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.
Paul K (12:38:22) :
Anthony Watts… This hacking is clearly illegal, and reposting information obtained from a felony act is highly reprehensible.
That’s all? That’s the best you could come up with? That’s really it?
It might be best for the trolls to stay under the bridge for a while. I’ll throw you all a bone : RealClimate says the emails are ‘robust’ scientific discussion. Talk amongst yourselves.
Bob Tisdale (12:41:10) :
“’I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails,’ says Mann. ‘However, their theft constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.’
I’m still wondering if deceiving the public by altering data is a crime.
just a thought – how to do science ..
http://www.lhcportal.com/Portal/index.htm
CERN – the guys who bought us the world wide web; do all their science in public.
What is so special about AGW research that it has to be done behind closed doors ?
What possible reason is there for doing publicly funded science in secret ?
Of course; if it isn’t science you’re doing; but propaganda; then of course you do it in secret.
Two great (and very different ) news items on the same day !!
LHC is running
and
the purveyors of scam science have been exposed; CRU emails seem to confirm AGW is a scam
PS: I believe it was a realization by the CRU team that, if push came to shove, or even if it didn’t, the scientific establishment would be in its corner and would give it the benefit of the doubt in all disputes with outsiders, that encouraged them to behave so high-handedly. I suspect their continual dismissal of critics as not being properly peer reviewed, or not being published properly, or not being climate scientists, or being “out of it” in some other fashion, was largely an attempt to knee-tap scientists’ establishmentarian reflexes and evoke the biases inculcated by science-groupie propaganda, which implies that “science” has a perfect self-correcting truth-finding mechanism in place and that anything extra-mural is prima facie no good, or at least improper.
“Science” needs to climb down from its high horse and pay attention to its responsible critics (like academics involved in Science and Technology Studies—i.e., the sociology of science), especially the reform proposals of constructive critics like Henry Bauer. (E.g., he’s suggested that there should be a “science court” where disputed or fringe issues could be debated and evaluated by expert panels.) My own main suggestion is that scientific funding agencies should be split up into half a dozen competing smaller agencies, to encourage more long-shot funding (such as DARPA backs) and to discourage the development of monolithic groupthink.
wikiwonk (13:15:20) :
Venus is hotter than Mercury. We know for certain that enough CO2 drives a greenhouse effect. The earth’s history also supports this.
This sounds like Wikipedia ‘science’ created by a radical green Wikipedia editor.
I have a pretty good guess who you are. And all I can say is your call to urgent action brings on the urge to yawn.
Did the Russian hacker (FOIA) had contact with RealClimate? ___# Konrad (23:52:42) : 21/Nov/
Was it before or after they dropped the link at the AIR VENT (13/11) posting: „Open Letter On Climate Legislation“ Comment #10. Who was slow? Who was quick?
__The Russian hackers FOIA, appeared on Tuesday 17 Nov., 09:57 PM, at “The Air Vent” here: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/; FOIA said November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm,
__wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19 opened this thread on 19. Nov. (first comment:. 13:30) ;
__and The Air Vent here: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/
__The http://www.examiner.com November 19, 9:42 PM, : The FTP link first appeared on a blog called The Air Vent.
__TGIF, http://www.investigatemagazine.com, Nov.20, “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.
___# Konrad (23:52:42) : 21/Nov/
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.
Is there more it would be good to know?
I seem to remember a certain blogger objecting to a video containing being placed online as it contained a small amount of copyrighted material.
I am sure that in their haste to get these almost certainly illegally obtained private correspondences in front of a wider audience posters have not bypassed the usual due diligence checks to ensure they are not inadvertantly breaching anyone’s copyright (breach of privacy goes without saying).
Business letters can be protected by copyright and forwarding them to others can be an infringement, the High Court has ruled. The decision could have implications for email communication because the same principles will apply.
In a dispute over roofing slates, the High Court said that a business letter can qualify for copyright protection. Experts say the protection will as easily apply to business emails, which could change the way email is used in business forever.
Struan Robertson, editor of OUT-LAW.COM and a technology lawyer with Pinsent Masons, said: “Emails can be protected by copyright too. Just because it’s easier to forward an email than a letter does nothing to weaken that protection.”
Not every letter or email will enjoy copyright protection, which is reserved for works which involve original skill or labour and which do not involve copying the work of another person. Originality in this context does not require the work to be an original or inventive thought; it only requires originality in the execution or expression of the thought. However, where existing subject matter is used by an author, independent skill must be applied to justify copyright protection for a resulting work.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/15/email_copyright_infringement/
Clark Baker (14:25:30) :
If this story is true, kudos to the hackers. I invite them to focus on other universities – expecially those that receive millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. You’ll find a lifetime of scandals there.
Clark Baker
LAPD, retired
I’d like to see everything from GISS since January 1988.
Dr DoLittle (14:25:49) :
I have talked to several people who appear on the leaked email traffic. All of them say that the emails are exactly what they wrote and corresponded and have in their own inboxes. Seems like strong evidence for the authenticity of the leak.
The best piece of confirmation will be the actual emails at CRU and from all others involved. They may have to be turned over some day. They will still be on harddrive even if they’ve been deleted. 🙂
PPS: Another reform I suggest would be to create a board of overseers, chosen more or less at random from the membership of scientific societies, to oversee their boards of directors and executives, and to counteract, like a balance wheel, activities of extremist/activist infiltrators.
Without lots of institutional reform, “science” is liable to become just another professional “conspiracy against the laity.”
The University’s statement on copyright is here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/strategies/infregs/copyright/ownership
The UEA owns the copyright of any intellectual property produced as part of an employment there. This includes, among other things, computer software.
So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.
Matt Beck (15:07:12) :
If the Times is on to it, that means the situation has blown up. It’s unsalvageable for the warmist camp. This is truly an historic day.
It is that big. I was up way too late last night following this and now way too late tonight. But it’s been fun.
There is no damage control that can fix this for the warmists. They’ve been claiming consensus among scientists all along. But now we see it is fraternization among scientists. Many of us many of us knew it all along. Now the public has the smoking gun to prove it to them too.
Presumably if the uni or anyone else wants to prosecute people over the release or reproduction of this material, the uni will have to confirm the material released is accurate. Do you suppose they really want to do that in the public domain?
The court case could get very interesting and very embarrassing for the uni, not just for the email writers.
dublds (17:14:22) :
Lets see if RC can smooth over this one:
RC has not been able to smooth over anything at a high caliber in the past. It’s still the same people now as in the past. They won’t give an impressive effort now—as we can already see.
These emails are a true testimony to the arrogance possible of concerted action taken based upon the unexamined belief. To quote Joan Baez you can justify it in the end.
brazil84 (17:17:08) :
P.P.S. I hope Senator Inhofe has his staff drafting subpoenas.
He will have to put together a good case first—and he’s got plenty of material with which to do that. This thing is a no-brainer.
The BBC have removed all blog comments on their site .
DaveE (20:47:48) :
From Mann to Jones,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.
Now why would SteveM go running to the WSJ if he discovered the problems? Surely he’d try to publish a rebuttal first.
Sometimes we project ourselves into our opinions of others—Michael Mann thought Steve M would have run to publicity right away….I’m just saying.
“Phil Clarke (02:47:31) :
The University’s statement on copyright is here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/strategies/infregs/copyright/ownership
The UEA owns the copyright of any intellectual property produced as part of an employment there. This includes, among other things, computer software.
So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.”
Screw that! They can try put us all in prison, but that won’t work will it.
Mods, snip at will.
Presumably if the uni or anyone else wants to prosecute people over the release or reproduction of this material, the uni will have to confirm the material released is accurate. Do you suppose they really want to do that in the public domain?
Dr Jones already did.
Phil Clarke (02:47:31) : “The UEA owns the copyright of any intellectual property produced as part of an employment there. This includes, among other things, computer software.”
Are deliberately corrupted scientific data or codes of any type classifiable as “intellectual”?
Are E-mails that conspire to corrupt scientific data, codes or processes classifiable as “intellectual”?
Just wondering.
Nev (01:48:17) :
“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
I’m hoping he isn’t having thoughts of anything else as he is leaning out that window.
I think the Earth’s temperature has just gone up a couple of notches! Sleep well AGW crims and traitors – the truth is catching up with you. I just can’t wait to see you publicly humiliated and your lives destroyed.
Phil Clarke (02:30:00) :
You made no conclusion. Is your implied conclusion that whoever it is in Russia where these where (it has been put forth) hacked be extradited to face charges that may not even be valid in the first place?
Or is your intended conclusion that anyone who has forwarded, or even handled in any way, these emails be subject to criminal prosecution? Is that your hope?
So now we all have been introduced to the concept of pal-reviewed-literature. I wonder what the next big leap in science would be?