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.
This is a real chestnut from that AP article:
“The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine “the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.”
“The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said in a statement.”
There are still sticking to the talking points, which is to say they are in Kubler-Ross stage 1.
I find it ironic that AGW provides no actual proof of the “A” part. We are expected to believe it when it is essentially based on an argument of broken models, correlations and “what else can it be?” and yet these emails are clearly damning but dont provide “proof” so we are asked by pro-AGW people to believe that with the proper context its all ok.
I think seeing Gore naked would kill a buzzard on a sh*t wagon.
Bonnie (12:53:23) :
“…
The best thing, of course, is to hire a lawyer NOW. Pool your resources and hire the best attorney you can. Hire Rudy Giuliani, or call him.”
I’ve got 10K to contribute to the cause. Anthony, where do you want me to send it?
icehouse (21:43:18) :
CRU was NOT hacked! This was an insider/whistleblower leak.
It could be. If that is the case then there may not be any laws broken. The wistleblower would still be in hot water at work.
Tim (23:16:56) :
It makes me wonder if other files have been hacked and the hacker is waiting for an opportune moment to release some more.
I’m wondering too. What if it turns out the leaker has all information, emails, data, documents, everything, from the beginning!
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/mk8113.jpg
Someone tell me in what context this doesn’t sound like “here, replace your data with this data and the divergence problem goes away.”
Anyone???
“When scientists assume the missionary position”:
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/when-scientists-assume-the-missionary-position/
Am I wrong or is it only the scoundrels in the e-mails, CRU, and University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit who claiming they were hacked? And not whistleblown?
I think if anything we’ve learned not to believe any of them.
sammy k (18:06:10) :
strip gore and give the prize to mcintire!!!!!!!!!
I don’t think McIntyre is the hacker. But maybe his continual pressure is part of why this leak happened.
THEN we have the documents and the code to sift through; are you passing summary judgement NOW to avert further attention to the balance of the material in that zip file?
“NOTHING to see here … move along” he sez …
.
.
Phil Clarke (17:04:06),
I’m back & catching up. When I gave my opinion regarding this thread, I named no names because new information is still coming out. There is no smoking gun ‘proof,’ as Adam Grey seems to want. But looking at all the shenanigans that these emails are disclosing, I personally believe that a certain clique are gaming the system for financial benefit and control.
Also, I don’t think you have evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Steve McIntyre:
“The evidence for the ‘fraud’ was McIntyre’s Yamal findings…”
What’s your specific ‘evidence’?
Finally, quite a few people have asked you various questions. I find that it is a trait of alarmists that they’re always asking questions, but they rarely deign to answer specific questions put to them. Just an observation.
Hohoho:
From email #1254751382:
I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my
grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children
will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and
carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly
in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE
WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
So… even these jokers know that carbon trading is a scam?!
That’s why we pay then so much, No. 23,417…………………..
From: Phil Jones
To: Gil Compo
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data – One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean.
This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases.
Cheers
Phil
Very clever Phil, ever heard of land use changes?………..the emails show a mindset that will not tolerate any departure from the script. These people should be quarantined from any further work on climate assessment and new people brought in under clear employment conditions that stipulate that transparency , openness and accountability are mandatory. It is going to take strong government leadership and time to accomplish this task.
In the meantime I have heard nothing from MSM in Australia.This week the Senate vote on the CPES (Carbon Pollution something….I can’t go on) takes place, we have five days to turn this ship around.
Hohoho…
From email #1254751382:
Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
David:
I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my
grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children
will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and
carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly
in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE
WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
So… these jokers know already that carbon trading is worthless.
Wait a minute! These e-mails and documents can’t be genuine. None of our models predicted that this information would be released.
/sarc off.
(The sarc tag shouldn’t be necessary, but there are some pretty dense warmists out there!)
Arn Riewe (16:00:33) :
Re Eisenhowers speech,
“new electronic computers”……..50yrs ago ! really?
I suspect we will hear a slow drum roll as this story builds over the next week. Sometimes these stories grow like mushrooms in the lawn, one morning you wake up and they are all over the place.
My guess is the major media folks are trying to decide which way to break on this story. If some juicy tid bit comes out late Sunday afternoon and or the media types smell blood in the water (especially the folks in UK following recent expense scandals) they might lose the dogs and it could get very interesting.
There is enough raw data and leads to follow in those releases to keep an army of investigators busy for months. The media might sit back and let the blogosphere do the early dirty work for free and then run with the story when things have had time to put some meat on the bones of this release.
Talk show participation early next week might also give an indication of where this is heading. Remember Clinton’s intern scandal took some time to develop as bits and pieces came out into the public arena.
Lots of home work to do for folks interested in making sense of this and it might take weeks to start to put patterns of behavior together and draw out peripheral participants that might use this as cover to give deep back ground info to various blogs to fill in the blanks.
The hit count on this thread is prima facie evidence I would think that there is a good deal of interest in the topic, and the fact that it went ballistic on a week end when this sort of thing is normally announced to allow it to get buried in the news cycle says a lot. If this pushes the Senate health care vote off the Sunday news shows or the front pages on Monday, then it probably has legs.
Larry
Hello editors, this page is too long! Please promote Phil Clarke’s thorough debunking at 14:58:30 to its own post, where it belongs, so that we may continue to have this most excellent discussion.
evancha (17:40:41) :
“I have one question — is it possible for the people who hacked the servers to “edit” the documents they downloaded before posting them to the internet? If so, the emails should be taken with a big dose of skepticism.”
Have you examined the e-mails for yourself? They are in .TXT format. Of COURSE they could have been edited. The thing to keep in mind that a number of people who sent and received those e-mails, including Andy Revkin, have stated that they are accurate. The last of those e-mails are dated November 12th. There are over a thousand of them. I think there is a good chance we have the real thing.
Link from UEA site to Met Office Hadley climate research centre. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ ” page cannot be found ” LOL. Wonder why not ?
Finally the UK Daily Telegraph prints a dull, well hidden, story on hackinggate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html
But, on that same page, James Delingpoles earlier blog entry is the most read item on the online Telegraph so perhaps they will start to pay more attention.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Yes the first electronic computers were developed for the government and military.
In 1944-1946 Howard Aiken & Grace Hopper, Harvard Mark I Computer, John Presper Eckert & John W. Mauchly ENIAC 1 Computer. They were mostly used for number crunching problems like working out artillery tables for naval guns etc.
The industrial computer age began in about 1951 when the Univac was developed. By the late 1950’s and early 1960’s they were moving out of major government and research facilities into large commercial banks etc. These were mainframe computers the size of a small house or filling entire rooms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Mark_I
Larry
phil clarke
“Overstated. The journal in question was ‘Climate Research’ in the wake of publication of a sceptic paper [Sally Baliunas and Willie Soon] so poor it provoked the resignation of half the board.”
you are missing the point,
the question IN THIS CONTEXT is not about the quality of papers that made their way through the peer review process.
the question is, why poor pro agw papers (like the ones bluntly critisized in these emails or those easily demolished by McIntyre ) have passed through WITHOUT similar consequences for the editors.
the consequence of this is, that there is now almost a monoculture of pro agw editors, and a state of fear to let sceptical papers pass even if they are sound.
and in addition there are those michael mann type reviewers around, with a review style that may be only characterized by a single word:
sabotage:
http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/article.php?a_id=3991
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html
Good comments.
All Your Emails Are Belong To Us