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.
Jim (16:55:34) :
“It can hardly be called harassment when the information should have been published long ago. It’s more like scientific obstructionism.”
It’s not true, but it doesn’t have to be true: it has to be plausible enough to be an effective media smokescreen.
Phil Clarke (02:30:00) :
Business letters can be protected by copyright and forwarding them to others can be an infringement, the High Court has ruled.
This is not a US ruling. You are expecting a lot of extraditions to take place here.
But also you failed to emphasize the only pertinent point :
but the judge found that enough was added that was new to qualify the letter for protection as a literary work.
Nothing has been altered in these emails or documents.
You really are grasping at straws in this. Once a troll always a troll, hey Phil?
Squidly said
Wow, has anyone read 080214_SUNYA_draft.pdf?
What do you make of this?
The Division for Research received an allegation against Wey Chyung Wang, for fabrication and
misrepresentation of research results…”
Yes, The “Wang Story” is probably well worth following in these e-mails.
Isn’t it nice to know that Wang, “the Chief Scientis”t of the “Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program” is considered “a rather sloppy scientist” and “had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents” and ” there was a report… explicitly stating that no such documents exist.” ”
I posted an e-mail and (mixed it up badly) I found when I searched for fraud. Here it is again.
From: Tom Wxxx To: Phil Jxxxs 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
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?
—–
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.
Phil Clarke (02:47:31) :
So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.
I haven’t seen anyone claim that the emails and documents are theirs. Have you?
That’s the beauty of all this, why is is such an unbelievable story—it really is all the work of the circle of scientists who are behind the ‘science’ of global warming. It is all theirs. And you, unknowingly, are making it crystal clear it is really theirs. You are beyond the point of questioning if these really are from them or not.
Thank you for acknowledging that it is all theirs and not a fabrication from a skeptic-denier ; and thus can’t be altered in any way for fear of criminal prosecution.
You know it is all real. And no one other than them is, or would, claim it is theirs. So any possible copyright infringement is out of the questions.
Have a nice day.
Malcontent (03:07:04) :
Do you suppose they really want to do that in the public domain?
They may have to. There is no way out of this either way for them. The more time goes by the more they will see just how badly they have been hurt by this.
The Titanic didn’t sink immediately. But it certainly did. And the extent of the blow unfolded over a period of time, not all at once.
…can anyone say ‘Enron’?
Gene Nemetz (04:33:53) :
The Titanic didn’t sink immediately. But it certainly did. And the extent of the blow unfolded over a period of time, not all at once.
That is actually a good comparison, a ship in the middle of night running into an iceberg. Not many noticed it at first hand, but those who should know certainly did and they did realise rather quickly that the ship was doomed and that it would sink in a matter of a few hours(1).
So who is the Thomas Andrews (the designer of the Titanic who died with the ship) of the good ship AGW? Who is going to break the news to the rest of the passengers and crew aboard the AGW? Do the officers realise that the ship is lost and that it is all a matter of time now?
I’ve compiled some of the best phrases in my blog (in Portuguese):
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html
Bishop Hill has a good compilation also:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
I believe we should create more compilations, so journalists can get at them faster.
Ecotretas
Um… I take it people haven’t really had time to look through the files properly then? I mean, the stuff posted here as examples of a ‘vast hoax’ is a bit pathetic. 1 E-mail talking about a ‘trick’ used to hide a decline… to be honest, without knowing what the ‘trick’ is (adding in real temperatures? doesn’t sound like a trick to me) it’s hard to even construe that as disingenuous.
I mean, seriously…. is this it??!
Forgive me if this has been covered, but upon thinking about it, I doubt this is the work of an outside “hacker”, unless the archive had already been prepared by insiders, or unless it’s a complete dump of a specific computer. Somebody knew where the bodies were buried — generally too much to expect of outside “hackers” unless they were really, really motivated to do lots of research (and remember, time is the “hacker’s” enemy).
It’s not just the quoted emails that are damaging. There are many documents the mere presence of which show a serious conflict of interest in what is supposed to be a publicly funded science body. There are Greenpeace-related docs, plus a doc on “Communicating climate change” which is basically a handbook for how to propagandize effectively. It recommends employing fear only very sparingly (thankfully).
My fave so far is email 1048799107.txt entitled “Formation of Earth Government for the good of all.” It goes on about how a nice lefty Earth Government will be formed that controls all nations. Why are scientists subscribing, in their official capacity, to this kind of political brainwash?
I urge all readers to search and download from one of the mirrors. It’s your duty to remain an informed citizen. It’s our tax money they are spending on these so-called research centers that are in fact taxpayer sponsored political advocacy groups for extreme left wing dogma.
What’s most laughable, but perhaps positive in a way, are the repeated attempts from people caught with their hands full of cookie dough at damage control through invoking copyright and privacy laws. Besides being further “evidence” of a sort as to the veracity of this data, it’s clear that if copyright can be used to protect people in such monumental idiocy as this, the COPYRIGHT LAWS MUST BE CHANGED IMMEDIATELY. Where they get the idea that scientists should have a right to refer to privacy in such a situation, I don’t get, but it’s monstrously stupid and irrelevant.
Regarding the data itself, it has been commented that the interesting part is that there is no sign of any great conspiracy. I never thought there was one. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, and all that. What has happened shouldn’t surprise anyone. With sharply expanding budgets during the late 80:s, the climate orgs started to attract those who had a very ideological agenda rather than a scientific mindset. These people were all ready to bend the truth they found by simply asking only the questions they wanted. The IPCC goals are clear: Find support for AGW. After that, the people starting their careers in climate science found that they could only get funding if their research supported AGW. It became extremely important to people to stick to the approved road. Eventually, the politicians found the AGW useful for adding huge new taxes and regulations, and they threw in their support, but on condition that further interior weeding progressed so as not to be criticized. From the politicians, they got their major two gifts: Keeping the raw data secret, and a media advantage compared to the critics.
In short: You don’t need a conspiracy to turn an entire field of science into an ideological church of kumbayah. You only need money and human nature, as always.
Much of science’s credibility has been squirreled into the ridiculous notion that CO2 causes catastrophic warming. Many have jumped aboard this gravy train.
Nice work if you can cook the books, however it appears that another bubble has burst.
“The UEA owns the copyright of any intellectual property produced as part of an employment there. This includes, among other things, computer software. ”
Bullsnip!!!! Dammit…. if the American people don’t own every jot and tittle and every hard drive that this pyramid scheme has one fingerprint on, then it’s time to start a new government and a new science based on rooting out corruption…
I noted this which reflects the discussion about making data available in response to an FOI request; (probably draft document – not found in an e-mail)
(quote)
Options appear to be:
1.Send them the data
2.Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3.Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
(end quote)
WOW,
Try searching the word ” confidential “
Those against whiom there is evidence of deliberate complicity in fraud for gain, such as jones & those recipients of emails who did not go to the police, should face trial for fraud. Anybody else in any organisation regularly connected to the CRU should be considered, under the reasonable man doctirne to either know they were engeged in fraud or that they ought to have known if competent. In either case none of them can ever again claim to be a scientist & no reputable scientific institution should hire them or have any of them as a member.
CodeTech (21:09:47) :
I was especially disgusted by the way some are quoting RC, and they’re all describing RC as some innocent “forum where climate scientists gather”, as if it was anything other than a propaganda outlet.
More to the point, the authors at realclimate.org are the very same people who are the authors and recipients of the bulk of the emails released by the whistleblower.
They would hardly be likely to offer anything but a well spun defence on RC would they?
What I would like to see is a segment (if not entire show) on Glen Beck discussing this with Sen. Inhofe. Break it down into sub-toptics where the various illegal activities are discussed. Then have a few climate scientists like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen provide their opinions that the science has ALWAYS been overstated.
I think that would get the word out. Anyone have Glen’s ear?
Phil Clarke (02:47:31) :
“So, the ethics of reproducing stolen mail aside, I urge caution in posting stuff that you don’t actually own.”
No one need worry about this happening.
1. The file, and quotes from it, are turning up all over the place and it is impossible for them to try to prosecute everyone.
2. The last thing UEA and the rest of the AGW scammers want is all that incriminating stuff being put under a microscope in a court of law.
I’d have to say the game is far from over. These folks will just shift from warming to sea ice reduction or ocean acidification or some other cause du jour. The new meme will be that “CO2 may not cause warming, but the oceans will become acid and there will no longer be any sea ice” or some similar incarnation involving another unforeseen, CO2-induced problem.
Svempa (05:41:00) :
“…
Regarding the data itself, it has been commented that the interesting part is that there is no sign of any great conspiracy. I never thought there was one. …”
Ah, but there is. Its one thing for the ideologues to climb on and dip their wicks in the trough as is human nature, quite another when they conspire to manipulate, divert and exclude information and others from participating, and that’s what is documented in the emails. We don’t know yet how deep the conspiracy goes. Do a review of the history of the CRU, look at the rest of the players. What has happened here is that the conspiracy got so big and so pedestrian that nobody thought to watch over their useful idiots (Jones et al), with the result that all players will sooner or later, be pulled into the spotlight. Shredders are shredding and hard drives are being purged all over the world this weekend, there can be no doubt.
Scott A Mandia:
“When you howling wolves realize that the meat you think you have been thrown is made of rubber, are you going to spit it out, or keep telling everybody that it tastes really good?”
An apt illustration of the desperation many who have bought these lies must be feeling now. Mr. Mandia, grow up.
[SNIP – No outing, dammit! ~ Evan] is Tamino.
1248877389.txt shows the connection, with Tamino’s e-mail address.
The reference “…Gavin Tamino…” is missing a ‘,’. It should be “… Gavin, Tamino…”
The Canadian Model is showing up with a giant western European Low 8-10 days out that would bring heights down to 522mb & Snow to the UK, perfect timing for the BBC!