Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

FOI2009/FOIA/documents/Fisher.txt
“I will send you the time series you need in a minute for the Central
west Greenland Stack…
And some other bits and pieces,,, The NGRIP record has the trend in it
that is no doubt closer to the truth for the fixed elevation temperature
history. But even there one could need a correction for elevation
change. The elevation corrected south GRIP Holocene has a very strong
negative delta trend in it and I expect there should be some correction
done to the north GRIP record too,, eventually I think they should all
come out looking like our records from Northern Canada. Now at least
ice core records have some low frequencies to correct… not like your
bloody trees that can not remember one century to the next,,,
(alderheimers )”
.
.
.
Fritz Koerner and I down to do a chapter in the book too I think,if
its the same book ,but its not due for quite a while,,,
David
Keith Briffa wrote:
>
> Dave
> I am currently working with Ray Bradley and others to produce a chapter for
> a PAGES book . Our chapter is concerned with the climate of the last 1000
> years and I am currently putting together a Figure and text concerned with
> the circum North Atlantic area. I wondered if you had , in an easily
> plotable form )i.e. spreadshhet-like numbers with real dates ) the stacked
> record – or whether you considered just plotting the GRIP?GISP mean was
> appropriate ? In a paper by Hammer , the north and south GRIP records (O18)
> are different – with a negative trend through the Holocene in the north and
> a recent “warming”, but neither at summit. I have restricted space so what
> is best to plot .
> cheers
> Keith
>
.
.
.

Results 1 – 10 of about 1,330,000 for AR4.
4th assessment report of the IPCC published in 2007

Here is a post from Real Climate… Check out Gavin Goebells response… he’d wanna be careful…. accessory after the fact maybe….
———————————————————-
What appalled me, if it turns out to be true, was an email purported to be from Phil Jones to Mike Mann where the archive shows “Jones” wrote on 2/2/2005, “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
If proven to be true, that goes far beyond deleting emails as a crime against science, and perhaps a criminal act as well. I certainly cannot feel comfortable with Dr. Jones being in a position of responsibility where he could actually carry out that threat unless he disavows that email as being something he actually wrote.
[Response: It is obviously not meant seriously, but that is hard to discern from little snippets like this. – gavin]

Climate Mafia
Prince Alexander a true “Global Player” disqualifies himself to be the future King of the Netherlands.
Maybe this speech at the Energy Efficiency and Sustainability, during the official State Visit to Mexico, November 4th 2009 is why the Dutch MSM is avoiding any reporting about the current Climate Scam.
For those who ask the question how the fraudulent climate scientists are connected with the political elite this is a picture perfect example.
The current Queen has a seat in the Club of Rome and they are “embedded” within the United Nations. The Globalists are everywhere.
Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
First, I would like to thank all of you for participating in today’s seminar. I would also like to extend a special word of thanks to our Mexican hosts. It is an honour to be here today. In a way, this seminar shows just how far we have come on our way to a new, low-carbon energy future. New technology, new partnerships, a truly global approach to the problem of climate change: this is what I see emerging. We have also measured – as far as we could – the distance we still have to go. Let’s take encouragement from the fact that we are on this road together, and that we are indeed moving ahead. Energy efficiency is an issue that is particularly close to my heart. There are several reasons for that.
First of all, it is a subject that touches upon our daily lives. In order to be more energy-efficient, we must critically re-appraise how we live and the choices we make. Everybody needs to be aware of the extreme effects of climate change and the urgency with which we must deal with them. And everybody needs to be involved in finding sustainable solutions. This, I believe, is crucial to bringing about positive change: a low carbon economy should start at grass-roots level.
Second, energy efficiency is about our production methods. How we deal, or fail to deal, with our planet’s mineral reserves. Precious natural resources merit careful treatment. We need to be in awe of nature, not see it as our right to abuse it. That is a basic starting point.
Mexican history can teach us a lesson here. As we now find ourselves in the one-time capital of the mighty Aztec empire, perhaps we can spend a few moments taking a closer look at the Aztecs, the true ‘children of the sun’. Aztec culture is about respecting and revering nature. The famous Aztec pyramids of the sun and moon in Teotihuacan still attract thousands and thousands of tourists every year. The Queen, my wife and I look forward to visiting them on Friday. The Aztecs built their pyramids in order to pay tribute to their gods, the sun god in particular. Their message still rings true: we depend on nature, not the other way round. We depend on the sun as it is the one and only source of energy that makes our life on earth possible. Likewise, we depend on the unique atmosphere of this planet to protect us from the very harmful effects of that same sun. We have to stop this vital shield’s gradual degradation.
Maybe the Aztecs were light-years ahead of us in realising that the sun is the only source of energy and that all other sources like fossil, hydro, wind or bio energy are mere derivatives. Maybe they were telling us to focus on the sun and to join forces in making solar energy so efficient that we can use it to solve all our energy requirements. Every 30 minutes the earth absorbs enough light to meet the world’s energy needs for a year! Every 30 minutes! If only we could harvest it!
So while we are rightly looking for methods to reduce emissions in the short and medium term that have a distinct immediate effect on the pace of climate change, like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), we should never lose sight of the genuine long-term solutions to our energy problems. As I have already pointed out, our only source of energy is the sun. The rest are derivatives. So solar energy has the brightest future. And although it will take decades or even centuries before solar is our main source of energy, it is of the greatest importance to all future generations that we start conserving the best catchment areas, the world’s deserts. Many regard deserts as a barren and hostile environment. In fact, they are a precious source of life, which we should embrace and protect for the common good. The circle of deserts surrounding the globe presents us with wonderful opportunities for both generating and transmitting solar energy.
Large-scale solar plants in deserts, connected to a cross-border or even intercontinental grid, are a fundamental solution for sustainable energy supplies after 2050. As an interesting side-effect – and of great benefit to the local population – heat from the power-generation process may be used to desalinate seawater or to generate cooling. So heat and water stress, now almost synonymous with deserts, can partly be solved, while mitigating the effects of climate change.
Although this solution may sound costly, scaling it up will make it a more profitable business than fossil energy. The point is, if we do not approach energy as a long-term investment, we will end up paying much higher bills.
So, ladies and gentlemen, we know the technology is there. Now we need the political will and the right approach to investment to achieve this fundamental transition towards a new energy system. Investments in sustainable solutions make our communities healthier, our planet cleaner, our economies stronger and our future brighter. Let us look beyond the current financial and economic crisis and build the foundations of a sustainable future. As a result of this crisis, billions of dollars of public spending are needed to bail out our economies and regenerate economic growth. If spent wisely on sustainable solutions, these investments will also contribute towards rescuing our planet. We owe this to our children and future generations.
The COP 15 conference which will be held in Copenhagen in December is the ideal opportunity to prove that we understand the urgency of the threats that face those future generations. The current generation is the only one that can help mitigate them. We have the knowledge and the means. Let us show the world we have the courage to take bold and necessary steps.
Let us make sure those future generations can be proud of us. Let us not go down in history as yet another generation that could have acted, but chose not to.
In a way, Mexico and the Netherlands are ‘natural’ partners in the field of energy. Mexico produces oil, the Netherlands produces gas, and we are both working towards a sustainable energy future. The Memorandum of Understanding which is about to be signed points the way ahead. We are guided by shared ambitions and work in the same spirit. Working together in a field as important as energy policy will benefit our two countries, as well as the world at large. We can and must make sure that the world acts together. Only then can Copenhagen be successful.
To make Copenhagen a success, we need drastic emission reductions, accepted by all nations. Do we achieve that through negative or positive strategies? Should we only focus on saying no or could we take a different approach? Should we allow everybody to emit as much as they want and then tax them so heavily under the ‘polluter pays’ principle that they make greater reductions collectively than through an approach that limits emissions? With those kind of financial incentives the private sector will gladly provide us with technologies that lead to huge emission reductions. I gladly leave it up to the delegates of COP 15 to make the right decisions and, if necessary, to finalize the treaty here in Mexico next year.
Let me conclude by giving you a Mexican proverb. “Cámaron que se duerme se lo lleva la chingada”, or in English: “a shrimp that sleeps gets carried by the tide.” Right now, strong currents are trying to pull us along, leading us to a future of energy scarcity, rising sea level and increasing pollution. Let’s wake up, let’s turn the tide and move in a different direction. Let’s set an example to the rest of the world. I am sure that this seminar, with its plans, ideas and expertise on energy efficiency, will be a source of inspiration to all of you.
Thank you again for sharing your ideas with us. Thank you for being here.
Also watch the Prime Minister Balkenende here:

The Dutch are left in the dark about any scheme from energy rationing to Global Government. This used to be one of the most open and democratic countries in the World.

0927145311.txt
Clearly, the science is far from decided upon………
From: Tom Wigley
To: Mike Hulme
Subject: Re: CO2 concentrations
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:21:51 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: Mike MacCracken
Dear Mike,
Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did
and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets
(more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers you
gave in your email!! The Hadley people have clearly screwed things up,
but their “errors” don’t really matter given all of the uncertainties. I
didn’t mention this because I thought that opening up that can of worms
would confuse people even more.
In my view (trying to keep things as simple as possible), the key points
are these:
(1) The HadCM2 run purports to be IS92a, and it is a good approximation
to this.
(2) Their use of 1% compounded for CO2 *is* a reasonable approximation to
the IS92a GHG forcing (which, itself, is uncertain).
(3) The climate model output is also uncertain.
(4) The pure CO2 input to IS92a is what I have distributed from the Bern
model.
(5) Hence, the best and simplest combination is to use HadCM2 climate
output with these (point (4)) *a priori* defined “pure” CO2 concentrations
for IS92a.
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Thanks for clarifying your thinking on this.
>
> I still have a problem with HadCM2 forcing and making sense of what Hadley
> have published, esp. the numbers in the Feb. 1997 J.Climate paper by
> Mitchell and Johns. There, they make it clear that the model was presented
> with CO2-equiv. rising from 473ppmv in 1990 to 1414ppmv in 2100, i.e., a 1%
> p.a. increase. This *seems* precise and unambiguous, so I don’t think they
> do adjust the CO2-equiv. growth ratio (C2100/C1990) to 3.127 (i.e., about
> 1.05% p.a.) as you suggest.
>
> This concentration scenario yielded a 1990-2100 model forcing of 6.5Wm-2
> (sic), “close to that reported by Mitchell and Gregory in 1992” [Mitchell
> and Johns, 1997] using STUGE (my estimate for that is about 6.2Wm-2). Both
> of these are quite a bit higher than the 5.8Wm-2 forcing in IPCC SAR for
> IS92a. With this (apparently) higher forcing, I reasoned that all else
> being equal, the actual CO2 concentrations that are consistent with HadCM2
> should also be *higher* that those cited in IPCC SAR and hence we could not
> just use the CO2 concentrations from MAGICC (or the Bern model). Hence my
> somewhat higher CO2 estimates of 790ppmv by 2100 were arrived at by using:
>
> pCO2 = 279ppmv * (exp(F/(3.47/ln(2))))) where F is the proportion in
> MAGICC of total forcing due to CO2 alone for IS92a.
>
> The Mitchell/Johns J.Climate paper is confusing, however, because it also
> presents results in their Table 1 which shows a 1990-2100 HadCM2 forcing of
> only 5.5Wm-2 (sic), a value that relates to their text-cited value of
> 6.5Wm-2 only by using DQ of 5.05Wm-2 (i.e., the sensitivity of HadCM2)
> rather than DQ = 6.3Wm-2. Yet the text of the paper continues to imply the
> HadCM2 forcing is ‘12% higher’ than Kattenburg, rather than 5% lower.
>
> The bottom line … the IS92a SAR forcing of 5.758Wm-2 and DQ of 6.3Wm-2
> only yields a CO2-equiv. growth rate of just over 0.8% p.a., rising to
> nearly 0.9% p.a. if the HadCM2 DQ of 5.05Wm-2 is used. These are still
> some way short of 1% p.a.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> p.s. this is now more a matter for my own curiousity since I agree that for
> most assessment purposes the Wigley/Joos numbers are the best to use.
>
> At 15:36 18/05/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I’ve just read the emails of May 14 onwards regarding CO2. I must say
> >that I am stunned by the confusion that surrounds this issue.
> >Basically, I and MacCracken are *right* and Felzer, Schimel and (to a
> >lesser extent) Hulme are *wrong*. There is absolutely, categorically no
> >doubt about this. Let me explain.
> >
> >(1) The Hadley Centre run is meant to simulate the climate change
> >consequences of the full IS92a emissions scenario.
> >
> >(2) In this scenario, there are the following concentration and forcing
> >changes over 1990-2100:
> > Item C(2100) DQ(1990-2100)
> > CO2 708 4.350
> > CH4 3470 0.574
> > N2O 414 0.368
> > Halos 0.315
> > TropO3 0.151
> > —————————–
> > GHGs 5.758
> > SO4 (dir) -0.284
> > SO4 (indir) -0.370
> > —————————–
> > TOTAL 5.104
> >
> >These are the numbers I used in Ch. 6 of the SAR. They do not agree
> >precisely with numbers in Ch. 2, because I used the models and formulae
> >embedded in MAGICC. The differences between Ch. 2 and Ch. 6 are
> >irrelevant to the present issue.
> >
> >(3) How does one simulate the combined effects of all the GHGs in a
> >climate model that only has CO2? The standard way is to take the GHG
> >radiative forcing (ending in 5.758W/m**2 in 2100 in this case) and
> >convert this to *equivalent* CO2 concentration changes. If one uses
> >the old (IPCC90) forcing formula for CO2 (which is what was used in the
> >SAR), viz DQ=6.3 ln(C/C0), then C(2100)/C(1990) is 2.494. Note that the
> >1% compounded change would be C(2100)/C(1990)=(1.01)**110=2.988. Thus,
> >1% compounded CO2 gives roughly the correct *forcing*.
> >
> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGES ARE *NOT* THE CO2 CHANGES USED IN THE
> >MODEL. THE MODEL USES ARTIFICIAL CO2 CHANGES, SCALED UP TO ACCOUNT FOR
> >FORCING FROM OTHER GHGs.
> >
> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGE IS FROM 354ppmv IN 1990 to
> >708ppmv IN 2100. THIS IS *NOT* A 1% COMPOUNDED INCREASE.
> >
> >NOTE, FURTHER, THAT WHAT MIKE HULME SUGGESTS IN HIS POINT 8 IS ALSO
> >WRONG. IT IS WRONG TO *BACK OUT* THE CO2 FROM FORCINGS. THE CO2 WAS
> >SPECIFIED A PRIORI.
> >
> >NOTE FINALLY THAT MIKE *DOES* GIVE THE 708ppmv VALUE IN HIS POINT 9.
> >USING THIS WOULD BE OK, BUT I RECOMMEND USING THE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
> >BERN MODEL RESULTS (SEE BELOW).
> >
> >(4) Now, some minor wrinkles. In the Hadley Centre model for CO2,
> >DQ=5.05 ln (C/C0). Hence, to get a forcing of 5.758W/m**2, they need to
> >use C(2100/C1990)=3.127. Note that this is a little closer to the 1%
> >compounded result than my above calculation. The Hadley Centre may well
> >have used a slightly different total 1990-2100 GHG forcing than mine, so
> >they may have backed out a compounded CO2 increase rate even closer to
> >1% than the above. In any event, if they decided to go with 1%, then
> >this was a perfectly reasonable choice in order to capture the total GHG
> >forcing.
> >
> >(5) The 708ppmv C(2100) value is what comes out of my carbon cycle
> >model. In the SAR, in Ch. 2, we considered results from three different
> >carbon cycle models; mine, the Bern (Joos) model, and Atul Jain’s
> >model. For illustrations in the SAR, we used the Bern model. The
> >mid-2100 value with this model, for IS92a, was 711.7ppmv. A later
> >version of this model, used in IPCC TP4, gives 711.5ppmv. Jain’s model
> >gave 712.3ppmv.
> >
> >(6) The bottom line here is that, for a consistent pairing of Hadley
> >Centre climate and CO2, one MUST use the ACTUAL CO2 numbers that went
> >into calculating the radiative forcing, NOT the equivalent CO2 numbers.
> >The climate response reflects all GHGs, whereas the plants are
> >responding only to CO2.
> >
> >(7) I am attaching the Joos CO2 time series. I recommend using the
> >actual values rather than trying to fit a compound CO2 increase to
> >them—which, in any event, should not be done using just the end point
> >values. This, however, is your choice. Differences will be negligible
> >in terms of plant response.
> >
> >I hope this clarifies things. It has always seemed pretty obvious and
> >clear cut to me. I hope it will now to all of you.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Tom
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > *Tom M.L. Wigley *
> > *Senior Scientist *
> > *National Center for Atmospheric Research *
> > *P.O. Box *
> > *Boulder, *
> > *USA *
> > *Phone: *
> > *Fax: *
> > *E-mail: *
> > **********************************************************
> >Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Is95a.dat”
> >
>

Now spent a day reading through the files and I think they are the real thing. It will take me a few weeks to dig through the detail of what it contains, but the context of everything I’ve seen so far is shocking.
1. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have a
complete disregard for the scientific method (i.e. the CRU are doing pseudo-science).
2. The CRU are working with the climate unit at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to deliberately manipulate data to conform to expectation and mislead the public regarding global temperatures.
3. The CRU are using their reputation as the world’s leading climate to subvert the peer review process by giving support to poor papers which support AGW, while trying to stop good papers which refute their beliefs.
4. They feel threatened by the current rise in public scepticism about AGW, and spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about if sceptics will find holes in their published information (bunker mentality). They seem to be in cahoots with people in the main-stream media to spread disinformation and alarm.
5. The CRU/GISS admit amongst themselves that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models do not account for actual climate observations, but fail to let the public know about this uncertainty.
All public funded bodies, like the CRU, are responsible to the public, not to politicians. The evidence from the hacked files shows that they are acting the other way round.
It is important that as many people as possible get to hear about what’s going on and I think a viral approach is the only way to achieve this, as I think the main-stream media, like the BBC and MSN. will try to limit the damage caused on the run up to Copenhagen.

“The evidence for the ‘fraud’ was McIntyre’s Yamal findings…”
What’s your specific ‘evidence’?
Please re-read the post. It was Sonja B-C who was making the claim of fraud and using McIntyre’s work as evidence, not myself. I have made no allegations of fraud.
As for failing to answer questions, pot, meet kettle.

Phil Clarke (14:58:30) :
OK. I assume you have the evidence that CO2 has done ANYTHING (anything at all, in the least, what-so-ever, a smidgeon, etc, ad infinitum) to global T other than to enrich despots, employ activist scientists (I never though I would hear myself say such) cause invested loonies to shout down and vilify dissenters and drive the global economy into a ditch?
Who knows what emails were “disappeared” before this freeing of information.
The liberator did say “… random selection..” leaving the possibility that more is forthcoming. Nice.

It never ceases to amaze how a handful of individuals can seize power and intimidate the rest. These emails will not bring down the “men behind the curtains”, but they have served the purpose of exposing their dishonesty and severely weakening their prestige and power.
Many more will now be more emboldened to pursue the truth. Many politicians may still give lip service to the cause but their personal doubts have now been confirmed. Thus we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the AGW cabal.

imapopulist (05:36:37) :
“It never ceases to amaze how a handful of individuals can seize power and intimidate the rest. These emails will not bring down the “men behind the curtains”, but they have served the purpose of exposing their dishonesty and severely weakening their prestige and power”.
Sorry to disappoint you but the scientists are only the tip of the iceberg.
This scam goes straight up to from Royalty to Presidents.
It’s our own Governments that are funding the scam with your money.
So, please don’t draw the wrong conclusions.