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.
Not surprising to see that old chestnut trotted out — “out of context”. That’s what a guilty person says after he’s been caught and exposed saying or doing something embarrassing and/or illegal.
Wonder where we’ll be in the next week or two – communications being funneled through a number of attorneys?
Oh what a tangled web they weave! etc. etc.
@ur momisugly Smokey
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.
I began by saying to Karl that there is nothing skeptical about leaping to conclusions with sketchy data. I now ask you to cite the emails that ‘prove’ exactly what you are saying. Which emails, for exampe, reveal what organizations and foundations provide funding for disinformation campaings? Who paid? Who received? How much was spent? Where are the unambiguous emails showing connivance to arrive at preferred answers?
Cite the full email, please, and any attached to it, so that we may not be misled by out-of-context quoting. Thank you.
It makes me wonder if other files have been hacked and the hacker is waiting for an opportune moment to release some more.
Chez Nation (06:44:24) :
It is human nature to monkey with data
used car salesman do it all the time
Perfect reference to Al Gore!
euan mearns (08:13:00) :
The BBC have this story, missing the whole point of course
Of course. They do it intentionally because of their political paradigm.
I wonder if these people get tired of pushing their politics all the time?
I read with some interest an article posted over at ICECAP, authored by Andrew Revkin. Two things caught my eye. The first was that the tone and balance was somewhat different to Mr. Revkin’s traditional alarmist writing. I speculate that this may be because he was basically referred to as a “useful idiot” in the leaked emails. The second thing was that Gavin Schmidt indicated that the leaked files may have been known to him as early as Tuesday when a hacker attempted to upload them as a false post at RC. This makes the slow RC response even more interesting.
Ed (08:38:36) :
Professor Michael E Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate,
Popular?
The Guardian has a different definition popular than the dictionary does. They needed to specify ‘the segment of political left that has interest in global warming’. It’s popular among them, I guess.
The Guardian needs to get out more often.
Alas, my post providing links to McLean’s articles didn’t last long on Real Climate – it was moderated off.
Malcolm
I’m up past my bedtime. Passing through the channels I came across the show Red Eye. They brought up the CRU hacker story in the opening.
Interesting , with regard to the BBC and their relevant UEA/CRU item is that Richard Black is nowhere to be seen. I look forward to his view, when he emerges from behind wherever he is hiding/cowering?/sitting.
Good time to remind people of this poll.
April E. Coggins (23:05:11) :
Are the politicians turning on the scientists? The pro-global warming politicians have been hiding behind the scientists, feeding the scientists money to keep up the charade….
Bingo April. Listen to Waxman’s words.
AEGeneral (09:10:16) :
In the words of Dennis Green:
“They are who we thought they were.”
Wish I had thought of this!!!
Aha, Keith Briffa’s original receipt of the Yamal 18 in 1996, including the data if anyone knows how to parse a .arj file.
0844968241.txt
From: “Tati*na M. Dedkova”
To: k.br*ffa
Subject: Rashit
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 96 13:24:01 +0500
Dear Keith,
enclosed are data concerning Yamal chronology.
1 – list of samples: 139 subfossil samples (checked only),
covered time span from about 350 BC and 18 samples from living
trees (jah- from Yada river, m- and x- Hadyta river, por- from
Portsa river);
2 – general chronology (1248 BC – 1994 AD). I have some little
doubt about 360 BC – may be it is false. It was found that
in chronology I sent you before 155 BC was false ring;
3 – ring widths of living trees from Yada and Hadyta;
4 – ring widths of living trees from Portsa. Some of them didn’t
include in chronology, because were not measured at that time;
5 – ring widths of subfossil trees. Zero means that ring didn’t
find on sample.
I don’t send description of collection sites, deposits and etc.
for the present. Some details you can find in our article
(Shiyatov,…., Loosli). By the way, do you know something about
its fate?
Please, inform me if you have any questions about these data.
Sincerely yours,
Rashit Hantemirov
begin 644 data.arj
M8.HH`!X&`0`0“*;FU-*(9M32B$…
geo (09:32:32) :
Ah, so Michael Mann is now having fantasies of sending Anthony, Steve, and others to jail for allowing these stolen emails to appear on their blogs.
I seem to get that impression too.
As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical…cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
P Walker (19:46:16) :
Nope. you won’t find it by looking. It’s unfair, just wait. It will make some things clearer.
A google on “Hadley CRU hacked” gives 57,800 links in the past 24 hours.
From: “Thomas.R.Karl”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: FW: retraction request
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400
Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang
“Thanks Phil,
We R now responding to a [b]former TV weather forecaster[/b] who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases. We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
Regards, TOm”
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
MattN (10:44:05) :
Leeme guess the comments on RC: “It doesn’t matter…”
The even use the word ‘robust’….AGAIN!
engaging in ‘robust’ discussions
That’s what they are calling their fraternization. How unimpressive those at RealClimate are.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
Robert E. Phelan (14:53:57) :
The crutape letters.
jones = screwtape
mann = wormwood.
hat tip to cs lewis ‘the screwtape letters’
Harold Ambler (11:23:05) :
Hold the phone! Complete misunderstanding!
We have it from Gavin that the e-mails are merely instances of “scientists … engaging in ‘robust’ discussions.”
Yes, that statement is robust in something.
Patrick M. (12:04:22) :
Has anybody been able to get into ClimateAudit? I haven’t been able to load the page since last night.
It’s a little slow for me but I get in every attempt.
Do you use Firefox?
Dr DoLittle (12:29:29) :
should have said 100% real, not 10% 🙂
You had me raise an eyebrow for a second.
“GeoffS (22:58:02) :
“Never mind the hacked emails – I’d like to see the emails between this lot over the last couple of days”
Apparently Phil Jones was seen leaning out a sixth floor window at CRU trying to grab some pigeons…most secure form of communication in current climate
James F. Evans (18:21:34) :
“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.
This is the same guild solidarity that (I suspect) motivated the NAS to give Mann only a wrist-slap. They couldn’t bear to side with an outsider against one of their own. This is an example of how social reality or “consensus reality” overrides real (scientific) reality. It happens in all hierarchies, especially those that have power and social prestige. “Satan” tempts them to do as they please, to throw their weight around, and to put the good of their organization and its members first.
=========
Regarding realize vs. realise, here is a one-sentence snippet from Fowler’s Modern English Usage fairly long entry on the topic, under the heading “ize”, recommending “ize” for use in the UK:
“the Oxford university Press, the Cambridge University Press, The Times, and American usage carry authority enough to outweigh superior numbers.”
At some point you have to seriously wonder… Just what kind of people, with what kind of moral code would try to pull an epic, abusive scam like this? Where do they come from?
(pardon the late night reverie)