas are paid a salary by the taxpayers for science — but at the same time they are being paid by others with a climate alarmist agenda.
You can not serve two masters. One will always be shortchanged. In this case it is the taxpayers, who expect honesty. They are the ones being shortchanged. When the alarmists delete emails that were paid for as the work product resulting from taxpayer funding, how is that any different from being paid by the public to build a bridge, and then destroying that bridge to cover up their malfeasance? Especially if they had pocketed big bucks by an outside foundation to destroy the bridge?
Finally, I note the subtle [and not so subtle] threats of legal action. Do you seriously believe that Michael Mann is going to instigate a lawsuit, or tolerate a lawsuit being filed by one of his cronies, which would require plenty of nosy pre-trial discovery, and months of sworn depositions from everyone even remotely involved?
If so, you have little understanding of human nature. Because most people will not lie under oath, even to protect a co-conspirator. Perjury is still a felony that would destroy a professional’s reputation and employment, likely cost prison time, and invite countersuits. And it has become pretty clear with these emails which side is doing the coverup.
“I imagine though that “-ize” is gaining ground as spell checkers tend to be, as a default, American English.”
Yes, it’s possible a Brit used that spelling. But aren’t versions of MS Word that are sold in the UK set by default to UK English? Or, if not, wouldn’t they be set thus by the site administrator who installed them for his employees?
Best Story Title Yet,
Wrecking CRU: hackers cause massive climate data breach (The Register, UK[/i])
Nothing to add, except I admire all of immensely.
You are real scientists.
The Greatest Scientific Swindle of All Time
Some commenters think that efforts to evade FOI requests is among the most damaging findings in the emails.
“Dave,
“Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA, Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn’t get any additional comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith should say that he didn’t get any papers through the IPCC process.either. I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn’t get any. What we did get were papers sent to us directly – so not through IPCC, asking us to refer to them in the IPCC chapters. If only Holland knew how the process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland.
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments.”
(from Phil)
“Dear Caspar,
I hope everything’s fine with you.
Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process. We are not sure what our university’s response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or that we retained any that you may have sent. However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you sent to us as confidential.”
(from Tim (cc Keith & Phil))
Ok boys, let’s get our stories straight and make sure there are no wild cards…
more at
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=36&pp=25
I guess we will see who the frauds are now:
Alleged CRU Emails – 1169050678.txt
From: “Michael E. Mann”
“Phil,
I’ve seen this junk already. Look at the co-authors! DeFrietas, Bob Carter: a couple of frauds. I dont’ think anyone will take this seriously…
Do you have any advance knowledge you could pass along that would help us gear up to do something on RealClimate? I assume that there will be no surprises in the paleoclimate chapter, but I haven’t seen the final draft. Any hints you can drop would be great…
thanks,
mike”
I almost think if the person who released the raw data is apprehended, that no charges would be filed. The reasoning is that if this went to court and all the scientists and data are subpoenaed, the truth would be laid bare by a proper defense attorney. Wouldn’t it fun to have access to all the files, travel vouchers, everything. This would be true for any lawsuits brought. Look at it as an opportunity to look at everything.
I say raw data as someone has then analyzed it and selected pertinent items. An American word processor could have automatically changed words like realise to realize. The analyzed data was published in Russia to kill any trails. Does anyone believe a casual hacker accomplished this?
There’s a whole load of people who think this guy did a good thing, and also understand that (s)he took one hell of a risk.
Just in case (s)he happens to be caught, I would happily promise $10 for a defence fund, no worries. If enough people do, (s)he will at least have a chance when the brownshirts kick down the door….
Incredible stuff!
I think it explains quite a bit;
We know Mann got busted re: hockey stick
What’s-his-face said “Why should I give you the data when you’ll just try to prove me wrong” or words to that effect.
gore won’t even debate on the subject, and not just because he’s a dolt!
I can’t cite, but know that several aspects of the theory have been de-bunked.
There are methods available, (I’m sure most of you know of them better than I, I’m just starting this research) that can address this climate change business ie: pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to simulate a volcanic eruption, inducing a slight nuclear winter.
Or barges adrift in the oceans, kicking up sea spray to add water vapor (the #1 green house gas!) to reflect the sun and cool the ocean, thereby preventing further release of CO2 from the oceans. Please, if anyone has good info on these techniques provide some links.I have only caught brief explanations and haven’t researched them myself yet.
But it occurred to me that these and other techniques aren’t being used or discussed b/c they don’t transfer wealth to the third world or destroy western economies!
Speaking of that topic, didn’t some African nations just walk out of a conferrence, saying that the $ wasn’t enough, that they had a minimum amount in mind, but wouldn’t reveal the amount?
And why did copenhaggen suddenly announce that they had low expectations? They passed it off on the US not having any cap & trade legislation pending, but the timing now seems curious.
It may be just a hoax, but my gut tells me these libiots will stop at nothing to install a global government and socialist world order. I know that sounds condpiratorial, but I think that shoe fits, based on what I’ve learned so far.
over
Phil,
Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are …
“Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.”
and
“Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was not possible to select stations on the basis of …
“… station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times” [THIS IS ITEM “X”]
Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above selection method could not have been applied (but see below) — unless there are other “hard copy” station history data not in the DOE report (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.
What is the answer here?
The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn’t make the hard copy information available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist — if it did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?
Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers — so where does it come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched. ITEM X really should have been …
“Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”
Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation” OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start? Perhaps it’s not too late?
—–
How about an e-mail about fraud???
From: Tom Wxxx To: Phil Jxxx Subject: [Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:37:07 -0600 Cc: Ben Sxxx
id n457EfQ5005459
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I *am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.
Best wishes, Tom
P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples’ troubles might make him happier about his own parallel experiences.
At RC, a comment by Scott A. Mandia — 20 November 2009 @ur momisugly 2:39 PM
“I posted a few comments on WUWT but I am sure that they fell on deaf ears….”
No Scott, your comment was listened to and answered here. There were good answers for some items on your laundry list of AGW catastrophes and proxies and you chose not to answer why sea level was the same or higher in the MWP, etc.
Sure some posters here have wrong notions, and you are welcome to present contrary arguments or present and defend your own ideas. But to go back to RC and say nobody listens to you here was false in this case and false in general. When you make that claim there, you are just part of their spin and PR which appears to be their main purpose.
What a load of old bollocks. Imagine – there you are, a conspirator in what would be one of the biggest hoaxes of all time and you incriminate yourself in an email like this?
Grow up, FFS