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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
See attached note.
Comments?
Tom
Bulldust (15:52:36) : said
“Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?”
At 15:52:36, Bulldog
Tonyb
John Anderson (14:21:03) :
“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)”
“Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news !”
Of all the bits I’ve read, that is the one (if true) that really turned my stomach…
I 100% concur w/previous posters advising CAUTION and SKEPTICISM.
Consider how perfectly timed the realease is with Copenhagen. Curious, no?
Could be a blackmail attempt that didnt’ stick, could be a gov’t entity w/an agenda, could be anything.
Before believing anything, apply the principles of good science to uncover facts. Then what you believe at least has a chance of being true.
I’m downloading now. Massive file. This will provide juice for years. The dog that ate the homework just vomitted.
Antonio San (16:02:59) :
“ndeed, it is funny this comes out as Steve’s work is getting serious exposure.
Regardless of the content, damning or not, hacking is illegal.”
I think in this case it may well come under “whistle-blower” protections. The mole needs to reveal himself to someone who will be able to vouch for authenticity.
O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!
Again, today, I was looking at a childs book that goes like this:
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I wonder why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she’ll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider
[mentally rewrote here] that squiggled the WorldWideWeb inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
I wonder why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she’ll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a bird
Well how absurd
To swallow a bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider…. etc
….she swallowed a cat to catch the bird… just fancy that, to swallow a cat
… she swallowed a dog to catch the cat… how very odd, to swallow a dog
…she swallowed a cow… I wonder how she swallowed a cow
…she swallowed a horse… she died of course.
George E. Smith,
I would normally agree with you, but this is nuclear, if true. The more people that have access to this “info” to examine it independantly, the better.
@ur momisugly Frank Perdicaro (15:45:55) :
“Be VERY wary of hacks.
TIFF, JPEG, PDF, ZIP, MS Word and several other formats have been
cracked and are very good infection vectors. ”
ermm…with the exception of a possible macro in a Mickeysoft Word document the other file types are passive and not useable as carriers for malicious code.
Interesting…but remember the Godwin Grech saga!!
I suspect an insider got mad and leaked this. We don’t know if its been edited, though.
A good verification step would be to examine the emails that went to/from other institutions and put in a specific FOI request at those institutions for verification.
There are also numerous internal documents, data and source code that are bundled in this package.
Be cautiously skeptical for now. The truth will emerge.
George E. Smith (16:06:15) :
George, I’m half tempted to agree with you…. most hackers are vandals and should be dealt with summarily. If this information is really true, however, the hacker has just exposed a crime far more monstrous and consequential than his own. If the data is not true, then let’s you and I get together and track the miscreant down and administer a little IT justice….
A bit too many “revealing” statements for this skeptic to believe in that file right now.
Also, consider that if it turns out to be true, there’ll be plenty of time to digest it properly. If it turns out to be fake, anybody “falling for it” will destroy his or her reputation for centuries to come.
I say, leave the sediment reach the bottom on its own.
Just a brief review suggests to me that this is real. There is Fortran code, AWK stuff.
Yes, this is real. Historians will be digesting this 100 years from now.
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
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
Question: What is the WMO statement? What does WMO stand for?
Trick? Hide the decline?
[snip]
Re: Robert Wood of Canada (15:51:22) :
For those who think the defence may be: “Fake!”. Who has the time to fake 60 MBytes of probably mind-numbing daily boring stuff – and tables of data that can be verified?
—
You wouldn’t necessarily need to fake all 60MB, just add a few fake smoking guns and then any authentic data would potentially help mask it. For people that have the data, are all the emails to/from one recipient, and do they have the full email headers, ie message ID and mail path?
Get an old machine and use CD bootable Ubuntu on it. Ubuntu isn’t susceptible to most Windows viruses, but with Open Office will open Word files.
My post has got swallowed.
oakgeo,
To answer you in brief, bunk.
Leaking government docs is a long held tradition in muck raking and investigative journalism.
From the famous ‘Pentagon Papers’ during Vietnam, where documents acknowledged to have been stolen were determined by the US Supreme Court to still be in the public domain, to the current war on terror, where the NYT regularly leaked classified information of on going, lawful secret operations, busting into government files illicitly ahs been fine.
We actually do not know that Hadley ahs been in fact hacked.
They may very well be claiming they have been hacked what happened was a disgruntled, conscience driven employee simply down loaded his or her e-mail record and published it for the world to see.
‘Hacking’ is a very easy way to raise doubts about the information, as you demonstrate.
‘Hacking’ also gives hadley, and others, an excuse to purge files in the name of security.
Frankly, I bet that no hacking took place, in the classical sense. I bet this is an employee who is tired of the AGW promoters cynically and falsely creating power based on fear of the climate.
I suppose it means the sharp 1998 – 1999 decline from El Nino to La Nina (as it’s dated 11/99).
ummm, I thought the dog ate the data.
As Peter West and others are saying : “BE CAREFUL!!!!! The validity of this needs to be very carefully checked before ANY claims are made.” and the hackers could have “seeded here and there some manufactured evidence meant to discredit”
Resist the temptation. In the end it’s the actual climate and the actual science that matter, not what people have said.
…
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don’t know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit …
Richard (16:25:45) :
“What is the WMO statement?”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statement/wmostatement_en.html
“When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied:
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.””
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/24/uk-met-office-and-dr-phil-jones-pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain/
This may not be a hacker but an inside job. Some normal human being tire of science being used for political purposes. Very interesting.