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.
STOP !!!
What if we are being PUNKED!!!! What if WUWT is the site that has been hacked and this is FAKE news?
Just asking….
JT
Be careful, don´t jump to conclusions, it could be a trick or forged.
however I am downloading now on a Linux Box.
I want to see it for myself.
Cheers.
My question: even if this is real stuff, -nobody here assumed the Team weren’t politically savvy people willing to advance their agenda by many means-, to which point this might be a way to legally attack and shut down blogs such as CA or WUWT and others ahead of Copenhagen?
As McIntyre commented: “Unbelievable.”
It seems that a small warmist clique has been brought out into the open.
I am sure they are going to feel the heat of being exposed.It is a pity it has to be exposed by an illegal activity to expose the overt hostility of honest science research.
I have long suspected that a few people were not being honest in what they do and write,now we have the evidence that they kept a lot of stuff under the rug.
“There’s likely to be big trouble with this.”
Maybe but not with anyone who has the file now. It is far too late. The URL is posted on at least a half-dozen sites and if the file is not in Bit Torrent by now, it probably will be in a few hours. The file is out in the wild and there is nothing that can be done to people getting a copy of it now.
This is an epic fail for CRUT. There is massive collateral damage with this. It describes how these “scientists” were coordinating to manipulate opinion and obtain funding, even Tamino’s identity is outed in those emails.
This is a earthquake in their world.
Folks, unless your mail is on your own mail server, do not ever assume that a deleted email is actually deleted. At work, EVERY email written by EVERY employee is saved in case it is needed by “discovery” in case of a lawsuit. If an employee deletes an email, it isn’t really deleted. A copy is saved for some number of years in case it is needed.
Joseph in Florida (16:34:52) :
…
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.
I wonder if this is the imfamous Tom P of CA fame?? Hmm
One day there will be another St Bartholomew as many people will have enough of the green guilt spewing… watch out!
I’m thinking that if this material turns out to be genuine, some of the folks in the emails may consider a long holiday in Cuba. No one will find them there, Al Gore has erased it from the map…
The interesting and potentially explosive news is if, as reported, the MBH code is now in the open. This would allow the allegations to be tested once and for all. It is also most unlikely that the old fortran could have been invisibly faked, so it is a potential test for the validity of the stuff. Does not of course show that it has not been selectively edited.
Hope this posting stays on for at least 3 or more days (or updates on same)
@ur momisugly sunsettommy
The Pentagon Papers were stolen too.
This isn’t a trial. No one need worry about rules of evidence. Only science.
This is huge.
I don’t see the person who did this as a “hacker”, so much as a whistle blower.
The entire mail folder of this file has had its archive date artificially set to Jan 1, 2009 00:00:00. Several of the data file dates have also been artificially changed. There is a high probability that although the origin of the data is genuine, it has been doctored by someone. The file needs to be examined by experts before putting much stock into its authenticity.
no way this is for real. must wait and see.
Downloaded it and the dog wouldn’t touch it. Went after the squeaky toy instead.
@richard :
Got it here : http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
In in an email from thread from Michael Mann called “BBC U-turn on climate”
Dom (17:14:30) :
“From: Kevin Trenberth
[…]
***The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.***”
First hit on a search for “August BAMS 09 Supplement on 2008” returned:
“The supplement is well done, and contains liberal web-links to the original data sources. As usual, one may disagree with some chapters, findings or hypothesis. But it seems at a first glance, that “inconvenient” results are not silenced. For instance the chapter on SST correctly relates that the 2007/2008 SST was much cooler than during the 2002-2006; the corresponding figure showing the World Ocean heat content does not use dirty tricks to hide the practically unchanging SST from 2005 on. Interestingly the subpolar North Atlantic, Labrador and Irminger Seas are cooling down (which would explain the ongoing recovery of the Arctic sea ice extent). I really recommend to download this BAMS supplement.”
http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/bams-state-of-the-climate-2008/
The main page http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/ and article above written by “Francis Massen”, apparently a sceptic:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/
This is the internet and the entire file with all the names, phone numbers, addresses and content are out there now in multiple sites being downloaded, scrutinized and distributed.
By tomorrow a million people will have come across it while the media tries to catch up.
Anyone advising the removal of numbers etc is being rather silly.
Richard (17:17:44) :
Lucy Skywalker (16:06:47) :Concur re zip file, no virus. Also the grouping looks plausible.
I’d only just said over at CA a few hours ago, “It would be nice to use the Team objection as a reason to press for disclosure of CRU data, as Juraj V suggests.” oh heck… what a disclosure…
Where the heck is this topic on CA? couldnt find it – has it been pulled?
——————————————————-
The discussion is on the WSJ Europe topic, Richard.
“”” Robert Wood of Canada (16:18:05) :
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. “””
“”” Robert E. Phelan (16:23:57) :
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…. “””
Well I certainly am not the arbiter of any other person’s sense of ethics; to each his own.
Does it occur to any here how chilling it is for open communications if one is always aware that some Knight in shining armor may take it upon himself to invade those conversations; and spread to the four winds; with no regard for what the consequences might be.
The leakers of “The Pentagon Papers” will get no medals from me; no matter what their crime may have uncovered.
There’s that old bar joke line:- Hey lady, would you sleep with me for a million dollars? Well sure; your place or mine ? Well would you sleep with me for ten dollars then ? Hey, what kind of a girl do you think I am anyway ?
Well we already established that; now we’re just haggling about the price.
Well if you can be had; for a price, who would want to take you into his confidence on anything, for any reason.
As to the Hadley information; release of it in this way is of little concern to me; because I simply never put much faith in it as Science anyway; same as I don’t think GISStemp is worth the paper it is printed on.
And as for the apparent (and I do mean apparent) subterfuge revealed in these released files; well perhaps it is hardly news.
As a steady reader of SCIENCE as well as Scientific American for now many years; I am quite convinced that the organised bodies behind some of these scientific organisations are willing to go to any ends to keep the taxpayer slush fund going in support of their members.
That does not mean every member of those organisations is a crook; I am sure many are dedicated researchers; maybe most of them; but it is quite apparent that the organisations have an agenda that is separate from the promotion of science.
Taxpayers, through their governments will always support science; it is silly to not do that. That is not the same as providing a permanent welfare slush fund for those who are quite happy to be supported on the backs of others.
And incidently, I feel the same way about corporate welfare recipients; who greedily grab for taxpayer grants to fund their pet dreams, that rational financial investors wouldn’t touch.
Bottom line is; nothing that is revealed in this hack job, serves to justify what these intruders have done; well with the disclaimer, that that is my opinion. You see I don’t have a price, for which I can be had; those that do can live with it.
Riiiiiiiiiight. Time to send in the “clean-up crew” (the cleaners as it were) eh Iscariot?
Or, should we call you ‘Baghdad Bob’, maybe ‘Comical Ali’ perhaps??
Do your more restrained compadres Joel Shore or Phil Clarke have a ‘take’ on all this too?
.
.
I’m sure that many of you have already figured this out, but if you sort the emails/.txts by name it puts them in chronological order. 0826209667 starts at Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:41:07 and 1258053464 ends it on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44.
I like when Mike Mann warns Phil Jones about what he forwards to Andy Revkin:
“p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like
”
I wonder what Andy will think when he finds out his buddy Mike doesn’t trust him!
Well I thought email 1255550975 was quite interesting:
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
>
> Tom Wigley wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
>> relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
>> ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
>>
>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
>>
>> These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
>>
>> Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of
>> warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
>> agree with this.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
>>> are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
>>> two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
>>> The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
>>> smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was
>>> about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
>>> canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
>>> weather).
>>>
>>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
>>> tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
>>> Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
>>>
>>> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>>>
>>> The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
>>> moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published
>>> in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
>>> more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
>>> inadequate.
>>>
>>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC
>>> are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with
>>> ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real
>>> PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the
>>> switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for
>>> first time since Sept 2007. see
>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
>>>
Ok downloaded, scanned, read a couple of emails. This is genuine as….. no doubt about it.