CRU Emails – search engine now online

Quite a lot of interest continues in the files from CRU that were leaked/hacked and placed on a Russian FTP server. Quite a number of other websites have been things with them ranging from commentary to evaluation of validity. With over 1000 emails, it is a bit of a task to wade through.

The Internet is an amazing place. Now there’s a website that has put all of the emails into a searchable database with a web engine interface.

The screencap below shows the engine at http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

I have no idea who put this together, but it does seem to work quite well. For example, typing in the  keyword “moron” yields an interesting email.  So does typing in the name of a prominent climate “bulldog”.

click to be taken to the website

Interesting stuff.

NOTE: Link updated to new website on 1/23/10

0 0 votes
Article Rating
389 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 21, 2009 8:11 am

The extent of intellectual dishonesty, if not prostitution, of some warming scientists now out in the open, yehey!

AJ Abrams
November 21, 2009 8:11 am

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned. The journal “Climate Research” has a clear path to subpoena further emails and individuals in regards to clear collusion in trying to undermine the journal and use blackmail to force out an editor.
I hope they are reading here.

November 21, 2009 8:12 am

Salient information is king on the internet.
“if it’s important and gets to the internet, the information will spread.”
Like a cascading waterfall.

TerryBixler
November 21, 2009 8:16 am

I found it last night works great! I tried “trick” good search. These characters were not doing science they were into propaganda for grants. Maybe at one time they were doing science but to my view lost their collective way.

TJA
November 21, 2009 8:22 am

“It is possible to add the instrumental series on from about 1980 (Mike
sought of did this in his Nature article to say 1998 was the warmest of
the millennium – and I did something similar in Rev. Geophys.) but there
is no way Singer can say the proxy data doesn’t record the last 20 years
of warming, as we don’t have enough of the proxy series after about 1980.” – Phil Jones

First search on MWP revealed a little background on the “Nature Trick”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=178&filename=966015630.txt

b_C
November 21, 2009 8:22 am

Dear Mr/Ms Politician: ______________________________
You dare spend one more cent of taxpayer money on anything related to furthering claims of AGW, or deleterious climate change, and you’re out on your ass the first possible upcoming election!
Solemnly presented and signed:
ABC
Anytown, Anywhere

rbateman
November 21, 2009 8:24 am

This is like the Berlin Wall coming down. All those imprisoned weather reports can now taste the free air.

mkurbo
November 21, 2009 8:24 am

What a wonderful day for humanity !
The hoax is over, the kids can go back to playing and stop worrying about the polar bears and the criminals who brought this scam upon the world will now be put on trial. The “green” movement was hijacked by socialist progressives and used as a weapon to scare the world into their “vision” of behavior and tax us into oblivion. Now it is over and the revolt back to common sense is on ! Yeah !!
With all the time, money and effort wasted on AGW, we could have really done some good in the world. Wake-up everyone, time to use that energy on real problems…
>>>
Great job AW !

Carrick
November 21, 2009 8:24 am

There’s also this one.
It lets you access them by message ID.

Nerton M
November 21, 2009 8:27 am

Hi!
One request.
There still isn’t any “Climategate” to find on wikipedia 😉 *winkwink*

imapopulist
November 21, 2009 8:28 am

These scientists have destroyed the credibility of the profession. They have dragged down the reputations of thousands of honest scientists. They should hang their heads in shame.
We now have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on science that cannot be trusted. Those responsible should be arrested and prosecuted for any crime committed. If Mann deleted emails as requested, he should be fired.

The Ville
November 21, 2009 8:29 am

Amazing!
This site supports criminal activity?
What next?

Chris D.
November 21, 2009 8:33 am

Interesting to see how obsessed they are with the supposedly irrelevant McIntyre.

Chris D.
November 21, 2009 8:38 am

This is an interesting take by another statistician on the whole affair:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1348
I wonder if “gaining allies” is even an option at this point.
(h/t http://twitter.com/NOconsensus)

J. Bob
November 21, 2009 8:42 am

Love it!!!!!

Jari
November 21, 2009 8:42 am

From one of the emails:
“As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil”
So a leading climate scientist hopes that the climate change happens, regardless of the consequences, so that his science could be proved right. I think selfish is an understatement here. I have understood that the climate change, if true, would kill millions of people, especially in the poorer countries. So this scientist is hoping that millions of people die just to prove he is right.
Quite amazing to be honest.

November 21, 2009 8:44 am

Thank you again, Mr Gore, for inventing the internet.

Hosco
November 21, 2009 8:44 am

I saw my first mention of these emails on TV. And of all places it was at 3 a.m. on Red Eye on Fox news

November 21, 2009 8:46 am

This isn’t about data but about politics – and not really about politics but about a certain mindset. Many scientists have succumbed to the temptation to became Platonic guardians, telling the rest of us how we must life. See
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/the-scientist-as-political-guardian/

rafa
November 21, 2009 8:47 am

Playing a little bit I found this using the search engine
“Below is one of the three e-mails I got last night following a new thread on CA. I’ll ignore them and wait for the FOI requests, which we have dealt with before. I did send an email to XXXX (deleted- rafa) alerting him up to comment #17. These are all about who changed what in various chapters of AR4.I expect these to get worse with AR5. ”
Funny! They know we want to know who changed what and why 🙂

Clive
November 21, 2009 8:48 am

AJ Abrams (08:11:58) : “I hope they are reading here.” ☺☺
The ONLY one not watching is an old hermit in a cave in Elbonia. (Joke!)

November 21, 2009 8:49 am

The Ville (08:29:17) :

Amazing!
This site supports criminal activity?
What next?

This site supports transparency. If anyone here is the hacker/mole, provide us with his/her identity. Or, keep casting aspersions. Whatever.

Richard Sharpe
November 21, 2009 8:54 am

I would not be surprised if the MSM simply drops all things relating to Climate Change, CO2 and tries to distract us (look, here’s conclusive evidence that Palin’s fifth child is actually her grandchild).
However, I did notice the media in San Francisco finding some balls and being a bit tough on Gavin Newsom.

Editor
November 21, 2009 8:54 am

Yes, interesting.
A search for “fake” brought up this from Tom Wigley To: Mike Hulme Subject: Re: New MAGICC/SCENGEN Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998:
“It just happens that, in your version, I ‘faked up’ column 5 as the difference between column 6 and the sum of columns 2, 3 and 4. I did this simply to get the code working; but (as you now know) I never got around to fixing it up until now. In the latest version, column 6 is again equal to the sum of columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 because I scale columns 3, 4 and 5 to ensure that this is so.”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=47&filename=887057295.txt
A search for “quiet” found: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” , “raymond s. bradley” Subject: A couple of things Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008 Cc: “Caspar Ammann”:
“You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.” “This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=877&filename=1210341221.txt
The Warmists’ orthodoxy is teetering on the edge of collapse, let’s all give it a push…

Adam Gallon
November 21, 2009 8:56 am

Try using “Gore” and check out the one numbered 1170724434.txt
Then the first one 1019513684.txt
” All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA’s support of Martin Parry for getting the WGII nomination).”
Reading the e-mails linked to that, shows a whole variety of political shenanagins behind the IPCC & its reports and also the lobbying from the oil side of things.

Simon
November 21, 2009 8:58 am

This was a near random pick. You guys are going to have fun!
Filename: 1077829152.txt
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Crap Papers
Date: Thu Feb 26 15:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
Just agreed to review a paper for GRL – it is absolute rubbish. It is having a go at the CRU temperature data – not the latest vesion, but the one you used in MBH98 !! We added lots of data in for the region this person says has Urban Warming ! So easy review to do.
Sent Ben the Soon et al. paper and he wonders who reviews these sorts of things. Says GRL hasn’t a clue with editors or reviewers. By chance they seem to have got the right person with the one just received.
Can I ask you something in CONFIDENCE – don’t email around, especially not to Keith and Tim here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say that MBH98 and MJ03 have underestimated variability in the millennial record – from models or from some low-freq proxy data. Just a yes or no will do. Tim is reviewing them – I want to make sure he takes my comments on board, but he wants to be squeaky clean with discussing them with others. So forget this email when you reply.
Cheers
Phil

Taylor
November 21, 2009 9:00 am

A series of email exchanges showed me that Michael Mann was not honest at all in handling a nomination for Phil Jones. Dr. Mann asked for an H-Index from Dr. Jones himself because Dr. Mann was preparing a nomination package for Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones said his H-index ( an index indicating how significant one’s scientific papers have been) is about 52 while a website is reporting 62 because the website includes many papers published by some biologists with the same name. Dr. Mann replied back saying that ‘I will go w/ 62, which is higher than vast members of national academy of science’. How can one expect to trust this Mann’s scientific results without getting and examining his data source?? [anyone interested can simply search for nomination package at the search site] If these emails are real, I personally would not trust a thing out of Michael Mann. This is simply outrageous!

Adam Gallon
November 21, 2009 9:02 am

Oh, this gets better!
More name calling!
837094033.txt
On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Phil Jones wrote:
PS Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/ > Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for > every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is > Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s > an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his > day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts > the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months > ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all > there is to know about the global warming issue. He’s not all bad as > he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says > that at the begining of his interviews to show he’s not all bad !

Adam Sullivan
November 21, 2009 9:03 am

@ imapopulist (08:28:11) :
“These scientists have destroyed the credibility of the profession. They have dragged down the reputations of thousands of honest scientists. They should hang their heads in shame.”
I think they have damaged their reputations significantly. None of this changes the physics of C02 as a greenhouse gas. These people became the dogmatic leaders of a movement and started fudging numbers and colluding to destroy others is a sort of “fake but accurate” quest.
“We now have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on science that cannot be trusted. ”
They have tainted their own research, that is for sure. But all research in all places regarding climate change? Not really. These “gentlemen” (and notice that they are all men often acting like school boys) have imposed a suffocating culture on a field of study. This event should lift that culture and defang these dogmatists a bit. Then research will be better directed since fewer people will seek their validation.
“Those responsible should be arrested and prosecuted for any crime committed.”
That can be said of all people in all places at all times
” If Mann deleted emails as requested, he should be fired.”
University administrators are passive aggressive by nature in my experience. Mann will get a soft, private rebuke then will think everything is behind him in a few weeks. Then he will lose a little budget. Then a few research assistants. Then his office will get moved. And then the university will publish some brochure at some point and his face won’t be in it. A long, slow death that only Universities can devise.

November 21, 2009 9:03 am

“The hoax is over, the kids can go back to playing and stop worrying about the polar bears ”
I think there’s still some life left in the monster. There’s a lot of intertia; a lot of investment (both emotional and monetary) in the AGW juggernaut. Still, I would guess that when historians write about the AGW hoax they will point to this incident as an important turning point.

rafa
November 21, 2009 9:03 am

Look for “elusive”. Two results. WUWT mentioned in the e.mail dated 2009, have fun!
best

John Barrett
November 21, 2009 9:15 am

People searching for the Medieval Warm Period might also want to use “MWE” as a search criterion, some like referring to the Warm Event ( like it only lasted half-an-hour).
I’ve spent a lot of today grepping through the mails trying to find a common thread and I’ve begun to think
I wonder if this is a plant ?
Some of the texts are quite conspiratorial, but often the mails attempt to be justifications at how “balanced” and “scientific” Mann, Biffra, osborn etc are trying to be. If it isn’t a trap, then for whom is this FOI data meant ? It’s kind of sweet that some of the scientists still use Eudora for a mail tool and prorgam in Fortran – there’s hard-core for you !
The spreadsheet in the documents directory is interesting. It lays out the grants that they have been receiving since the 1990s.

P Gosselin
November 21, 2009 9:15 am

Of course this will probably follow the path of the Okeefe/Giles Acorn sting. Rather than clean up a corrupt organisation, the focus will most likely be on prosecuting the hackers who uncovered all the rot.
Telling the truth in a tyranny is a revolutionary act.

JMcCarthy
November 21, 2009 9:18 am

These CRU emails are hotter (“Several million degrees”) than the core of the planet that Al Gore lives on.

Skeptic Tank
November 21, 2009 9:19 am

From the NY Times article:

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

Translation: This is nothing. There’s still a consensus. Spend the trillions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

PSU-EMS-Alum
November 21, 2009 9:19 am


The Ville (08:29:17) :
Amazing!
This site supports criminal activity?
What next?

———-
The only one calling it “illegal” are those whose AGW religion biases are now having the spotlight focused on them (Hockey Team, RC, etc).
Given the structure of the archive, it is much more likely that this was perpetrated by an someone with access who gathered the data and put it up on a site anonymously. AKA – a “mole” or, more precisely, “whistleblower”.
As such, while they might have violated policies internal to the organization, it does not follow automatically that their actions are illegal.
One telling sign is whether the institution gets law enforcement involved. If they don’t, then it is much more likely that the release is against policy, but not against the law.
Note that I am NOT saying that the release was legal, but clarifying that one cannot assume it was “illegal”, either.

mkurbo
November 21, 2009 9:21 am

“Just remember this day as the day you almost had a treaty”
– Captain Jack “Al Gore” Sparrow

oakwood
November 21, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Jari (08:42:48)
That’s funny – and this is in the same email (5 Jul 2005):
“The science isn’t going to stop from now until AR4 comes out in early 2007, so we are going to have to add in relevant new and important papers. I hope it is up to us to decide what is important and new.”

Douglas DC
November 21, 2009 9:24 am

The Criminal activity was the queering of the Data for political science.The revelation
of this may be espionage,but sometimes that is required.Hero of Heroine, the mole,hacker or whomever, has done the world and western civilization a favor
as in possibly saving it from climate tyranny…

November 21, 2009 9:27 am

Hi. It was me that put the searchable emails up. Mainly so that I could quickly cross reference the quotes that are everywhere you look.
I was looking towards also doing the other files, but bandwidth restrictions mean that these probably wont be do-able. If anyone is able to host the html converted files I could put the texts into the database and link to remote files, but the converted Docs I have done already would likely increase the traffic by another 25% and I’m having to juggle as it is – had over 200k page views in 24 hours.
Cheers for the link,
H

t-bird
November 21, 2009 9:28 am

This is amazing. I just searched for ‘Penn State’ and in the first e-mail there’s talk of how 50-year smoothing wipes out the effect they’re looking for.
Filename: 1168883146.txt
If my first search and first click turned up ‘science in action’, how much is there in this archive?

Stu
November 21, 2009 9:28 am

” Jari (08:42:48) :
From one of the emails:
“As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil”
So a leading climate scientist hopes that the climate change happens, regardless of the consequences, so that his science could be proved right. I think selfish is an understatement here. I have understood that the climate change, if true, would kill millions of people, especially in the poorer countries. So this scientist is hoping that millions of people die just to prove he is right.
Quite amazing to be honest.”
It’s what I’ve been suspecting for some time. Stubborness, arrogance, and a potentially very worrying disconnect from the actual reality of human consequences being borne out of pointless self aggrandisement. The desire to be right at all costs…
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know…”

November 21, 2009 9:30 am

I’m honored, I think.
I used the above site to search for “watts”, since I’m a regular contributor of guest posts, to see if any of them had received an honorable mention. Alas! One had.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
It got mentioned in two emails.
The first was allegedly from Jones to Wigley dated Sep 28. He wrote:
#########
[2]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle
-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
is a link to wattsupwiththat – not looked through this apart from a quick scan. Dave
Thompson just emailed me this over the weekend and said someone had been busy! They seemed
to have not fully understood what was done.
##########
Actually, I do understand what was done.
The second email was allegedly from Jones to Osborn, Mann and Schmidt the next day. He wrote:
###########
[1]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle-
matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
is a complete reworking of Dave Thompson’s paper which is in press in J. Climate
(online). Looked at this, but they have made some wrong assumptions, but someone has put a
lot of work into it.
#######
Actually, Phil, it took about 4 hours to put the graphs together and approximately another 4 hours to write the post.
And, Phil, what assumptions might they be? I’m not the one assuming the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear, when the instrument temperature record shows it’s not.

PSU-EMS-Alum
November 21, 2009 9:32 am

Adam Sullivan (09:03:17) :
” If Mann deleted emails as requested, he should be fired.”
University administrators are passive aggressive by nature in my experience. Mann will get a soft, private rebuke then will think everything is behind him in a few weeks. Then he will lose a little budget. Then a few research assistants. Then his office will get moved. And then the university will publish some brochure at some point and his face won’t be in it. A long, slow death that only Universities can devise.

—-
If there is proof of actual academic dishonestly, there are much faster and direct ways of effecting change at a private educational institution.
Consider:
(a) Colleges and Departments are heavily dependent on Alumni for financial support.
(b) The economy has caused a downturn in donations.
(c) Dr. Mann is in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (EMS) at Penn State (PSU).
(d) With only a few hundred graduates a year, EMS alumni can be a tight knit group.

Richard Sharpe
November 21, 2009 9:32 am

Presto! Alarmist Emails Not Such a Big Deal at the American Spectator.
Just enter “CRU hacked” in Google News to see how little reaction there seems to have been. Use other search terms as well.

R Shearer
November 21, 2009 9:34 am

This is great! I especially like Kevin Trenberth’s questioning global warming based on all the low temps in Boulder Colorado this fall.

TerryS
November 21, 2009 9:34 am

The Ville (08:29:17) :

Amazing!
This site supports criminal activity?
What next?

What criminal activity is this? What evidence do you have that shows the emails were stolen as opposed to leaked?
Are you posting the same accusation at other sites, such as realclimate, which are also discussing the emails? If so which sites have you posted the accusations at?

Frank Lansner
November 21, 2009 9:39 am

Tjek out this: Its 1999, Briffas series shows MWP can match todays temperatures. Mann insists that Briffas data must be changed if Briffas series can be part of the IPCC graphics. Also there must be specific comments to explain the MWP warmth of Briffa.
Check it out: text 0938018124
**************************************
Mann:
I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s series. …the major discrepancies between Phil’s and our series can be explained in terms of spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis … But that
explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s series, which has similar
seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil’s series, differs in large part in
exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the
problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
series.)
So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that
“something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
and the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones
et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
regard. Otherwise, the skeptics … can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.
Briffa:
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago.
I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.

AKD
November 21, 2009 9:39 am

1056478635.txt
From: “Mick Kelly”
To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@xxx)
Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000
—-boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_-
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
Mick
____________________________________________
Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-xxx Fax: 44-1603-xxx
Email: m.kelly@xxx
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
____________________________________________

I see a number of red flags there.

Adam Sullivan
November 21, 2009 9:40 am

@ Simon (08:58:30) :

This was a near random pick. You guys are going to have fun!
Filename: 1077829152.txt

That one shows clear misconduct as do so many others.
Like I said – these guys have just lost their professional reputations. they have reduced themselves to dogmatists. They went for “fake but accurate”.
But people really do need to separate the wheat from the chaff – none of this disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What it does is expose the catastrophists to vigorous attack which they will have to defend.

SandyInDerby
November 21, 2009 9:43 am

The Ville (08:29:17) :
Amazing!
This site supports criminal activity?
What next?
For me it is no different to the (UK) Daily Telegraph exposing our MPs exploiting their expenses for thousands of pounds each.
Unfortunately neither dishonest MPs nor dishonest scientists are likely to end where they belong – in gaol

November 21, 2009 9:45 am

From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
it.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40’s trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not – over eastern US.
I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Steve S.
November 21, 2009 9:46 am

search, fear
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=628&filename=1139835663.txt
Mann to Briffa
” My greatest fear is that McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the legitimate scientists.”
But here is a whopper. I hope McIntyre gets this.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=387&filename=1074277559.txt
From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice – YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!! Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !!
Pot calling the kettle black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian message so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best.
Told Steve separately and to get more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
,,,,,,
The rest here
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=387&filename=1074277559.txt

Adam Sullivan
November 21, 2009 9:46 am

@ PSU-EMS-Alum (09:32:15) :
Well if you know Mann’s personality, and the fact that he is a 1st order vindictive blowhard. The long, slow death may be more devastating for him.

rafa
November 21, 2009 9:46 am

Re.: Richard Sharpe (09:32)
Andi Revkin himself appears if you search for him 🙂

Richard Sharpe
November 21, 2009 9:46 am


Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

Still in “fair and balanced” mode. Still presenting the team viewpoint.
A few more days yet …

Shurley Knot
November 21, 2009 9:50 am

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned. The journal “Climate Research” has a clear path to subpoena further emails and individuals in regards to clear collusion in trying to undermine the journal and use blackmail to force out an editor.
What are you talking about, blackmail? Force out an editor? Are you really that ignorant? No one forced von Storch out, he left of his own accord because the journal had become an embarrassment to science. And yes, it is perfectly acceptable for scientists to advocate crap papers aren’t published — it’s done all the time — and even to forswear specific journals. Science is a meritocracy, not a democracy.
You are eavesdropping on people thinking out loud in email, not gathering evidence for objectionable offenses.

WasteYourOwnMoney
November 21, 2009 9:50 am

The Ville (08:29:17) :
Amazing!
This site supports criminal activity?
What next?
Whats Next?????
Maybe a prominent employee of NASA engaged in criminal activity!
I’m sure you were equally concerned about the rule of law when a government employee, paid with taxpayer money, knowingly violates the law!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=nasa-climate-researcher-hansen-arre-2009-06-25

Mike McMillan
November 21, 2009 9:51 am

I think those proclaiming the death of AGW have let their enthusiasm carry them away from reality.
AGW is part of the Establishment, it’s Politically Correct, it’s taught to children in school and preached from pulpits. The weight and inertia of AGW will carry it along unfazed for years.
AGW is no longer about climate or temperature. Cap’n Tax is not about saving the earth, but about money and control, and we have seen from the health care debate that the current crop of politicians don’t give a darn about what is right or true, or even what the voters think.
The MSM hasn’t mentioned this bomb, and they will continue to ignore it because truth and public opinion is whatever they print. They are invested in AGW this time, unlike the iconic Newsweek article on the coming Ice Age back in 1975.
It will take a decade of cooling and snowdrifts as big as the ones I played in back in the 50’s before they reluctantly come around.

Steve S.
November 21, 2009 9:51 am

sorry for another post so soon but this is too funny, and prophetic.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=934&filename=1226451442.txt
From: Ben Santer To: “Thomas.R.Karl” Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request] Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:57:22 -0800 Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Cc: Karen Owen , Sharon Leduc , “Thorne, Peter” , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan Solomon , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , “‘Philip D. Jones'” , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz , “David C. Bader” , Professor Glenn McGregor , “Bamzai, Anjuli”
“I’m sorry that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today’s events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s “ClimateAudit” website.”

maz2
November 21, 2009 9:54 am

Canadian Dr. Tim Ball:
“As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.””
…-
“Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud
The Death Blow to Climate Science
Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.
Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists
Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).
I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.
Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so 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?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.
Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, …” (more)
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

dearieme
November 21, 2009 9:55 am

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update
has the University of East Anglia’s excuses. It’s worth reading to the bottom to find Phil “hide the decline” Jones’s definition of a “trick”.

November 21, 2009 9:56 am

From: Keith Briffa To: frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Frank
I do not recall what Kyrdianov has worked on – sorry. However, Hantemirov has done outstanding work putting together and as yet preliminarily analysing what wii no doubt become a world famous sub fossil chronology in the Yamal area of northern Siberia. Indeed I will feature this work in my presentation.
…………………
Yes I know I’m a _anker!
Keith

Thomas Gough
November 21, 2009 10:00 am

Just ‘Googled’ CRU hacked which came up with “about 51,000 in 0.08 seconds.” (!!)
WUWT is right up there but behind RC.

November 21, 2009 10:03 am

Senator Inhofe needs to hit the American Team members with congressional subpoenas for every e-mail; every last scrap of data; and every last line of code.
JMHO.

P Gosselin
November 21, 2009 10:08 am
AKD
November 21, 2009 10:10 am

Don’t think I’ve seen this one yet. 1200076878.txt:
From: Tim Osborn
To: santer1@xxx
Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al.
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:41:18 +0000
Cc: “‘Philip D. Jones'”
Hi Ben (cc Phil),
just heard back from Glenn. He’s prepared to treat it as a new
submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al. and he also
reiterates that “Needless to say my offer of a quick turn around time
etc still stands”.
So basically this makes the IJC option more attractive than if it
were treated as a comment. But whether IJC is still a less
attractive option than GRL is up to you to decide 🙂 (or feel free
to canvas your potential co-authors [the only thing I didn’t want to
make more generally known was the suggestion that print publication
of Douglass et al. might be delayed… all other aspects of this
discussion are unrestricted]).

Cheers
Tim
At 21:00 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
>Dear Tim,
>
>Thanks very much for your email. I greatly appreciate the additional
>information that you’ve given me. I am a bit conflicted about what
>we should do.
>
>IJC published a paper with egregious statistical errors. Douglass et
>al. was essentially a commentary on work by myself and colleagues –
>work that had been previously published in Science in 2005 and in
>Chapter 5 of the first U.S. CCSP Report in 2006. To my knowledge,
>none of the authors or co-authors of the Santer et al. Science paper
>or of CCSP 1.1 Chapter 5 were used as reviewers of Douglass et al. I
>am assuming that, when he submitted his paper to IJC, Douglass
>specifically requested that certain scientists should be excluded
>from the review process. Such an approach is not defensible for a
>paper which is largely a comment on previously-published work.
>
>It would be fair and reasonable to give IJC the opportunity to “set
>the record straight”, and correct the harm they have done by
>publication of Douglass et al. I use the word “harm” advisedly. The
>author and coauthors of the Douglass et al. IJC paper are using this
>paper to argue that “Nature, not CO2, rules the climate”, and that
>the findings of Douglass et al. invalidate the “discernible human
>influence” conclusions of previous national and international
>scientific assessments.
>
>Quick publication of a response to Douglass et al. in IJC would go
>some way towards setting the record straight. I am troubled,
>however, by the very real possibility that Douglass et al. will have
>the last word on this subject. In my opinion (based on many years of
>interaction with these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer
>are capable of admitting that their paper contained serious
>scientific errors. Their “last word” will be an attempt to obfuscate
>rather than illuminate. They are not interested in improving our
>scientific understanding of the nature and causes of recent changes
>in atmospheric temperature. They are solely interested in advancing
>their own agendas. It is telling and troubling that Douglass et al.
>ignored radiosonde data showing substantial warming of the tropical
>troposphere – data that were in accord with model results – even
>though such data were in their possession. Such behaviour
>constitutes intellectual dishonesty. I strongly believe that leaving
>these guys the last word is inherently unfair.
>
>If IJC are interested in publishing our contribution, I believe it’s
>fair to ask for the following:
>
>1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not
>as a comment on Douglass et al. This seems reasonable given i) The
>substantial amount of new work that we have done; and ii) The fact
>that the Douglass et al. paper was not regarded as a comment on
>Santer et al. (2005), or on Chapter 5 of the 2006 CCSP Report – even
>though Douglass et al. clearly WAS a comment on these two publications.
>
>2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the
>opportunity to respond to our contribution, and we should be given
>the chance to reply. Any response and reply should be published
>side-by-side, in the same issue of IJC.
>
>I’d be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance
>on 1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel
>free to forward my email to Glenn McGregor.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Ben
>Tim Osborn wrote:
>>At 03:52 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
>>>…Much as I would like to see a high-profile rebuttal of Douglass
>>>et al. in a journal like Science or Nature, it’s unlikely that
>>>either journal will publish such a rebuttal.
>>>
>>>So what are our options? Personally, I’d vote for GRL. I think
>>>that it is important to publish an expeditious response to the
>>>statistical flaws in Douglass et al. In theory, GRL should be able
>>>to give us the desired fast turnaround time…
>>>
>>>Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to
>>>Phil, this option would probably take too long. I’d be interested
>>>to hear any other thoughts you might have on publication options.
>>Hi Ben and Phil,
>>as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I’m on the editorial board
>>of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster
>>than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is
>>the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass
>>et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to
>>accompany any comment).
>>I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can
>>do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick
>>turn-around time (he didn’t quantify this) and he will also “ask
>>(the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online
>>asap after the authors have received proofs”. He genuinely seems
>>keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible.
>>He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I
>>emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the
>>hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et
>>al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could
>>appear alongside it.
Presumably depends on speed of the review process.
>>If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I
>>could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving
>>the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who
>>are both suitable and available. Obviously one reviewer could be
>>someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that
>>would enable a fast review – i.e., someone on the email list you’ve
>>been using – though I don’t know which of these people you will be
>>asking to be co-authors and hence which won’t be available as
>>possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need
>>to be independent, but you could still suggest suitable names.
>>Well, that’s my thoughts… let me know what you decide.
>>Cheers
>>Tim
>>
>>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>School of Environmental Sciences
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>e-mail: t.osborn@xxx
>>phone: +44 1603 xxx
>>fax: +44 1603 xxx
>>web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>
>–
>—————————————————————————-
>Benjamin D. Santer
>Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>xxx
>Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>Tel: (925) 422-xxx
>FAX: (925) 422-xxx
>email: santer1@xxx
>—————————————————————————-
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

Marlo
November 21, 2009 10:11 am

Hi Shug,
What is the total size of the html files? I have a brochure website which doesn’t generate much traffic (probably not at all). Maybe you can put the unused bandwidth to use. I will be happy to contribute whatever I can to pulling the truth out.
Shug Niggurath (09:27:33) :
Hi. It was me that put the searchable emails up. Mainly so that I could quickly cross reference the quotes that are everywhere you look.
I was looking towards also doing the other files, but bandwidth restrictions mean that these probably wont be do-able. If anyone is able to host the html converted files I could put the texts into the database and link to remote files, but the converted Docs I have done already would likely increase the traffic by another 25% and I’m having to juggle as it is – had over 200k page views in 24 hours.
Cheers for the link,
H

michael
November 21, 2009 10:12 am

anyone should translate all the e mails in several languages, first of all to german (with a good software this should be possible).
hundret million of people around the globe should read the mainpulation triks and disscremination of people like gavin schmidt, stefan rahmstorf, michael mann and others.
they should be happy not to live in the “wild west”…but i hope they will all loose their jobs and get pissed on by their own families!

TerryS
November 21, 2009 10:14 am

From the CRU Website:

The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine. We took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation

They have the server with the original files on it. They have the zip file that was distributed. It would take me or any competent IT professional about 10 minutes to compare the 2 sets of files and that includes time to make a cup of coffee.

P Gosselin
November 21, 2009 10:16 am

Criminal?
Marc Sheppard thinks so:
“Criminal? Oh yes, indeed. As this mock-science serves as justification for trillions of dollars in imposed and proposed new taxes, liens, fees, and rate hikes — not to mention the absurd wealth-redistribution premise of international climate debt “reparations” — such manipulation of evidence should be treated as exactly what it is: larceny on the grandest scale in history.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html
Class Action Lawsuit I say.
Any lawyers out there? I’m ready to file suit and contribute to a legal fund.

PhilW
November 21, 2009 10:19 am

Not sure what this is about in 1254751382.txt but this line caught my eye…….
“This is entirely off the record, and I do not want this shared with
anyone. I hope you will respect this.”

AKD
November 21, 2009 10:20 am

Further to the Santer/Osborn exchange above, 1199999668.txt:
From: Phil Jones To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: An issue/problem with Tim’s idea !!!!!!! Date: Thu Jan 10 16:14:28 2008
Ben,
Tim’s idea is a possibility. I’ve not always got on that well great
with Glenn McGregor, but Tim seems to have a reasonable rapport
with him. Dian has suggested that this would be the best route – it
is the logical one. I also think that Glenn would get quick reviews, as
Tim thinks he realises he’s made a mistake.
Tim has let me into part of secret. Glenn said the paper had two
reviews – one positive, the other said it wasn’t great, but would leave it
up to the editor’s discretion. This is why Glenn knows he made the wrong
choice.
The problem !! The person who said they would leave it to the editor’s
discretion is on your email list! I don’t know who it is – Tim does –
maybe they have told you? I don’t want to put pressure on Tim. He
doesn’t know I’m sending this. It isn’t me by the way – nor Tim !
Tim said it was someone who hasn’t contributed to the discussion –
which does narrow the possibilities down!
Tim/Glenn discussed getting quick reviews. Whoever this person
is they could be the familiar reviewer – and we could then come up
with another reasonable name (Kevin – he does everything at the
speed of light) as the two reviewers.
Colour in IJC costs a bit, but I’m sure we can lean on Glenn.
Also we can just have colour in the pdf.
I’ll now send a few thoughts on the figures!
Cheers
Phil
Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor ,
Thomas R Karl ,
John Lanzante , carl mears ,
“David C. Bader” ,
“‘Francis W. Zwiers'” ,
Frank Wentz ,
Leopold Haimberger ,
Melissa Free ,
“Michael C. MacCracken” ,
“‘Philip D. Jones'” ,
Steven Sherwood ,
Steve Klein , ‘Susan Solomon’ ,
“Thorne, Peter” ,
Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt ,
“Hack, James J.”

michael
November 21, 2009 10:20 am

i thought, reading e-mails is borin, but now it is the best i can do.
it is so funny to see, that WE were right all the time!
thank you anthony and thanks to all, especially the “hacker” or the “honest” insider!
THANK YOU!

Bill P
November 21, 2009 10:20 am

This is like the Berlin Wall coming down. All those imprisoned weather reports can now taste the free air.

We’ve all heard of the story of the dog eating the global warming “homework” at CRU. This, unfortunately, seems more like the regurgitation of said homework.
Gives a whole new odor to Phil Jones’ “value-added” quote.

Richard Sharpe
November 21, 2009 10:21 am

Shurley Knot (09:50:16) : said:

What are you talking about, blackmail? Force out an editor? Are you really that ignorant? No one forced von Storch out, he left of his own accord because the journal had become an embarrassment to science. And yes, it is perfectly acceptable for scientists to advocate crap papers aren’t published — it’s done all the time — and even to forswear specific journals. Science is a meritocracy, not a democracy.
You are eavesdropping on people thinking out loud in email, not gathering evidence for objectionable offenses.

If that is the case then why bother to come here and disabuse us of our mistaken impression? It really doesn’t matter what people on this blog think, does it?

steven mosher
November 21, 2009 10:24 am

I think the bottomline on this whole story is this. The institutions that govern scientific behavior have gone awry. Those institutions have been corrupted by money and power and politics. The tonic for this is transparency. Free the data; free the code; free the debate.
But the AGW side is interested in controlling the message. They fight against data release because they fear what people will do with it. They fear that data will be misused:it will be. They fear people finding errors: errors will be found. They fear that people will be less certain: they will be. And they fear that it may take a long time to convince people to take action: it will. And so they act out of fear and try to control the message. Everyone who understands the nixon whitehouse understands how this fear drives people to do crazy things. The one thing they never feared: disclosure. Leaks. And so the thing they feared the most, delaying action on climate science, is the very thing they may have got. They should have trusted that open debate would yield the next right action in the shortest time possible. They didnt. They feared a “corporate enemy” that would delay action. And ironically in the end they ended up being the thing they feared.

Shurley Knot
November 21, 2009 10:26 am

It really doesn’t matter what people on this blog think, does it?
It hasn’t so far!

Bruce Cobb
November 21, 2009 10:29 am

Mikey apparently doesn’t trust Andy (Revkin). Note the ps at the end. Paranoia among the Team, imagine that!
At 17:07 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
“Hi Phil,
Thanks–we know that. The point is simply that if we want to talk about about a
meaningful “2009” anomaly, every additional month that is available from which to
calculate an annual mean makes the number more credible. We already have this for
GISTEMP, but have been awaiting HadCRU to be able to do a more decisive update of the
status of the disingenuous “globe is cooling” contrarian talking point,
mike
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”
Here Mikey waxes eloquent about what skepticism means to science, the caveat being that it be through “formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process”. And, of course, “those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.”
This is a veritable gold mine!
From: Michael Mann To: Andrew Revkin Subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest…. Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
HI Andy,
Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don’t quote
anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically–thanks.
Re, your point at the end–you’ve taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential
for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
of this system are not to be trusted.
mike

Frank Lansner
November 21, 2009 10:33 am

Phil Jones to John Christy 4 years ago, 2005:

The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.
OK it has
but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
….
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.

This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil

Cheers, leader of Hadcrut believed in 2005 that the world have been colling for 7 years. Thats 11 years today.
TXT 1120593115

Stefan
November 21, 2009 10:37 am

“irresponsible” is a keyword greens often use to mean certain things…

Ww
November 21, 2009 10:39 am

Afraid I agree with Mike McMillan above. It will be hard to stop this train. The mole has perhaps slowed it down a little though.

November 21, 2009 10:40 am

HOCKEY STICK
At 12:04 PM 2/26/01 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
I was away over the weekend at Bowdoin College in Maine, giving a talk about the last 1000 years.
………….
Broecker’s bombshell bears the seemingly innocent title “Was the
Medieval Warm Period Global?” It may seem esoteric, but whether the apparent warmth reported in Europe about 1000 years ago was global or simply local is becoming a central issue in climate science. What makes it contentious is the recent claims by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the earth is warmer now than it has been for millennia, and that therefore human carbon dioxide emissions are
to blame. Broecker, a leading figure at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, questions both IPCC claims. The focus of the debate is a 1000-year temperature reconstruction known in climate circles as the “hockey stick”. Produced in 1999 by M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes, the long handle of the hockey stick shows global temperatures for the first 8 centuries as basically unchanging, followed by the sharply up-tilting blade of the last 150 years or so. The Mann et al hockey stick is the central feature of the recently released IPCC working group one Summary for Policy makers, which claims to embody the best of climate science. Broecker does not like the hockey stick, nor the conclusions the IPCC draws from it. He says ” A recent, widely cited reconstruction (Mann’s) leaves the impression that the 20th century warming was unique during the last millennium. It shows no hint of the Medieval Warm Period (from around 800 to 1200 A.D.) during
which the Vikings colonized Greenland, suggesting that this warm event was regional rather than global. It also remains unclear why just at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and before the emission of substantial amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, Earth’s temperature began to rise steeply. Was it a coincidence? I do not think so. Rather, I suspect that the post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present inter-glacial, the Holocene.” Broecker presents the evidence for a global Medieval Warm Period, as well as for a Little Ice Age from around 1300 to 1860, when the present temperature rise begins. He also argues that the “proxy” evidence used by Mann et al, such as tree ring data, is ill suited to the time period and temperature variation — less than one degree C — in question. As he puts it, “In my estimation, at least for time scales greater than a century or two, only two proxies can yield temperatures that are accurate to 0.5 C: the reconstruction of temperatures from the elevation of mountain snowlines and borehole
thermometry. Tree ring records are useful for measuring temperature fluctuations over short time periods but cannot pick up long-term trends because there is no way to establish the long-term evolution in ring thickness were temperatures to have remained constant.”
Broecker acknowledges that the proxy evidence is necessarily somewhat
“murky”, but his conclusion is that “climatic conditions have oscillated steadily over the past 100,000 years, with an average period close to 1500 years… The swing from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age was the penultimate of these oscillations.” The implication being that some, if not all, of the present warming is the natural swing out of the
Little Ice Age, and that Mann et al, as well as the IPCC, are mistaken.

Shurley Knot
November 21, 2009 10:41 am

Free the data; free the code; free the debate.
Oh, *snap*.
Of course, in reality, few things in capitalism are as freely accessible as science. Not that it’s helped deniers in the slightest but thousands of papers are archived annually and the fact that one or two denialist hobbyhorse papers still have data embargoed is the exception that proves the rule.
Just listen to yourselves!

Gary Plyler
November 21, 2009 10:41 am

Reading some of these CRU emails, I can now see with my own eyes just how much collusion is purchased with 68-billion dollars of research money over 30 years. None of this embarassment would have happened if the raw data funded by the taxpayers had been put online years ago.
Thanks to whoever did the hacking.

November 21, 2009 10:51 am

Marlo, thanks for the offer. The converted size will likely be in the region of 15 Mb (10% of the original file sizes). These are just the PDF / Doc / xls files, there’s no real point in sharing the programmes and data files as anyone that interested will have them already.
It’s not the filesize that is the problem though. It’s the transfer of data. If each file was looked at only 2000 times over the month (and in 24 hours the emails have had 250,000 page views), that’s 30Gb data transfer. If I upload them then the entire site would have to be taken offline after 10 days or so at that level.
I’m still looking into how I can do it, but cheers.
H

Reply to  Shug Niggurath
November 21, 2009 11:02 am

Shug Niggurath:
You can get a 4 dollar/month account at 1and1.com which should handle it easily.

November 21, 2009 10:53 am

“INTO NEWSPAPERS AND FINALLY TO THE SENATE FLOOR THIS WAY”
At 10:25 AM 10/14/2003 -0600, Caspar Ammann wrote:
Mike,
looks good to me. It is one of these points where they can persuade journalists that they are ‘correct’ and it actually got into newspapers and finally to the senate floor this way. The more we are able to explain why the first half of the 20th century warmed up naturally, the more confidence we get on the detection of the anthropogenic signal afterwards.
Caspar

hunter
November 21, 2009 10:54 am

The test of of whether or not these AGW promoters are behaving in a way that is acceptable is to ask yourself this:
If I found out that my 401-k, or 403-b money manager was behaving with my money as these scientists were behaving towards the truth, disclosure and accurate reporting as demonstrated in in these e-mails, would I leave my money with them?
Would I consider their behavior professional or ethical?
Would I continue to trust their reports of the condition of my investments?
On the basis of what the scientists in these e-mails are claiming, the world is on the verge of investing literally trillions of dollars. Entire industries are being marked for destruction.
Now that we see a very small example of how they treat the data, the methods of processing the data, their lack of integrity irt peer review, and how they treat those who dare to question them, are those decisions still made with confidence?

SSam
November 21, 2009 10:55 am

Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker has commented to his audience:
“…Some of the guys working on this stuff appear to be genuinely trying to clean up other people’s trash. But trash in produces trash out, and if you can’t successfully defend the statistical integrity of the data going into your computational models you have nothing.
This leaves me with one final question: since we have emails now apparently documenting an attempt to “paper over” temperature decreases in recent years, and we also have claims of “lost” data, one wonders – was the data really lost, or was it intentionally deleted or withheld from other researchers who asked for it, as providing it would show that measurement uncertainties were not carried through computationally – and if they were, the claimed results in the so-called “peer reviewed” paper would be impossible to validate? ”
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1651-Global-Warming-SCAM-A-Further-Look.html

michael
November 21, 2009 10:57 am

Phil,
I can’t quite see what all the fuss is about Watson – why should he be re-nominated
one of the best:
anyway? Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC? One could argue the CC issue is
more important for the South than for the North. Watson has perhaps thrown his weight
about too much in the past. The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why
not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with
energy and money, than natural science.
From: Mike Hulme
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: [Fwd: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote]
Date: Mon Apr 22 18:14:44 2002

Jason F
November 21, 2009 11:02 am

probably posted already can’t believe I’m reading this:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
it.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40’s trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not – over eastern US.
I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone
School of Environmental Sciences Fax
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Curiousgeorge
November 21, 2009 11:05 am

Although the email parts of this have attracted the most attention (some of it warranted ), I think the real story is buried in the data files and mathematics of the various analyzes. A quick search of the emails for “statistics” yields some interesting discussions of problems associated with those analyzes and models. I’ll be anxiously awaiting the judgment of the skeptical experts (scientists and statisticians ) regarding the validity of the techniques used, and subsequent conclusions presented by the Hadley team. Some side by side comparisons are in order. Let’s get to work guys.

November 21, 2009 11:06 am

steven mosher (10:24:20) :
Very poignant pose, Steven!

JMcCarthy
November 21, 2009 11:08 am

If this ends up costing a few of these climate “scientists” their jobs I am confident they could find work in the Obama Administration as Counters of Jobs Saved/Created by the Economic Stimulus Package.

michel
November 21, 2009 11:09 am

Steven Mosher
Yes, this is profoundly true. Nothing kills a cause so fast or thoroughly as those most fanatically devoted to it. Look what Cyril Burt did to inherited abilities. When the twin studies were proved fakes, he put the issue out of consideration for a generation. But actually, some abilities really are inherited. Just not with the racial and social implications that he faked the data with a view to attaching to this fact.
This is the same sort of thing. It could be that climate change, and human caused climate change is a real threat. But this is now going to be impossible to seriously advocate, thanks to the idiotic antics of a few venal fanatics.
‘Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!’

O. Weinzierl
November 21, 2009 11:10 am

I could not believe my ears when I heard about the CRU hack on the main evening news for Austria. The state owned broadcaster “ORF” usually only brings alarmist news. I guess now the CRU hack will also get some press coverage.

Paul Vaughan
November 21, 2009 11:11 am

Note to anyone searching the database:
I would be very interested in hearing about anything you can find on “1945” & “COWL” (cold ocean – warm land).
This relates to clouds & EOP (Earth orientation parameters) – i.e. 2 things that are too inconvenient for top alarmist operatives to acknowledge, it often seems.
Thanks to some of Bob Tisdale’s articles, it is clear to me that top alarmist operatives would find it convenient to erase the ~1945 spikes in the following records:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/NutationObliquity.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumALPI.png
Either ignorance or deceit is at play. Investigation is warranted.
It might also be insightful to search “chandler wobble”, “polar motion”, “1920-1940”, “arctic warming”, “dirty 30s”, “southern ocean”, “Sidorenkov”, “Barkin”, “Vondrak”, etc. to see if they have any clue about:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PolarMotionPeriodMorlet2piPower.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/GA_MapXL.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/sqrtaayoy.sq22.png
Evidence of deception &/or ignorance on these fronts would be very telling.

Adam Soereg
November 21, 2009 11:12 am

After a few searces I realized that the worst nightmare of the Team members is getting a FOI request from McIntyre.

November 21, 2009 11:15 am

On a possibly related note, the most popular search term on the email search site at the moment is ‘moron’;
Top ten:
moron
Al Gore
trick
delete
revkin
foi
hide the decline
fraud
steve mcintyre

hunter
November 21, 2009 11:16 am

Curiousgeorge,
Hammer meet nail head.

James RS
November 21, 2009 11:20 am

Curiousgeorge,
I was wondering the same thing. Has anyone noticed if some of the data files contain any of the information that Steve M and others have been trying to get hold of?

Torquatus
November 21, 2009 11:22 am

Wow, Ben Santer comes across as quite the bully. Consider these snippets, in chronological order…
I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley. / 25 Apr 2007
Douglass is the guy who famously concluded (after examining the temperature response to Pinatubo) that the climate system has negative sensitivity. Amazingly, he managed to publish that crap in GRL. Christy sure does manage to pick some brilliant scientific collaborators… / 12 Dec 2007
[H]appy holidays! May all your “Singers” be carol singers, and not of the S. Fred variety… / 13 Dec 2007
I share your frustration about having to devote valuable time to the rebuttal of crappy papers. Douglass et al. is truly awful. It should never have been published. Any residual respect I might have had for John Christy has now vanished. I can’t believe that he’s a coauthor on this garbage. / 04 Jan 2008
This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC in order to correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. We believe that there is some urgency here. Extraordinary claims are being made regarding the scientific value of the Douglass et al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author (S. Fred Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his argument that “Nature not CO2, rules the climate”. The longer such erroneous claims are made without any form of scientific rebuttal, the more harm is caused. In our communications with Dr. Osborn, we were informed that the review process would be handled as expeditiously as possible. Had I known that it would take nearly two months until we received a complete set of review comments, I would not have submitted our paper to IJoC. / 05 May 2008
Dr. Douglass: … I note that you did not have the professional courtesy to provide me with any advance information about your 2007 IJoC paper, which was basically a commentary on previously-published work by myself and my colleagues. Neither I nor any of the authors of those previously-published works … had the opportunity to review your 2007 IJoC paper prior to its publication – presumably because you specifically requested that we should be excluded from consideration as possible reviewers. … I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of my IJoC paper. Collegiality is not a one-way street, Professor Douglass.” / 27 May 2008
Prof. Douglass, … you have access to the same model and observational data that we used in our 2008 IJoC paper. … You are quick to threaten your intent to file formal complaints against me “with the journal and other scientific bodies”. If I were you, Dr. Douglass, I would instead focus my energies on rectifying the serious error in the “robust statistical test” that you applied to compare modeled and observed temperature trends. … Please do not communicate with me in the future. / 14 Oct 2008
While on travel in Hawaii, I received a request from Steven McIntyre for all of the model data used in our IJoC paper (see forwarded email). After some conversation with my PCMDI colleagues, I have decided not to respond to McIntyre’s request. / 31 Oct 2008
Dear Mr. McIntyre, I gather that your intent is to “audit” the findings of our recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). … I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter of the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research. Rather that “auditing” our paper, you should be directing your attention to the 2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al., which contains an egregious statistical error. Please do not communicate with me in the future. / 10 Nov 2008
Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. … I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the Supporting Information of his paper. What a jerk! / 29 Jan 2009
Congratulations on the AGU Fellowship! … I hope that Mr. Mc “I’m not entirely there in the head” isn’t there to spoil the occasion… / 29 Jan 2009
Dear Mr. Smith, Please do not lecture me on “good science and replicability”. … Your criticism was entirely unjustified, and damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or post it on Mr. McIntyre’s blog. / 30 Jan 2009
The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science. … In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks on the reputations of individual scientists … and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member of our professional societies. / 09 Oct 2009
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. / 09 Oct 2009

austin
November 21, 2009 11:23 am

All – ALL RAW data – should be in one place in one modern relational database on modern server hardware and storage for people to access. Then, the sql and resulting, subsequent analysis could be published, making it easy for anyone to repeat or or criticize the results.
The data sets are quite small by modern database standards – just a few million rows. This could be done quite easily.

hunter
November 21, 2009 11:24 am

RC does not seem to actually be as open as may seem.
I posted a very mild piece over there yesterday, and it showed up.
The posts I made today, which were not inflammatory at all, do not even get posted:
If you found out your 401-k was being managed like these guys are managing climate science, what would you do?
Would you trust what they told you?
Would you keep your money with them?

boomer
November 21, 2009 11:29 am

low and behold, scientists are human too, with all the foibles of the common used car salesman. It’s just the the data generally holds them in check. That and the frequent replication of results, where most errors are discovered. With AGW, however, there’s no data in the future and the existing arguments are over interpretation of past data that is so obviously questionable that any sane engineer would be lothe to build anything on its basis. when I saw the Inconvient Truth graph going back 600,000 years with CO2 FOLLOWING temperature, while Al waved his hands saying look, the curves go up and down together, I figured the whole concept was unlikely to pass the laugh test. Unfortunately the humanity of many scientists overcame their science and now, here we are. Tainted data, questionable interpretation, inadequate models and a religion sprung from, possibly, nothing. sad.

tallbloke
November 21, 2009 11:30 am

Carrick (08:24:24) :
There’s also this one.
It lets you access them by message ID.

The site in the OP also allows this, just paste the number part of the filename into the search field.

michael
November 21, 2009 11:37 am

From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

R.S.Brown
November 21, 2009 11:37 am

As of Saturday morning, the BBC Online has demoted the story
of “hacked” emails from their “Science and Environment” section
to their “Technology” topics.
This way for the BBC readership, the fact of the e-mails and data existing in the open is totally divorced from the revelations found in their content.
The search engine will help keep particular phrases and references in the context the original author used them.

Eigenvalue
November 21, 2009 11:40 am

I fear that the people who inflate the threat AGW will try their utmost to downplay the damage that this email leak has done. If this is really the “climate gate” that a lot of people believe it is, than measures must be taken so that the alarmists cannot take these emails, edit them and befog the truth.
If you want my opinion, this really doesn’t reveal a conspiracy at all (never blame malice for what you can adequately explain with stupidity). After all, scientists are only human. All it reveals is that they’re inflating the danger that AGW poses to the world by skewing the data in their models. People are naturally self-important, so it comes as no surprise that anyone would try to make their lifework look way more important than it actually is.

November 21, 2009 11:41 am

Cheers
Phil

Peter Keller
November 21, 2009 11:47 am

A good way to wade through CRU emails is to use a tabbed text editor like Crypt Edit. Here is where you can download it: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/WoundedMoon/win32/ceditdl.html
Open the editor after you install and then open Edit>Options. On the view tab, check “hide all” and choose a background color that is easy on the eyes.
You can also change the font on the “advanced” tab. Then click the general tab and choose the folder where the emails were unzipped. Click OK to exit. You may have to restart the editor for changes to take effect.
Click File>Open. The Open dialog should open with columns of five in the “Mail” folder. Highlight the first file and then click the right arrow 19 times and then
select the bottom file on the left column while holding down the shift key. Then click Open. Crypt Edit will open 100 files in a tabbed view.
The open file will be on the lower left tab. Click this tab once and broken lines will appear. You can then move through all 100 files by clicking the left arrow on your keyboard. When you reach the 100th file the text will stop changing when you click the arrow.
To open the next 100 files, choose File>Close All Files, then choose File>Open and the file dialog box will appear with the last file highlighted in the File Name box. Click the right arrow until you see the last file viewed. Keep clicking until it disappears.
Highlight the top file in the first column after it and click 19 times again and open the next 100 files.
Repeat these steps until you’ve viewed all files
Hints:
When you are arrowing through the files, you can go quickly by looking for the first 3 numbers of the file, then slow down and look for the last three.
Create a folder called “Saved” in the same directory as “Mail”. Then it’s a simple matter of going up one level and opening when the File dialog box opens. Don’t worry about saving files in another Folder, you can always reconstitute them from the original zip file.

David
November 21, 2009 11:49 am

Has to be said – I’m getting increasing p-d off with the BBC’s fingers-in-the-ears la-la-la I can’t hear you attitude to this. Writing a complaint to the trustees now.

Bryan Clark
November 21, 2009 11:53 am

As a (retired) professional engineer from Canada, I am truly shocked by the contemptible behaviour of the scientists at Britain’s CRU. A total lack of ethics.
Canadian Order of the Engineer inductees wear a stainless steel ring on the little finger of their working hand as a visible reminder of the oath of integrity and ethics that they’ve taken. This Oath of the Obligations of an Engineer, heart of the “Iron Ring Ceremony”, governed my 40 years in the field of electronics. The various provincial Orders in Canada closely monitor the activities and professionalism of the practice of engineering in Canada.
These shameful and “so-called” scientists wouldn’t have lasted a day in the Engineering Profession in Canada. Well, at least that’s my impression after working with hundreds of colleagues for 40 years. What these men and women have done, and apparently continue to do, is despicable in the worst sense of the word.

JMcCarthy
November 21, 2009 11:55 am

Although I am not one to recommend breaking the law I do feel that the individuals who illegally obtained and posted this information are heroes and should be recognized as such. I would even go so far as to recommend them for a Nobel Prize but since these individuals actually did something productive and helpful for the world, apparently that would disqualify them from this honor.

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 12:03 pm

TerryBixler (08:16:51) :
I found it last night works great! I tried “trick” good search. These characters were not doing science they were into propaganda for grants. Maybe at one time they were doing science but to my view lost their collective way.
I get the same idea.

steven mosher
November 21, 2009 12:08 pm

You all can help the cause by adding this to every post you do everywhere.
Free the data; Free the Code; Free the Debate.
And feel free to copy what I wrote above in the thread and post it everywhere.

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 12:09 pm

Jari (08:42:48) :
From one of the emails:
“…I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right….
Cheers
Phil”
So a leading climate scientist hopes that the climate change happens, regardless of the consequences, so that his science could be proved right.

He’s got the cart before the horse. More ‘robust’ science.

tallbloke
November 21, 2009 12:09 pm

P Gosselin (10:16:57) :
Class Action Lawsuit I say.
Any lawyers out there? I’m ready to file suit and contribute to a legal fund.

I agree that this is the way to go. The taxpayers versus the tax takers and science fixers.
IMO This has a much better chance of success in the states than the UK, but as an interested Brit, I’d kick in to the fund too.
Has anyone tried to get the legal eagle websites interested?

November 21, 2009 12:10 pm

LIA
Tom Wigley is a climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).
He was named a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for his major contributions to climate and carbon-cycle modeling and to climate data analysis, and because he is “one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change and one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline.”[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley
At 02:18 PM 5/16/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear folks,
……..
The real issue that the press (to a limited extent) and the politicians (to a greater extent) have taken up is the conclusions of the paper’s original research. First, Soon et al. come down clearly in favor of the existence of a MWE and a LIA. I think many of us would agree that there was a global-scale cool period that can be identified with a LIA. The MWE is more equivocal.
The issue now is what to do about this. I do not think it is enough to bury criticisms of this work in other papers.
So, we would probably say: there was a LIA; but the case for *or against* a MWE is not proven. There is no strong diagreement with Soon et al. here.
The main disagreements are with the methods used by Soon et al. to draw their LIA/MWE conclusion, and their conclusion re the anomalousness / uniqueness of the 20th century (a conclusion that is based on the same methods).
……
So, their methods are silly. They seem also to have ignored the fact that what we are searching is a signal in global-mean temperature.
Furthermore, I do not think that a direct response will give the work credibility. It is already ‘credible’ since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed).
A response that says this paper is a load of crap for the following reasons is *not* going to give the original work credibility — just the opposite.
How then does one comprehensively and concisely demolish this work?
What is needed is a counter example that uses the method of reductio ad absurdem. This would be clear and would be appropriate since it avoids us having to point out in words that their methods are absurd. I have some ideas
how to do this, but I will let you think about it more before going further.
You will see from this email that I am urging you to produce a response. I am happy to join you in this, and perhaps a few others could add their weight too. I am copying this to Jerry since he has to give some
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY
next week and questions about the Soon et al work are definitely going to be raised. I am also copying this to Caspar, since the last millenium runs that he is doing with paleo-CSM are relevant.
Best wishes,
Tom.

Mike McMillan
November 21, 2009 12:12 pm

hunter (11:24:32) :
If you found out your 401-k was being managed like these guys are managing climate science, what would you do?

If my 401K manager were as successful as these guys have been, I’d be a lot richer.

November 21, 2009 12:12 pm

The web search site works great! The Yamal search makes interesting reading, too.
I have now found something with which to occupy myself during those periods when I am not busy.
Thanks!

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 12:15 pm

Bob Tisdale (09:30:08) :
And, Phil, what assumptions might they be? I’m not the one assuming the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear, when the instrument temperature record shows it’s not.
He really assumed that? Unbelievable!

hengav
November 21, 2009 12:16 pm

Shug,
Great site. I am trying to come up with the search words to uncover whom of the team are regular contributors to CA under alias. Any ideas?

tallbloke
November 21, 2009 12:22 pm

Paul Vaughan (11:11:58) :
Note to anyone searching the database:
I would be very interested in hearing about anything you can find on “1945″ & “COWL” (cold ocean – warm land).

I came across a message saying the SST’s around 1945 would be changed. I’ll try to find it for you.
21 results for 1945 here:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php

wef
November 21, 2009 12:24 pm

I liked this at 1228922050.txt :
The “FOI person” looks as if he was giving some useful hints to Phil Jones.
From: Phil Jones
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: A quick question
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008
“……… I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! ………”

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 12:24 pm

steven mosher (10:24:20) :
And ironically in the end they ended up being the thing they feared.
Nice.

Jason
November 21, 2009 12:27 pm

Perhaps the MSM won’t cover this right until they have offloaded any investments in anything that benifits from AGW, watch the trading on the stock markets then watch the news a massive stock crash in green stock and it’s truly game over.

helvio
November 21, 2009 12:28 pm

Posted in RealClimate as well, very likely will be censored, as most of my all-time comments:
I don’t even understand what the fuss is all about… For me, as a scientist who uses a lot of computer programming to simulate (truly predictable) physical systems in particle physics, who share his code and data when asked (no need for FOI-like requests!), who works in a field where data, configurations, codes are generically open, I can only interpret the behavior reflected in some emails as the negation of science. It’s crystal clear and as simply as this: if you don’t share the data and/or the codes used to analyze it -when legitimately asked for them- then you must be hiding something! Claiming that these codes and data are the results of funded research, and that 3rd parties not covered by these funds have no right to access them, it’s complete BS! Funds are used to do research, results are obtained and published, and the credit is due. And that’s what realscience is! Hiding, destroying (or intending to), or making it difficult to access the methods used to obtain those results screams -fraud-. The honest scientist is not afraid of the results they publish, nor selfish. They want knowledge to progress, even if they are not its author.

michael
November 21, 2009 12:29 pm

“most of the reporters will acept it….
yea, thats the Hansen trick!:
From: “James Hansen”
To: “Phil Jones”
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Dueling climates]
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:17:06 -0500
Cc: “Kevin Trenberth” , “Karl, Tom” , “Reto Ruedy”
Thanks, Phil. Here is a way that Reto likes to list the rankings that come out of our
version of land-ocean index.
rank LOTI
1 2005 0.62C
2 1998 0.57C
2007 0.57C
2002 0.56C
2003 0.55C
2006 0.54C
7 2004 0.49C
i.e., the second through sixth are in a statistical tie for second in our analysis. This
seems useful, and most reporters are sort of willing to accept it.

November 21, 2009 12:29 pm

This is a great search-engine! I’ve linked the compilation for the most interesting messages mentioned along the Internet, to this search-engine, so they can viewed in context: http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html
If there are more out there, or corrections, please send them by email (top left side of the blog).
Ecotretas

November 21, 2009 12:29 pm

Ok, I’ll put this out there. We are talking about non-encrypted e-mails that were sent internationally. One hundred percent, these e-mails were available to and “read”/scanned/indexed by just about every major intelligence agency you can name. US, British, Russian, Chinese, French. While they probably flew under the radar for general content (not related to known criminals, Islamists, whatever), you have to wonder at the interest levels of the Russians in particular.
The poor Rooskies have all this natural gas that goes in a pipeline to Western Europe. Darn Western Europeans are discovering shale gas/shale oil, messing up the balance of trade. At what point do the Russians decide to undermine the whole Cap and Trade nonsense by dropping the price of natural gas/petroleum again by declaring Global Warming is “off”? If you shock petroleum/gas back to low levels, you could perhaps make shale resources unprofitable for at least a few more years. While this whole exercise seems like an inside job, it just may be a highly professional OUTSIDE job. Note that the server for distribution of the material was in Russia–sometimes the Russians like to flaunt their work a bit as a warning to others (note Victor Yushchenko and his little problems with dioxin, or perhaps more compellingly, Alexander Litvinenko and his murder by Polonium-210….not something found at your average WalMart).
Regardless, it’s just something to think about. We are reading this for the first time, but there should have been highly educated doctorates in various fields reading these same e-mails years and years ago.
Along those lines, I am really annoyed with the Pentagon and CIA. Back in 2004, the Pentagon was waxing poetic about riots and being destroyed by global warming (see first link, in 2004). What in the world does the Dept of Defense have the Defense Intelligence Agency for if they aren’t going to bother to read the PERFECTLY LEGAL TO READ unencrypted e-mails sent internationally?!?!?!?!?
And the CIA just set up a Climate Change office (second link). I mean, WUWT? Or more like, WTF?!?!?! I thought NSA had these big sniffer programs to evaluate all e-mails, cell phone calls, pager signals, etc (“Carnivore”). While they were at it, they didn’t think to check on the biggest of the big boys of AGW before opening up a special office on climate change? But then, maybe the whole Fort Hood incident shows that there are weird “off limits” areas our intelligence sources can’t check out.
Short story, for those who think there has been some kind of major improvement in our intelligence programs and therefore our safety since Sept 11, 2001; the writing is on the wall. The same clowns are still running the same clownish games.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html
Tuo Amico,
Keith

November 21, 2009 12:29 pm

I feel a bit embarrassed about reading other people’s emails, even if these other people, such as Mann, Jones, and Briffa, are obvious charlatans.
I am sure, however, that these fraudsters wouldn’t blink an eye publishing any private emails that would serve their nefarious purposes.
In fact, William T. Connolley, a conspirator in charge of suppressing any open discussion of the AGW fraud in Wikipedia, published my private email addressed to him all over his Wikipedia page without asking my permission. When I complained about an illegality of this to Wikipedia admins, guess what? … Right! They booted me, not their bosom friend, bogus “scientist” Mr. Connolley.
So, if we are to bring down the whole politically financed system of the “climate change” fraud, from the IPCC down to every complicit “peer-reviewed” periodical, down to every complicit teacher brainwashing our children with the nagging “global warming is real” mantra, we need every tool at our disposal, every evidence that helps to dismantle this global fraud, with all its unprecedented financial and social consequences.
In this perspective, taking into account all the billions of dollars and pounds already stolen in the name of the AGW, and all the innumerable dollars and pounds that Ban Ki-Moons, Pachauris, Briffas, Manns and Connolleys of this world are still stealing at our expense, he or she who leaked the CRU files to the public is, indeed, a hero deserving a shining golden monument.

November 21, 2009 12:31 pm

hengav,
I’m nothing more than an interested reader – happen to work as a web developer so it was just a small amount of work to throw it together- so your guesses will be as good as mine (probably better!).
H

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 12:32 pm

Shurley Knot (09:50:16) : said:
You are eavesdropping on people thinking out loud in email
Ya, that’s all it was. Sure. Nothing to see here. Let’s just drop it all and move on to the important things, eh Shurley? Why we wasting our time on this trivial chatter?
BTW, were you just joking in saying that?

Bill Illis
November 21, 2009 12:33 pm

I like the one where Mann thinks he has Andy Revkin in his back-pocket asserting that Steve’s McIntyre’s new data on Briffa’s reconstruction is “garbage” “nonsense”, bogus etc. (Mann throws these kind of qualifiers in on any analysis that isn’t pro-AGW and people just accept it. Nonsense is their favourite word).
Then Mann goes on to insinuate that Steve needs to publish in journals to be taken seriously. And little does Revkin know that Mann is furiously working/interferring with journals and editors and editorial boards to block all kinds of publications, including getting people removed.
Revkin has to feel very sheepish about all this (there are several other instances), especially when we all know that Briffa’s reconstruction was actually the poorly done one.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1026&filename=1254259645.txt

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 12:36 pm

Shurley Knot (10:26:28) :
It really doesn’t matter what people on this blog think, does it?
It hasn’t so far!

Ya, those popped rivets from the iceberg don’t matter. The band is still playing. Keep dancing.

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Frank Lansner (10:33:59) :
Phil Jones to John Christy 4 years ago, 2005:

The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has…

I wonder what James Hansen would have to say about this one?

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 12:40 pm

Shurley Knot (10:41:34) :
Just listen to yourselves!
You are projecting.

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 12:43 pm

JMcCarthy (11:08:44) :
If this ends up costing a few of these climate “scientists” their jobs I am confident they could find work in the Obama Administration as Counters of Jobs Saved/Created by the Economic Stimulus Package
Funny! 🙂

Curiousgeorge
November 21, 2009 12:44 pm

@ James RS (11:20:37) :
” Curiousgeorge,
I was wondering the same thing. Has anyone noticed if some of the data files contain any of the information that Steve M and others have been trying to get hold of? ”
Don’t know about that, but from what I’ve read it appears that at least some of the analyzes have used what I would loosely term “Bootstrapping” techniques to fill holes in the raw data. This is not a unknown procedure (I used it myself in a previous life 😉 ), but does open the door to criticism, since it depends on the probability distribution assigned or derived from the limited raw data. This results in a larger uncertainty regarding the results and conclusions.
The one thing that statisticians are accustomed to is uncertainty. On the other hand, policy makers (and the general public ) are very uncomfortable with statistical uncertainty . From my read of some of the emails it appears that the major concern is reduction of uncertainty in order to establish a desired “comfort zone” for the policy wonks. This is a laudable goal, however it can be easily overdone and apparently has been for quite some time.
Probability is a very slippery critter, and is not what people generally assume it to be. In this kind of endeavor it is more Bayesian than Frequentest. In other words, it’s a statement of the extent of our knowledge, rather than the typical coin flip/roll of the dice that is commonly known. We’re not talking “baseball” statistics with this.
I’d refer anyone interested to E.T. Jaynes ( deceased ) work for further information regarding probability: ” PROBABILITY THEORY:
THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE “: http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html You’ll need a postscript reader, I suggest Ghostscript: http://www.ghostscript.com/

Justin
November 21, 2009 12:46 pm

“On Jun 25, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Just spent 5 minutes looking at Watts up. Couldn’t bear it any longer – had to
stop!. Is there really such a parallel universe out there? I could understand all of the words some commenters wrote – but not in the context they used them. It is a mixed blessing.”
In a reply:
“By the way, “Watts up” has mostly put “ClimateAudit” out of business. a mixed blessing I
suppose.”

don
November 21, 2009 12:51 pm

So what were the secret thoughts and concerns of America’s top climate scientists when asked to provide information on climate change and hockey sticks before a Republican congress in 2005—a year before congress went democratic in the off year election? Well, thanks to some hacking and prolific Email writers, we now know there is “good science” and there is bad science, usually done by conspiratorial denier types. The adversarial mind-set is interesting, “we seem to (be) back in the days of McCarthyism in the States.” To review, that was the era of the fifties when congress was going after Marxists who were hiding under some beds. In the sixties the Marxists didn’t hide and shared a lot of beds, there was no congressional McCarthyism, and the left was up front about it being better red than dead at the whim of those draft board “death panels.” Children of the sixties, these leading American climate scientists hiding on the public dole felt alienated at having to report to a congress run by “thugs” who actually fund their activities. Of course, the irony of their vulgar Marxism— geological research funded by Exxon is tainted by profit and produces bad science—doesn’t apply to them when on the road to utopia with man made global warming paid for by the taxpayer:
From: “Michael E. Mann” 
To: Keith Briffa 
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: NEED HELP!
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:21:55 -0400

Hi Keith,
Thanks–yes, we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States. Fortunately, we have
some good people who will represent us legally pro bono, and in the best case scenario,
this backfires on these thugs…
The response of the wording is likely to change dramatically after consulation w/ lawyers,
etc. but any feedback on the substance would nonetheless be very helpful…
thanks for both your help and your support,
mike
At 05:48 AM 6/28/2005, you wrote:

Mike
just in and seeing this for time – will digest – but do not like look or implications of
this at all
Keith
At 17:00 25/06/2005, you wrote:

Tim/Keith/Phil,
Please see attached letter from the U.S. House republicans. As Tom has mentioned below,
it would be very helpful if I can get feedback from you all as I proceed w/ drafting a
formal response.
Thanks in advance for any help,
mike

Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:36:49 -0600
From: Tom Wigley 
Organization: NCAR/CGD
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Michael Oppenheimer 
Cc: “Michael E. Mann” , shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Caspar Ammann 
Subject: Re: NEED HELP!
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork9.mail.virginia.edu
Mike,
There are broader implications of this, so it is important to respond well. It is
a pity you have to be the guinea pig after what you have gone through already,
but you have many supporters.
I would not advise a legal route. I think you need to consider this as just another
set of referees’ comments and respond simply, clearly and directly. On the science
side the key point is that the M&M criticisms are unfounded.
Although this may be difficult, remember that this is not really a criticism of you
personally, but one aspect of a criticism of the foundations of global warming
science by people both inside and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives.
There may, in fact, be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that there
has been an abuse of the scientific review process at the journal editor level.
The method is to choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the anti-greenhouse
view. Recent papers in GRL (including the M&M paper) have clearly not been
reviewed by appropriate people. We have a strong suspicion that this is the case,
but, of course, no proof because we do not know *who* the reviewers of these
papers have been. Perhaps now is the time to make this a direct accusation and
request (or demand) that this information be made available. In order to properly
defend the good science it is essential that the reasons for bad science appearing
in the literature be investigated.
The lever here is that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce is suggesting that your papers are
bad science and asking (their point 8e) for the identity of people who reviewed
your work. In response, it is completely fair and justifiable to point out that it
is the papers that criticize your and related work that are bad science, and that,
through the Subcommittee you can request the identities of the reviewers of all
of these critical papers — starting with M&M.
When you respond, there are a number of items that require a direct response
from you alone. There are also a number of scientific points where you could
give a multi-authored response. There are many people who have expertise in
this area and familiarity with the scientific issues who I am sure would be willing
to join you (I would be happy to do so).
At this stage, however, I would keep the group small. A few others could be added
to the original email list nevertheless. I took the liberty of copying your plea and
the Subcommittee’s letter to Caspar Ammann, primarily because I think he can
help with the scientific aspects better than most people. After all, he has been
able to follow your method and reproduce your results, he has shown the flaws
in M&M’s work, he has investigated the bristlecone pine issue, and he has made
all his software available on the web.
The others who could be added at this early stage are Ray Bradley and Malcolm
Hughes, your ‘co-conspirators’ — and perhaps Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim
Osborn. I do not know how ‘powerful’ these alien opinions may be in the present
parochial context, but I note that the instigators of all this are Canadians and that
the science has no national boundaries. Phil, Keith and Tim are useful because they
have demonstrated the flaws in the von Storch work — which is, I assume, the
Science paper that the Subcommittee’s letter referes to.
A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo
reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my
version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although
these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to
1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I
would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences
between them as an argument for dismissing them all.
I attach also a run with MAGICC using central-estimate climate model parameters
(DT2x = 2.6 degC, etc. — see the TAR), and forcings used by Caspar in the
runs with paleo-CSM. I have another Figure somewhere that compares MAGICC
with paleo-CSM. The agreement is nearly perfect (given that CSM has internally
generated noise while MAGICC is pure signal). The support for the hockey stick
is not just the paleo reconstructions, but also the model results. If one takes the
best estimates of past forcing off the shelf, then the model results show the hockey
stick shape. No tuning or fudging here; this is a totally independent analysis, and
critics of the paleo data, if they disbelieve these data, have to explain why models
get the same result.
Of course, von Storch’s model results do not show such good century timescale
agreement, but this is because he uses silly forcing and has failed to account for
the fact that his model was not in equilibrium at the start of the run (the subject
of Tim Osborn et al.’s submitted paper).
This is a pain in the but, but it will all work out well in the end (unintentional pun
–
sorry). Good science will prevail.
Best wishes,
Tom.
———————————————–
Michael Oppenheimer wrote:

Michael:
This is outrageous. I’ll contact some people who may be able to help right away.
———-
From: Michael E. Mann [[2]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:27 PM
To: shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: NEED HELP!
Importance: High
dear all,
this was predicted–they’re of course trying to make things impossible for me. I need
immediate help regarding recourse for free legal advice, etc.
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX:
(434) 982-2137
[11]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[12]http:/
/www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

–
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[13]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[14]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

References

1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Eomichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Ejhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Esanter1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
12. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
13. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
14. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml


aylamp
November 21, 2009 12:53 pm

From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.”
Eh?

David
November 21, 2009 12:55 pm

http://www.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&ncl=dVr56w1i3YM8UhMZJwbZhBo5IaLlM&topic=t
Off to the right. Another hockey stick!
BTW, AKD (09:39:32), yes, I see a number of red flags. If that is what it sounds like, it is surely a crime.

KlausB
November 21, 2009 12:56 pm

@ Richard Sharpe (09:32:58) :
Richard, I did a “climategate” -google friday evening my time/I presume early friday your time – results: 1321
.. did same now – results 32600++
rgds
KlausB

BarryW
November 21, 2009 1:01 pm

If nothing else these emails show that these researchers have corrupted the peer review process.

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 1:02 pm

JMcCarthy (11:55:49) :
Although I am not one to recommend breaking the law I do feel that the individuals who illegally obtained and posted this information…
It is not known yet whether any laws were broken. What happened here may turn out to be different than it being a hacker/cracker.
As someone has already commented (PSU-EMS-Alum (09:19:44) ) it may turn out to be only a case of violation of internal policy and not the breaking of any law.

Neo
November 21, 2009 1:02 pm

The only unanswered question for me ..
Did any of these folks (in the e-mails) ever gave testimony before Congress or any court under oath ?
If so, they should go to jail.

Ben
November 21, 2009 1:05 pm

Searched “gore” and found this in the first result:
“ACTION: Monitor your local paper and respond to news stories
with a letter-to-the-editor.
MAIN MESSAGE: Given the Bush Administration’s consistent
opposition to climate change mitigation, it is especially
imperative at this time that the scientific community and
Dr. Pachauri work together to ensure that the IPCC remains a
strong and credible scientific process.
DEADLINE: As soon as possible after the story runs in your
paper — preferably the same day but no later than a day or
two after.”

November 21, 2009 1:12 pm

I vote for
CLIMATE CRUNCH
to replace ‘credit crunch’ in year 2010

KlausB
November 21, 2009 1:17 pm

[i] Steve S. (09:51:30) :
sorry for another post so soon but this is too funny, and prophetic.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=934&filename=1226451442.txt%5B/i%5D
yes, very prophetic, indeed

Hank Hancock
November 21, 2009 1:24 pm

FOIA > documents > Greenpeace.txt:
I was somewhat taken by the above referenced e-mail between Paul Horsman of Greenpeace and Mick Kelley of the CRU wherein they are discussing a globalization agenda and organizing an international climate justice summit. If there isn’t a globalization agenda behind the IPCC then why are they discussing it in relation to the IPCC? Just what is “climate justice” anyway? Curious minds want to know.

Bulldust
November 21, 2009 1:25 pm

Sadly the Australian media has been very slow to run with this story… I’d imagine they are scared to because of the ETS legislation is to be rammed through our senate next week (last week of Federal Parliament for the year). My god we are going to look silly if it goes through.
The truth is leaking out through newspaper blogs at some papers:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/climate_protest_starved_of_publicity/
Interestingly, The West Australian news paper, one usually known for its tardy reporting (except for local issues) has grabbed onto it so I can only imagine the SMH, Age abd Australian are not too far behind:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/6500842/leaked-emails-stoke-climate-debate/

November 21, 2009 1:26 pm

Clive (08:48:53) :
AJ Abrams (08:11:58) : “I hope they are reading here.” ☺☺
The ONLY one not watching is an old hermit in a cave in Elbonia. (Joke!)

Yup, it is a joke – I’m reading this too!

ET
November 21, 2009 1:27 pm

Taylor (09:00:04) :
A series of email exchanges showed me that Michael Mann was not honest at all in handling a nomination for Phil Jones. Dr. Mann asked for an H-Index from Dr. Jones himself because Dr. Mann was preparing a nomination package for Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones said his H-index ( an index indicating how significant one’s scientific papers have been) is about 52 while a website is reporting 62 because the website includes many papers published by some biologists with the same name. Dr. Mann replied back saying that ‘I will go w/ 62, which is higher than vast members of national academy of science’. How can one expect to trust this Mann’s scientific results without getting and examining his data source??

This is it, I think.
Phil = ” Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through and deleted those in journals I’d never heard of and got 52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s, so go with 52.”
Mike = “OK–thanks, I’ll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.”

Konrad
November 21, 2009 1:29 pm

1105019698.txt
Pick a base period. Any base period…
“There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted”

King of Cool
November 21, 2009 1:35 pm

Mike McMillan (09:51:22) :
I think those proclaiming the death of AGW have let their enthusiasm carry them away from reality….. It will take a decade of cooling and snowdrifts as big as the ones I played in back in the 50’s before they reluctantly come around.

Mike I couldn’t agree more. I have seen absolutely nothing about the CRU scam in the MSM in our country. We have a new phrase here now to describe bush fire conditions which replaces ‘extreme’ and that is ‘catastrophic’. So everything in SE Australia to-day is ‘catastrophic’ as it was in South Australia 2 days ago which our Prime Minister put down to climate change (until the rains arrived there and which will be here tonight).
If it is not the ‘catastrophic’ weather here it is the floods of ‘biblical’ proportions in NW England. Apocalypse Now has arrived in the MSM just in time to push the ETS through the Senate prior to the Copenhagen bunfest which even the leader of our right wing opposition supports.
The uncovered emails whether they are conspiratorial or not will be a mere blip on the horizon which shows an unstoppable tide of AGW more powerful than Hitler’s blitzkrieg into Poland. Mike we will need more than your old snowdrifts, we will need another “Little Ice Age” starting next Monday.

P Wilson
November 21, 2009 1:36 pm

Bryan Clark (11:53:40) :
“As a (retired) professional engineer from Canada, I am truly shocked by the contemptible behaviour of the scientists at Britain’s CRU. A total lack of ethics.”
Phil Jones:
He calls one person an utter prat, and rejoices over the death of another, whilst his correspondents harbour fantasies about beating the crap out out of someone else or meeting them in dark alleys … interspersed with advice to one another on how to rubbish research whose results they don’t like.
I’m still hoping this isn’t genuine

KlausB
November 21, 2009 1:37 pm

@ P Gosselin (10:08:42) :
Pierre,
thanks, I missed that.
Still goin’ thru the other files, datas.
BTW, do you know, why http://www.oekologismus.de hasn’t open
a thread on that? Are they sleeping on their keyboards?
rgds
KlausB

Paul Vaughan
November 21, 2009 1:39 pm

IMPORTANT:
tallbloke (12:22:28) “I came across a message saying the SST’s around 1945 would be changed.”
They must not be permitted to further vandalize the record

Todd
November 21, 2009 1:46 pm

So here’s a question: any speculation on how this will affect Copenhagen which is only a few weeks away? I’m no climate scientist; just a concerned citizen, but my assumption is that all these “team” members will be there. My guess is that the next couple of weeks will be full of “deny! deny! deny!” because of the timing of the release of all this data. But when Copenhagen happens, I wonder if ANYONE at the conference will bring these emails and other files, and their conclusions, to the forefront?

tallbloke
November 21, 2009 1:47 pm

KlausB (12:56:27) :
@ Richard Sharpe (09:32:58) :
Richard, I did a “climategate” -google friday evening my time/I presume early friday your time – results: 1321
.. did same now – results 32600++

34800 now. You’ll be able to see the difference in timestamps when I post this.

Allan M
November 21, 2009 1:47 pm

vulgarmorality (08:46:08) :
This isn’t about data but about politics – and not really about politics but about a certain mindset. Many scientists have succumbed to the temptation to became Platonic guardians, telling the rest of us how we must life.
Is this a Platonic mindset? Or, given the ammount of money and taxation involved in the green agenda, and all the eugenicists and other crud lurking in the wings, is it more a case of the Spartans and the Helots?

November 21, 2009 1:48 pm

Gene Nemetz: You wrote with respect to my earlier comment about researchers assuming a linear relationship between ENSO and global temperature, “He really assumed that? Unbelievable!”
In the papers where the researchers remove ENSO from global temperatures by scaling and lagging the ENSO data before subtracting it, they assume there is a linear relationship between ENSO and global temperature. I’ve listed those papers in a recent (September) post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/relationship-between-enso-and-global.html

November 21, 2009 1:49 pm

Steve Mosher, spot on. Keep to the core issues still;
Free the data; Free the code; Free the debate.
Most of the media are still caught in the bias, believing or asserting that the warming is happening. So this message needs to come through: Even the hacked emails say warming is not happening.
And…… there is still more rot to uncover. The GISS mess. And I suspect an Ice Hockey Stick regarding the CO2 measurements taken from ice cores and the serial institutional rubbishing of Jaworowski who challenged it on many substantial scientific grounds. And more probably.
This looks like the Battle of Britain, folks – but not yet the end of the war.

UKIP
November 21, 2009 1:50 pm

Thanks muchly for the search engine.
If you want to feel like you’re in a different universe, take a look at the discussion we’re having over at http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/6.aspx on this very issue. A supposed British former scientist (“TomC”) posts there and he says there is nothing incriminating in the emails. A few other there are members of green parties so you know what to expect.

Todd
November 21, 2009 1:51 pm

More good news: the Climategate issue has made it to the Fox News homepage.
http://www.foxnews.com/

Editor
November 21, 2009 1:53 pm

Torquatus (11:22:53) :
One of the Emails mentioned above has a very interesting mail header:
From: Ben Santer
To: Smithg
Subject: Re: data request
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:33:53 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Santer is at xxxx.gov in the US, Smithg is at .net.sg in Singapore. All other Emails I’ve seen have at least one @uea.ac.uk address. So what the heck is this Email doing at CRU? My best guess, and probably right, is that the recipient was on a “Bcc:” (blind carbon copy) list and hence not on a “To:” or “Cc:” line.
Just something to keep in mind considering who has seen/sent what.

Walter Cronanty
November 21, 2009 1:59 pm

Interesting post at Powerline concerning the hacking and e-mails. Given my interest in the MSM and various issues, when you get about halfway through the post there’s a discussion re: Andrew Revkin, the NYT’s environmental reporter, and his somewhat small, tangential involvement in all of this. Small, tangential, but I think revealing. Joseph Stalin, please meet Walter Duranty.

Brandon
November 21, 2009 2:03 pm

Just downloaded the letters, and one #0983196231 says
“It also remains unclear why just at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and before the emission of substantial amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, Earth’s temperature began to rise steeply.”

Glenn
November 21, 2009 2:09 pm

“Gavin” at realclimate says
“It may have escaped your notice, but I am not Phil Jones, neither is Mike Mann, and nor is anyone else associated with the RealClimate.”
I suppose that all depends on the definition of “associated”, and the hard evidence to prove or disprove it. This guy is sounding more and more like a weasel.
“I stress that this has absolutely nothing to do with anyone at RealClimate, and has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to hide data.”
Perhaps this means that neither Phil or Mike is posting there at the present? Or Gavin?
Quotes from response to “Comment by Biff Larkin — 21 November 2009 @ 3:45 PM”

Michael
November 21, 2009 2:18 pm

This e-mail from Mann to Jones in June of 98 talks about, “datasets with
manufactured biases”. I searched the keyword “funding” and got 69 results.
Hmmm, interesting.
“Dear Phil,
Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some
direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and
the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and
synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked
by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with
you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with
manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it
would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some
overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal
of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that
in the least.
Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing
of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to
make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly
thing in the world.
In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you
need from me (cv, etc.).
cheers,
mike”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=59&filename=898099393.txt

stevec
November 21, 2009 2:19 pm

Tamino is shown to be the email address of a Dr Steve Foster, using tamino9

Iren
November 21, 2009 2:21 pm

“O. Weinzierl (11:10:25) :
I could not believe my ears when I heard about the CRU hack on the main evening news for Austria. The state owned broadcaster “ORF” usually only brings alarmist news. I guess now the CRU hack will also get some press coverage.”
—————
You almost gave me a heart attack because I at first thought you said Australia. There’s been not a peep so far from the main news outlets that I’ve heard and its a matter of life and death here at the moment because the appalling CPRS (ETS) legislation is coming before the Senate this week. The government does not have the numbers to pass it but our quisling leader of the opposition is doing his level best to ensure its passage, despite strong opposition within in own party. It seems a rupture in his own party is of less importance to him.

tty
November 21, 2009 2:23 pm

Curiousgeorge (12:44:22) :
Curiousgeorge,
I was wondering the same thing. Has anyone noticed if some of the data files contain any of the information that Steve M and others have been trying to get hold of? ”
Well, it certainly seems to contain the code for HadCRUT. I imagine that’s why Steve McIntyre has been kind of quiet this weekend.
Hopefully we’ll soon know if HadCRUT is as shaky as GISSTemp.

November 21, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Glenn,
I think this is the pecking order:

NASA/GISS Director: James Hansen … his subordinate is Gavin Schmidt.
NASA web site contributors: Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt & others
RealClimate is owned by Michael Mann & run by Gavin Schmidt with contributor WM Connolley [and other mods like Harald Korneliussen]
Wikipedia editor: WM Connolley.

[Actually, if you read the sentence closely, you will see that Gavin is prevaricating…
“It may have escaped your notice, but I am not Phil Jones, neither is Mike Mann, and nor is anyone else associated with the RealClimate.”
…all he is really saying is that he is not Phil Jones, and neither is anyone else.]

fabron
November 21, 2009 2:31 pm

From: Simon.Shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000
……………
dear colleagues
re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support from for the Tyndall Centre.
I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person in brackets).
Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John Shepherd]
Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water [Mike Hulme]
Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon Shackley]
Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
Possibles:
Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick Jenkins]
Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen [Nick Jenkins]
Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin Cannell]
Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
With kind regards
Simon Shackley

Tom_R
November 21, 2009 2:34 pm

>>
PSU-EMS-Alum (09:19:44) :
The Ville (08:29:17) :
Amazing!
This site supports criminal activity?
What next?
———-
The only one calling it “illegal” are those whose AGW religion biases are now having the spotlight focused on them (Hockey Team, RC, etc).
Given the structure of the archive, it is much more likely that this was perpetrated by an someone with access who gathered the data and put it up on a site anonymously. AKA – a “mole” or, more precisely, “whistleblower”.
<<
I believe you are right. There must be more E-mail accounts than just Phil Jones'. Wouldn't an outsider have published all of them, while an insider would publish only a subset in order to not publish his/her own E-mails?
Also, the person who did this seemed to know exactly where to go and what to get. I doubt an outsider could come up with all of the data and just the data and incriminating E-mails (correct me if I'm wrong on this).

Ecochemist
November 21, 2009 2:34 pm

HAY GUYS! I HAS SOME GREAT NEWS!
THE DEBATE IS OVER!
Margarine is once again better for you than butter.

joe
November 21, 2009 2:38 pm

I have a question, what about the data? Was there any data hacked?

Michael
November 21, 2009 2:38 pm

In this Confidential e-mail from Trevor Davies, Trevor writes;
“b) have to split what is a limited pot of cash”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=104&filename=925823304.txt

KlausB
November 21, 2009 2:41 pm

@operators
Is ~ctm aboard again?
Hopefully, he had some hours of good sleep.
He did an outstanding job here.
rgds
KlausB

AKD
November 21, 2009 2:41 pm

Yeah, he’s saying Phil Jones is in charge of CRU and so the one accountable. He is being careful to distance himself from and not comment on data obstruction/destruction and focus on much more slippery interpretations of possible data manipulation and bias. Plenty of wiggle room there, but the FOI issue and misuse of funds seem pretty black and white. It would be pointless to comment on those, because full information will almost certainly surface with further FOI requests (this time from people who can’t be ignored without consequences). Much better to get everyone focused on the defintion of the word “trick” and try to create the impression that any wrongdoing comes down to subjective interpretation of a few words.

ShrNfr
November 21, 2009 2:48 pm

All of this is most interesting especially since it is about time we headed into the de Vries downtrend on the 200 year solar cycle.

Bill Jamison
November 21, 2009 2:54 pm

What do you want to bet that every other university and government institution mentioned in these emails is “battening down the hatches” right about now to prevent their systems from being hacked and more data from being released???

KimW
November 21, 2009 2:54 pm

file 1051230500.txt has a quote from a NZ Climate specialist, “Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific
publications? ”
Oddly, the same person is currently pursuing a unjust dismissal suit –
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2991708/Salinger-sacking-not-done-lightly.
In short, ” He was dismissed for allegedly ignoring a Niwa policy against speaking publicly without prior approval.”

David
November 21, 2009 2:55 pm

I would also suggest that any citizens in England demand an audit of CRU. I do believe that the email posted by AKD would be sufficient cause for suspicion. I plan on writing to John Boehner and petitioning him to stop NOAA from sending money to CRU until they sort out what exactly happened with regards to that particular correspondence.

simon
November 21, 2009 3:01 pm

@ Adam Sullivan (09:40:26) :
Re: That one [1077829152.txt] shows clear misconduct as do so many others. Like I said – these guys have just lost their professional reputations. they have reduced themselves to dogmatists. They went for “fake but accurate”. But people really do need to separate the wheat from the chaff – none of this disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What it does is expose the catastrophists to vigorous attack which they will have to defend.

I’m just a casual observer on GW, and there are other issues I spend far too much time on, but the sceptics should be thinking about what they want to achieve from all this. As you suggest, it’s the science which ultimately matters; so I think it would be a mistake to focus on personalities and reputations.
From reading just a sample of the emails, there has been a clear intent to control and manipulate the peer review process. A sensible goal for the sceptic camp would be to use this information as apart of a demand for fair treatment in that process.

Steve Hempell
November 21, 2009 3:02 pm

I don’t know if anyone else has posted on this as I haven’t had the opportunity to scan all the comments.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php
When I read this it seemed to me to be a devastating commentary on the state of dendrochronology and the “team” in particular.
I think more work such as this should be done on these emails to develop story lines like this as they are far more informational and contextualized. Far better than just individual emails.

David Jones
November 21, 2009 3:07 pm

As a UK taxpayer I consider that Jones, Briffa and the others at CRU should be criminally charged with “obtaining money by false pretenses.’ Not to mention FRAUD.
Unfortunately with the CORRUPT, unprincipled, and incompetent Government we’ve had in UK for the past 12 years I doubt that it will happen, at least until we get a change of gov in UK.

bill
November 21, 2009 3:08 pm

Just for the record:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/UKpga_19900018_en_1.htm
1
Unauthorised access to computer material .(1)
A person is guilty of an offence if— .
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer; .
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and .
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case. .
(2)
The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at— .
(a) any particular program or data; .
(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or .
(c) a program or data held in any particular computer. .
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both
4
Territorial scope of offences under this Act .(1)
Except as provided below in this section, it is immaterial for the purposes of any offence under section 1 or 3 above— .
(a) whether any act or other event proof of which is required for conviction of the offence occurred in the home country concerned; or .
(b) whether the accused was in the home country concerned at the time of any such act or event. .
(2)
Subject to subsection (3) below, in the case of such an offence at least one significant link with domestic jurisdiction must exist in the circumstances of the case for the offence to be committed. .
(3)
There is no need for any such link to exist for the commission of an offence under section 1 above to be established in proof of an allegation to that effect in proceedings for an offence under section 2 above. .
(4)
Subject to section 8 below, where— .
(a) any such link does in fact exist in the case of an offence under section 1 above; and .
(b) commission of that offence is alleged in proceedings for an offence under section 2 above;
9
British citizenship immaterial .
(1)
In any proceedings brought in England and Wales in respect of any offence to which this section applies it is immaterial to guilt whether or not the accused was a British citizen at the time of any act, omission or other event proof of which is required for conviction of the offence. .
(2)
This section applies to the following offences— .
(a) any offence under this Act; .
(b) conspiracy to commit an offence under this Act; .
(c) any attempt to commit an offence under section 3 above; and .
(d) incitement to commit an offence under this Act. .
Extradition where Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 applies .The offences to which an Order in Council under section 2 of the [1870 c. 52.] Extradition Act 1870 can apply shall include—
(a) offences under section 2 or 3 above; .
(b) any conspiracy to commit such an offence; and .
(c) any attempt to commit an offence under section 3 above.
17
Interpretation .(1)
The following provisions of this section apply for the interpretation of this Act. .
(2)
A person secures access to any program or data held in a computer if by causing a computer to perform any function he— .
(a) alters or erases the program or data; .
(b) copies or moves it to any storage medium other than that in which it is held or to a different location in the storage medium in which it is held; .
(c) uses it; or .
(d) has it output from the computer in which it is held (whether by having it displayed or in any other manner); .
and references to access to a program or data (and to an intent to secure such access) shall be read accordingly.

Schuyler
November 21, 2009 3:10 pm

Here’s a nice one I just found with the search engine. Our man “Phil” taalks about “hiding behind” the Intellectual Property Rights issue and also complains about FOIA saying he wil delete data before he lets anything out. I know it’s a mess to read, but worth it
——-
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005
Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago – on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP. We’re going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn’t clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present–will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms–there will be many. I’m hoping they’ll stand firm (I believe
they will–I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)…
Will keep you updated on stuff…
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is
trawling
them. 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz – oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can’t see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer’s
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he’s a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Phil–thought I should let you know that its official now that I’ll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I’ll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for “Earth System History” within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone
School of Environmental Sciences Fax
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
__________________________________________________ ____________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
__________________________________________________ _____________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone:
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
References
1. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, U.Va. | 404 Error (Page Not Found)

November 21, 2009 3:11 pm

Ben Santer’s xxxx.xxx is llnl.gov – for those interested.

Stephen Shorland
November 21, 2009 3:15 pm

Hello, On reading the first email that comes up using the search term ‘lindzen’,there is this passage:
Alan,
> Thanks for the quick response. We’ll expect something from Melissa
> in the next few weeks. I also hope our copy of the 2cnd edition arrives
> soon. In our maximum latewood density reconstruction from the polar Urals
> to AD 914, the most anomalous summer is AD 1032. A lot of other volcano
> years are there with summers of -3 to -4 sigma such as 1816,1601,1783 and
> 1453 (I think this later one is Kuwae that is being found in the Ice Cores
> in the Antarctic. However 1032 is 6 sigma and it may be the Baitoushan
> event which you say is 1010 +/- 50 years or the Billy Mitchell event.
Is ‘Billy Mitchell’ a climatologist? I know him as a maverick US Airforce figure who proved Bombers could sink Battleships.It just poked my conspiritorial rib in relation to their discussion of a 6 Sigma event (HaHa) ?

mark_d
November 21, 2009 3:15 pm

Mention of changing temps for 1945 in file 1203620834.txt, says that temps would have shown a continuous rise from 1900 until 1970.
Personal details removed.
I’ve attached two figures. Both focus on the land data.
The first figure includes 4 time series. From top to bottom: the global-mean land data
(CRUTEM 3); the ENSO fit; the COWL fit; the residual global-mean time series. There is
nothing here you haven’t seen before – the residual land time series is identical to the
one in the Nature paper.
As we’ve discussed, the residual land time series highlights the signature of the
volcanos. And as far as low frequency variability goes: the residual land time series
supports the IPCC contention that the global warmed from ~1900-1940; did not warm from
~1940-1980; and warmed substantially from 1980 to present.
OK…. so now I’m going to play with removing the volcanic signal. There are a lot of
ways to do this, and I haven’t settled on the best method. For now, I am driving the
simple climate model I’ve been using for ENSO with the Ammann et al. volcanic forcing
time series. I get identical results using Crowley’s estimate and Sato’s estimate.
The figure on page 2 shows the effect of removing the volcanic signal. From top to
bottom: the the global-mean residual land time series (repeated from the previous
figure); the volcanic fit; the ‘ENSO/COWL/Volcano’ residual land time series.
Some key points:
1. the volcanic fit isn’t perfect, but captures most of the volcanic signal.
2. the residual time series (bottom of Fig 2) is interesting. If you look closely, it
suggests the globe has warmed continuously since 1900 with two exceptions: a ‘bite’ in
the 1970s, and a downwards ‘step’ in 1945. The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the
step in the ocean data. But it’s there. (I’m guessing the corresponding change in
variance is due to a sudden increase in data coverage).
3. the volcanic fit highlights the fact that the lack of warming in the middle part of
the century comes from only two features: the step in 45 and Agung. When Agung is
removed, land temperatures march upwards from 1945-1970 (Fig 2 bottom).
4. the bite in the 1970s could be due to an underestimate of the impact of Fuego (the
bite is also evident in the SST data).
What do you think? The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in the SST data. But
it’s certainly there. It’s evident in the COWL/ENSO residual time series (top of Fig 2):
removing Agung simply clarifies that without the step temperatures marched steadily
upwards from 1900-1970.
-Dave

Paul Vaughan
November 21, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: tallbloke (12:22:28)
It could also be important to search “1976”, “climate shift”, “regime shift”, “arctic dipole”, “dipole anomaly”, “2007”, etc.
Basically I’m hoping people are digging for more than just gossip items while this info is still available.
I don’t think we should assume access to the scientific content of the e-mails will persist indefinitely and that it should somehow take a back seat. I again caution all to not rest on laurels clowning around.

KlausB
November 21, 2009 3:18 pm

it’s not funny, but when was truth funny?
—————————————–
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin.
The Bankers own the earth.
Take it away from them,
but leave them the power to create deposits,
and with the flick of the pen they will create
enough deposits to buy it back again.
However, take away that power,
and all the great fortunes like
mine will disappear – as they
ought to in order to make this a
happier and better world to live in.
But, if you wish to remain the
slaves of Bankers and pay the
cost of your own slavery,
then let them continue to
create deposits.”
Sir Josiah Stamp (1880-1941),
one time governor of the Bank
of England, in his Commencement
Address at the University of Texas in 1927.
Reportedly he was the second wealthiest individual in Britain.

Robert Wood of Canada
November 21, 2009 3:19 pm

Tom_R (14:34:05) :
I too am coming more round to the view of an inside job. Imagine the paranoia going on amongst “The World’s Leading Climate Experts” 🙂
I say Climate Research should sue!

November 21, 2009 3:22 pm

Re: TJA @ 8:22:50
The email at the link you provided indicates members of “the Team” are capable of persuading themselves of almost anything that will confirm their bias, including false statements of history.
I noticed this part of what appears to be Phil Jones’ email to Michael Mann:
“Frost fairs on the Thames in London occurred more readily because the tidal limit was at the old London Bridge (the 5ft weir under it). The bridge was rebuilt around the 1840s and the frost fairs stopped.”
The Thames last froze at London in 1814.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/River_Thames_frost_fairs#encyclopedia
The new bridge was built in 1831.
http://www.oldlondonbridge.com/newbridge.shtml
The old bridge allowed tidal currents through. In fact, the rush of water as the tide came in or went out was dangerous to boats going under the bridge.
http://www.oldlondonbridge.com/tudor.shtml
There is no indication that I can find to show that the old bridge, as opposed to much colder temperatures, caused the Thames to freeze over (and allow people to hold “frost fairs” on the ice).
This should have been easy for Jones to figure out, but I believe his confirmation bias leads him to accept whatever fits his prejudice–whether it be misstated “history” or his Team’s “science.”

mark_d
November 21, 2009 3:22 pm

Slightly more info on the 1945 thing.
David Thompson is giving a talk here tomorrow on this.
The essence of his talk will be in Nature in a few weeks time.
The skeptics will make a meal of this when it
comes out, but if they did their job properly (I know this is impossible!) they would
have found it. It relates to a problem with SST data in the late 1940s. The
problem will get corrected for at some point. SSTs need adjusting as there must be
from buckets for the period from Aug45 by about 0.3 gradually reducing to
a zero adjustment by about the mid-1960s. The assumption was that after WW2 they were
all intake measurements and didn’t need adjusting.
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling
with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary. It won’t change century-scale trends.
There is much more of an interesting thing going on now. With all the drifters
now deployed measuring SST, the % of ships making measurements in now
only about 40% of the total – whereas it was all in the late 1990s. In comparisons
over the last 10 years it seems that ships measure SSTs about 0.1-0.2 higher
than the drifters/buoys. As the 61-90 base period is ship based, it means
recent anomalies are colder than they should be (by about 0.1 for global mean
T in the last 2 years).
Working on a press release with MOHC about the Nature paper.
We’ve been though page proofs with Nature, but these don’t yet include figs.

Jimmy Haigh
November 21, 2009 3:22 pm

There is a long series of e-mails in 1233245601.txt. About half way down there is this snippet (Ben writing to Rick):
“Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
out of being wrong.”

Robert Wood of Canada
November 21, 2009 3:29 pm

Looking at the other files, there’s a 13MByte file “master.dat”. Hmmm???

mkurbo
November 21, 2009 3:31 pm

Shurley Knot – I want to address your thinking…
A few days into January of the year 2000 the Y2K “epidemic” looked silly in hindsight. This may not be the tipping event for AGW, but all the data (scientific, political and public opinion) reflects that we are closer to the “tipping” point today then anytime in the last twenty (20) years. If you cannot accept that, then you are part of the hoax and that is unfortunate.
So much good could have been accomplished around the world with all the time, money and effort wasted on the AGW scam. Personally, I find the indoctrination and fear mongering of the children to be the most criminally negligent aspect of the AGW gang…

Robert Wood of Canada
November 21, 2009 3:32 pm

Yep, seems to be temp data from around the world.

Paul James
November 21, 2009 3:33 pm

My my my, what ugly things you find when you lift a rock.
The investigation needs to be completed. Preliminary analysis indicates that their bunker mentality has lead them to commit serious errors. Personal and Professional. If that is true then the perpetrators of this scheme need to be severely punished to the full extent that the law and their peers allow.
Everyone who has taken organized personal abuse and been obstructed by these people and hung in there should be mightily proud.
One thing that strikes me as a citizen of the US is that if Copenhagen could be signed and enforced then as a US Citizen if I exceeded my quota of CO2 while carrying out perfectly legal activities, such as living, I would be subject to paying money to the US Government for it. That money would then be handed by them to an outside unelected and unchallengeable authority.
That being the case a user fee tax is being charged within the US on behalf of that outside unelected and unchallengeable authority.
I seem to remember that “Taxation without Representation” was a concept abhorent to the people here. Perhaps it will be again.

exlurker
November 21, 2009 3:35 pm

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=127&filename=933255789.txt
“From: Adam Markham
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, n.sheard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: mrae@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so
far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
beefed up if possible.
They regard an increased likelihood of even 50%
of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a
particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public
splash on this they need something that will get good support from
CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
“The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999,
p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam”

jef
November 21, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: Steve Hempell
I don’t know if anyone else has posted on this as I haven’t had the opportunity to scan all the comments.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php
When I read this it seemed to me to be a devastating commentary on the state of dendrochronology and the “team” in particular.
Yes, I ‘ve read both of the commentaries at PowerLineblog. They really show what a good attorney can do with a stack of emails and a narrative.
Compelling stuff….both (so far) are a must read.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php

steven mosher
November 21, 2009 3:40 pm

Everyone needs to listen up about this debate. POUND on the FOI issue.
Pound on it. why? because the technical issues ( manns trick) and the science issues ( model sensitivites, SSTs ) all of those issues are PLAYING ON THEIR BATTLEFIELD. you get that. their battlefield. Even if you are right, you lose because they own the journals. get that. They own the journals and the battle of science is fought there UNTIL we reform the journals. our battlefield is FOI.
the battlefield we can win on is FOI. free the data; free the code; free the debate. Without the data you can’t debate effectively. without the code, same thing. If you attack on the science they will always have a defense. But they have no defense, no credible defense, to transparency in science. Science depends on it. Focus your efforts on the FOI issues.
They get it. That is why they try to change the rules for AR5.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=998&filename=1249045162.txt

David
November 21, 2009 3:40 pm

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=927&filename=.txt
“”Hi Phil
> >
> > Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a
> public talk and
> > noted
> > that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or
> so and 2008
> > doesn’t look too hot.
> >
> > Anticipating the sceptics latching on to this soon, if they
> haven’t done
> > already, has anyone had a good look at the large-scale circulation
> > anomalies
> > over this period? I haven’t noticed anything consistent
> coming up in the
> > annual climate reviews but then I wasn’t really looking.
> >
> > Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!
> >
> > Hope all’s well with you
> >
> Mick

November 21, 2009 3:45 pm

Ugh…
I have a heads up for those harping on “hiding the decline in temperature”.
It’s will be easily argued that it’s not really temperature.
It can be claimed with some confidence that it instead refers to the recent decline in tree ring proxy data in which rings do match T early century, but later fail to do so, resulting in the plot of tree ring widths to decline as thermometer data trends up. That this “divergence problem” has been published about by Briffa in ‘Nature’ means claims of a cover up are easy to deny.
So if you want to keep using Jones’ quote as being damaging I suggest saying they were trying to hide the fact that their temperature proxy graphs decline but beware of accusing them of trying to hide the face that thermometer graphs have declined. Otherwise they can too easily win in a public debate about this.
Searching for ‘the decline’ I get these as other relevant use of “the decline”:
(1) This levelling is coincident with the
>> start of a density decline – we have a paper coming out in Nature
>> documenting the decline. In relative terms (i.e. by comparison with
>> increasing summer temperatures) the decline is represented in the ring
>> width and basal area data as a levelling off in the long-timescale inrease
>> ( which you only see when you process the data as we have). [Briffa]
(2) The Nature paper on the decline story is now officially accepted and I still hope it may come out before Christmas or at least shortly afterwards. [Briffa]
(3) (Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.) [Jones]

David
November 21, 2009 3:46 pm

“Mick Kelly wrote:
> Jenny
> UEA should send the final invoice on the old contract within a day or two. I
> am trying to see it before it goes to check it is for the right amount. In
> case I fail and it’s not the right amount
, please let me know asap!
> Thanks
> Mick ”
Red flag. Mick Kelly is an interesting character in this….

tokyoboy
November 21, 2009 3:47 pm

This may have been already cleared, but I now have no time to scan all the postings, so anyone please tell me (exactly or roughly) how many files were there in the hacked body. Thanks.

ron from Texas
November 21, 2009 3:50 pm

Some have said (at realclimate) that this is simply the common banal chatter between scientists. Maybe so, but it doesn’t disprove that they specifically did conceal evidence and that they refused to operate in good faith and with due diligence, and that they did manipulate data that was”inconvenient” to the conclusions they were “expecting.” For me, the AGW CO2 theory was bogus on the basis of simple physics and thermodynamics, machiavellian emails through CRU, or not. Their conclusions and that of the IPCC were simply bad science and were for the use of political and monetary gain. That is, I felt the theory was busted before these current revelations. It’s almost a denoument for me, as I expected something like this would happen, sooner or later. Not necessarily through hacking, if it was a hack. Or if the hacker was an “inside” person who had enough of the deceit and covert operations in what should be the science of the planet, literally and figuratively, especially as several governments are considering economic and political suicide based on this pile of bovine excrement.
One caveat, for myself, I suppose. When I was learning science in school, this was back when they taught science, not politics and religion. So, those younger than I am may have had a different view and all I can do is invite them to read. Go to the old library and look for science books with original copyright dating back to at least the 80’s or earlier, in order to learn physics without the Al Gore tint.

vukcevic
November 21, 2009 3:51 pm

Hi Paul, tallbloke
Paul Vaughan (15:18:21) :
Re: tallbloke (12:22:28)
It could also be important to search “1976″, “climate shift”, “regime shift”, “arctic dipole”, “dipole anomaly”, “2007″, etc.
I have searched under ‘magnetic’ and this is only significant entry (all in capitals!!!):
From: Tom Wigley
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: past 1000 yr
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:58:16 -0600
WE SAY *NO* LOW FREQ FORCING. C-14/Be-10 ARE PROXIES FOR MAGNETIC FIELD CHANGES. THERE IS NO ADEQUATE THEORY RELATING THESE TO LUMINOSITY CHANGES — IN FACT THEORY SUGGESTS THEY ARE *NOT* RELATED. SO WE ARE SUGGESTING A DIFFERENT FORCING HISTORY, WITH IMPLICATIONS AS IN THE FIGURE. NO SOLAR-INDUCED LIA, IN ACCORD WITH THE PROXY CLIMATE RECONSTRUXIONS. FURTHER, THERE IS SOME RECENT WORK SUGGESTING THAT PART OF THE C-14/Be-10 CHANGESW ARE DUE TOCHZNGES IN THE *EARTH’S* MAGNETIC FIELD.

Patrick G
November 21, 2009 3:52 pm

Something came to me while reading some of these emails.
Does anybody else get the feeling that this collection of files and emails is EXACTLY the type of material that someone would want to claim as being “lost” or “destroyed” so as to be withheld from an FOI request?
Almost as if this particular batch of material was rounded up from the UEA servers and sequestered away. I haven’t read all the emails, but is there anything in this which ISN’T controversial?

Jim
November 21, 2009 3:58 pm

*****************************
t-bird (09:28:05) :
This is amazing. I just searched for ‘Penn State’ and in the first e-mail there’s talk of how 50-year smoothing wipes out the effect they’re looking for.
Filename: 1168883146.txt
If my first search and first click turned up ’science in action’, how much is there in this archive?
********************************
I know it would be noisier, but why not just do a decadal average, the plot the averages centered a the middle of the decade? This would get rid of the end effects. The current decade could just be averaged to see where it approximately lands. All this statistical mumbo-jumbo is part of the problem here.

vukcevic
November 21, 2009 3:58 pm

For systematic access to all emails in blocks of 10 start with :
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/cruemails2.php

Keith Minto
November 21, 2009 4:01 pm

Now if the the search word or phrase could be ‘cached’or highlighted (Google style) THAT would be a big help in searching.

Aligner
November 21, 2009 4:02 pm

O/T … Now the whole world has sprung a leak:
Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment
Well what a surprise. Can someone run down to the nearest hardware mart and buy a couple dozen pipe joiners? Looks like we’re gonna need ’em.

Shurley Knot
November 21, 2009 4:03 pm

>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:08:22 +0100
>To: “Rob Wilson” , “Rosanne D’Arrigo”
>
>From: Tim Osborn
>Subject: Re: Fw: D’Arrigo et al, submitted
>Cc:
>
>Dear Rob and Rosanne,
>
>I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as IPCC
>reviewer!
The data archiving issues are a separate issue because I
>think there’s no need for the data you used to be publicly available
>until the paper is actually published, and I would hope that the
>editor would respond appropriately. But the other comments could
>clearly influence the editorial/review process and this is very
>unfair when your paper has already been reviewed by
>others. McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper
>was published if he wished to criticize certain aspects, and that is
>the route he should have followed. He tried to stop publication of
>a paper that I was a co-author on
, Rutherford et al. (2005), by
>contacting the editor of J. Climate with various criticisms –
>fortunately the editor told him firmly that the route to take was to
>submit a comment after publication. However, in our case the paper
>was already in press. In your case, with the editor’s decision
>still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to
>influence the decision in your case – and this certainly should not happen.
Police! That man is interfering with the peer review system!

Glenn
November 21, 2009 4:04 pm

Smokey (14:24:38) :
……………
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1853
“It may have escaped your notice, but I am not Phil Jones, neither is Mike Mann, and nor is anyone else associated with the RealClimate.”
…all he is really saying is that he is not Phil Jones, and neither is anyone else.]”
Except Phil Jones, no one else by the name of Phil Jones “associated with” realclimate. It may have escaped Gavin’s notice that the poster he replied to was not speaking to and did not mention Gavin by name, nor did he refer to Gavin.
In (#587) poster Biff Larkin asked “So, are you RealClimate guys going to let Steve McIntyre have a look at your data or not?”
In (#604) he asked about “The data that Jones says he would rather destroy then turn over to McIntyre.” That’s when Gavin tries to disassociate Jones from the “group”, IMO the “Hockey Team”, and to distance realclimate from the controversy:
“I stress that this has absolutely nothing to do with anyone at RealClimate”.
So who is “associated” with realclimate, and why would it not be reasonable to ask about Jones in a post submitted by the “group”?
“From: Phil Jones
To: Michael Mann , Tim Osborn , Malcom Hughes
Subject: Re: draft of Yamal RealClimate post
Date: Thu Oct 1 10:56:44 2009
Cc: Gavin Schmidt ”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1031&filename=.txt
“Here are a few important mods to your piece. Don’t mention Keith has been off ill.
Remove the bit about provenance and about access to more data. We’ll go into the latter in the longer bit next week. We’ll send the piece we’re putting up later – or give you the link. Rest of your piece is great – especially the bit on how science should be done. Keith has also picked up in the bit we’ll post that McIntyre has put in the caveats but lets others say the outrageous things in comments or on other blogs.”
Here’s the post “Hey Ya (mal)”, submitted by “group”:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/#more-1184

DRE
November 21, 2009 4:14 pm

Just as soon as it is backup and running, everybody go and donate some $ to Climate Audit so Steve can buy a second gerbil for his server!

November 21, 2009 4:14 pm

Ah, I’m getting it now. Whew!
Indeed they are not trying to hide the recent decline in temperature, either the 40s-70s one or the 1998-present one. They are trying to hide the fact that their hockey sticks only have alarmingly straight handles compared to modern years if they include proxies that utterly fail as proxies in modern years, for which they have NO explanation except that perhaps stressed trees in certain locations may have matched 50 early century years of temperatures by chance alone (!). So what they are trying to hide is in fact much worse than hiding a decline in temperature. What they are trying to hide when they say “hide the decline” is that their hockey sticks are broken since they fall apart (the handle curves too much to have the blade alarm people) if they don’t use very inconvenient data that declines in value, meaning fails to track temperature.
They are trying to hide the fact that their key data series fail to track temperature.

Shurley Knot
November 21, 2009 4:15 pm

From: “Tim Osborn”
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [Fwd: Re: data request to SCIENCE for 1120514]
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 08:22:22 -0000 (GMT)
Reply-to: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Keith – see below. I bet it won’t be the end of the episode! – Tim
—————————- Original Message —————————-
Subject: Re: data request to SCIENCE for 1120514
From: “Jesse Smith”
Date: Mon, March 6, 2006 8:03 pm
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
————————————————————————–
Dear Dr. Osborn,
Thank you for your clear and careful response to the requests made by
Dr. McIntyre, which we forwarded to you: it was quite satisfactory, we
believe, and will greatly help Brooks (Hanson) in crafting his reply to
Dr. McIntyre. I hope that this will be the end of this episode, but if
it is not, we will be in touch again.
—–
They invent titles as easily as they invent data — the warmists can’t help themselves!

David
November 21, 2009 4:18 pm

NikFromNYC (15:45:24) :
You are the one harping on the decline email. Mike’s nature trick is actually the subject of a post on this blog, perhaps you should be commenting there?

Nic
November 21, 2009 4:21 pm

Subject to moderator permission;
The first 10 who send an e-mail to crufoifile@live.co.uk may receive a reply with a large attachment.
(Mod – snip if this breaks your rules)

Aligner
November 21, 2009 4:23 pm

Link to ‘The Times’ article on UK News front page dropped into oblivion and replaced with this:
Climate change to lash Britain with tropical storms
… but note the comments. LOL!

Stephen Shorland
November 21, 2009 4:27 pm

RE: ‘Billy Mitchell’ in regards to the 6 sigma event mentioned in my previous post.Is he a climatologist or not? Or are they using the famous Airforce Flyer’s name as meaning ‘Blowing the theory out of the water’? I want to go to bed,it’s a simple question?

Arthur Glass
November 21, 2009 4:27 pm

If Lord Monckton tells Bonnie Prince Charlie he’s gaga, is that peer review?
Down with the Illuminati!

Paul Vaughan
November 21, 2009 4:31 pm

Re: mark_d (15:15:30)
Good find. As I suspected, EOP, aa, & other factors continue to appear to be completely off their radars. They are focused on British vs. USA navy ships, buckets, volcanoes, atmospheric chemistry, etc. and appear completely oblivious to the layers of confounding — several major global variables went through major changes around 1945 — perhaps it is inconvenient to look carefully at all major variables.
Bob Tisdale: I hope you are following mark_d’s posts.

Arthur Glass
November 21, 2009 4:33 pm

The real Bonnie Prince Charlie was a Scot and a Stuart, as opposed to this Hanoverian Pretender.
‘Down with the Illuminati’ still stands.

Aligner
November 21, 2009 4:34 pm
DocMartyn
November 21, 2009 4:35 pm

This is rather good as an example of silencing the ‘deniers’
Alleged CRU Email – 1051190249.txt
From: Tom Wigley
To: Timothy Carter
Subject: Re: Java climate model
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
Cc: Mike Hulme , Phil Jones
Tim,
I know about what Matthews has done. He did so without contacting Sarah
or me. He uses a statistical emulation method that can never account for
the full range of uncertainties. I would not trust it outside the
calibration zone — so I doubt that it can work well for (e.g.)
stabilization cases. As far as I know it has not been peer reviewed.
Furthermore, unless he has illegally got hold of the TAR version of the
model, what he has done can only be an emulation of the SAR version.
Personally, I regard this as junk science (i.e., not science at all).
Matthews is doing the community a considerable disservice.
Tom.
PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the
editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame — he encourages the
publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach
is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their
journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation
under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since
whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is
how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to
sign such a letter — 50+ people.
Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.
Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not
work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually
fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer,
etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so
the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

Shurley Knot
November 21, 2009 4:37 pm


thanks Tim,
I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to
NCAR, NSF, NAS, IPCC and everyone else. Rest assured that I won’t ever
respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you
any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way…
I hope you’re having as nice a spring as we are here. See you in June?
mike

—-
That’s DOCTOR BOZO to you, “mike”, if that is your real name.


> Hi Phil,
>
> This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
> for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
> facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They
> can’t take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
> thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
> entirely compromised.



Folks, is this true??? Please say it ain’t so!

ET
November 21, 2009 4:40 pm

Politics lead science
With regard to refs – remember that our goal is to cut the number of references significantly. Since this is an assessment and not a review, we can delete all but the most recent and comprehensive references. I don’t like cutting out the original refs any more than you, but we just don’t have room, and its more important to have text than exhaustive references. Our colleagues will hopefully understand, and if they don’t then they need to do an ego check. It’s more important that we make an impact with policy makers rather than with citation indices. 1120014836.txt
Wipe the slate clean, eh?
Subject: Re: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 18:51:01 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike,
We’ll differ a bit on a few points, but let’s wipe the slate clean and get back to improving our estimates of past changes over the last millennium. I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over here makes that easier than in the US – but I would ignore the so-called skeptics until they get to the peer-review arena. I know this is harder for you in the US and it might become harder still at your new location. I guess it shows though that what we are doing in important. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle.
Cheers
Phil
926031061.txt
This “cheat” sounds like it is about presentation.
Grey shading is a little cheat from Santer et al using a trusty ruler. See Figure 3.B in this paper, take the absolute range of model scaling factors at each of the heights on the y-axis and apply this scaling to HadCRUT3 tropical mean trend denoted by the star at the surface. So, if we assume HadCRUT3 is correct then we are aiming for the grey shading or not depending upon one’s pre-conceived notion as to whether the models are correct.1200010023.txt

Paul Vaughan
November 21, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: vukcevic (15:51:49)
This is certainly very interesting in light of Barkin’s work.
Related:
Coverage of the recent UK floods in Canada has focused on the lack of warning. This makes me wonder if UK news agencies are blocking release of info about Piers Corbyn’s predictions, which were made 100 days in advance.
The cover-up of natural influences on climate is falling apart.

November 21, 2009 4:45 pm

Mosh, please write a post for Steve or WUWT or tAV. Get all those lucid moments clearly together, what you are saying is important.
Thanks.
Everyone, please note CA mirror site now at http://camirror.wordpress.com/

Patrik
November 21, 2009 4:45 pm

This one is pretty interresting. One gets to read about the origins of paleodata inclusion in the public information contributions from the team:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=75&filename=907695513.txt
From: Keith Briffa
To: Jonathan T. Overpeck
Date: Tue Oct 6 13:38:33 1998
“My first comment is that I agree with all of your general remarks and with your implied rebuke to Phil that we should be very wary of seeming to dam certain proxies and over hype others when we all know that there are real strengths and weaknesses associted with them all. The truth is that all of this group are well aware of this and of the associated fact that even within each of these sub-disciplines e.g. Dendro, coral etc. there is a large range of value , or concern with the external usage of our data. However, my own and Phil’s concerns are motivated ,like yourself, by the outside world’s inability to appreciate these points and the danger that we will all be seen as uncritical or niave about the real value of proxy data. The rationale for the recent Jones et al paper, and some things that I have written in the past is to inform would be users , particularly the modellers, that there are critical questions to be addressed about how the palaeo-data are best used in a ‘detection’ or ‘model validation’ context.”
“Your question about Jasper, the sample depth, in my opinion , IS responsible for the early high values. So don’t put much faith in the early warmth. We have devised a simple method of scaling down the variance in average series to take account of the inflated variance that occurs when a reduced number of series are averaged – such as at the start of this chronology . We used this in our recent Nature paper looking at a possible volcanic signal in the density data averaged over the northern network. Ed has incorporated this in the latest version of his super tree-ring standardisation/chronolgy construction program , but it was not used in the Jasper work .”

dave_downunder
November 21, 2009 4:49 pm

Searching for ‘Eyes only’ and ‘reconstruction errors’ brings up some pretty dubious behavior by all invloved.

Gregg E.
November 21, 2009 4:52 pm

What this archive of incriminating evidence shows is that people who are up to no good still haven’t learned the historical lesson that when up to no good you *should not keep records of your malfeasance*.
This is one that ought to be in the “Evil Overlord List”. 😉
Especially good is the e-mail where Mann says “Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP.” which is in reference to the first big break against the AGW fraud when the data on creating the phony “hockey stick” was discovered on an unsecured FTP server.
My bet on this is for an inside job where someone had an attack of conscience, integrity and honesty and decided to let the world outside know what really goes on under the umbrella of “science”.
If it was an outside hack, then whomever was in charge of the server that got hacked was negligent. BSD, Linux, Unix and systems like them aren’t that difficult to secure, especially when they’re set up for a dedicated purpose like a mail server or relay rather than as a general purpose operating system.

Editor
November 21, 2009 4:54 pm

Here’s a funny article on the hacked emails from TreeHugger, which is a mouthpiece for the Warmists:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/climate-emails-hacked.php
“Check out emails between climate scientists stored on servers at the University of East Anglia that showed not a plot but perhaps too much information-sharing on climate change between scientists.”
Clearly the biggest impediment to advancing our understanding of Earth’s climate system is “too much information-sharing on climate change between scientists.”…

crabby & cross
November 21, 2009 4:54 pm

Absent a return to dueling, I urge resolving these matters with a worldwide gauntlet of wiffleball bats.

November 21, 2009 4:54 pm

I have solved the “divergence problem” of tree rings not matching recent temperature that The Hockey Stick Team is trying so to hard to “hide the decline” of during a period of temperature incline.
If I ignore other growth factors than temperature and I merely look at a plot not over time but of thermometer recorded temperature vs. tree growth I suddenly discover the not exactly surprising result that cold-adapted very long living trees do not grow very well when temperatures rise *too* far from those warmer Ts they actually do better in.
Now take this response-to-temperature relation and plug into it a perfect historical temperature record going back a few thousand years (but not long enough for trees to adapt along the way) then very warm periods like those of the present day will appear as COLD years if you idiotically call tree ring widths a linear proxy of T.
That’s the exact message of the “divergence problem”. They are looking for external factors, can’t find any (!) and so say they don’t understand it yet. They are ignoring the obvious explanation that their crucial data sets, the only ones that give alarming instead of merely suggestive results, are NEGATIVELY effected by HOT temperatures as much as they are positively effected by merely warm ones.
So in Nerd Word, Fox News’s headline would actually have more punch:
“Leaked e-mails from British research center include reference to plan to hide the glaring non-linearity of cold stressed trees to temperature.”

David Harper
November 21, 2009 4:58 pm

I just saw this post on Real Climate.
———————————————–
I am sorry that you have to waste your time answering the misconceptions that have arisen from this theft. I am sure you have better things to do than to justify your working methods. (post continues)
———————————————–
That is the kind of thinking that’s going on over there.

Robinson
November 21, 2009 5:01 pm

In other news (yea, there has been other news!), you’ve missed CERN starting up the CLOUD experiment Anthony.

Bill Illis
November 21, 2009 5:02 pm

Does anyone have a secure system/setup and want to take a chance on the offer made above by Nic (16:21:44) :
There could be more.

Robinson
November 21, 2009 5:08 pm

Nik, I look forward to your guest blog on this. A literature search on the divergence problem would help though, just in case it’s been covered previously (although obviously as the peer review system is gamed, I don’t expect you’ll find anything relevant in the published literature!).

Glenn
November 21, 2009 5:10 pm

Shurley Knot (16:37:42) :
“thanks Tim,
I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to
NCAR, NSF, NAS, IPCC and everyone else. Rest assured that I won’t ever
respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you
any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way…
mike”
Interesting that Mann is willing and intends to share private email with others, without even being asked. That’s a no-no.

littlepeaks
November 21, 2009 5:18 pm

Hi all–
I work for the USGS. Out of curiousity, I did a search on “USGS”. Was kind of surprised to find this from Bob Keeland:
I guess that my point is that climate continues to fluctuate within
broad bounds. Everything that we are now calling ‘climate change’ is
well within the bounds observed within the prehistoric record of climate
fluctuations. Do we call any variation ‘climate change’ or should we
limit the term climate change for anything considered to be caused by
humans? To my mind it is not so much what we call it, but rather that
we keep a clear idea of what we actually talking about.
Bob Keeland
USGS, National Wetlands Research Center
Lafayette, LA
bob_keeland@xxxx
Other interesting search terms to enter are “Bush” and “Obama”.

Patrik
November 21, 2009 5:19 pm

It’s on Wikipedia now:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
“emerging scandal”
Also, the largest news paper web edition, aftonbladet.se, had it on the top of their first page today.

Gregg E.
November 21, 2009 5:20 pm

Oouch. Irony.
Thomas L. Friedman’s latest column.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1258852196-dv8o23NFDuyu/rAHNB/aBQ
I hope his inbox is getting flooded with these damning e-mails. I see he also is ranting about “overpopulation”. Only in a few large cities. A little simple math shows that the entire world population would fit inside the borders of Texas with nearly two-thousand square feet of space for each person. Take the total *land* surface area of Earth – there’s around 81 billion 2K square foot chunks. Want to know how much space each person currently on Earth would have were they evenly spread over the land, even just the parts commonly called livable? Do the math yourself.
Earth is *huge*. The problem, such as it is, is in the utilization and distribution. Responsible use and care-taking of resources would address things, but the leftist response it to lock up resources with the intention that they should never ever be tapped. “For future generations” is a lie, “Never to be used” is what they really mean.

Aligner
November 21, 2009 5:21 pm

O/T Daniel Hannan in the Telepraph…
Herman Van Rompuy: today the EU, tomorrow the world!

Michael
November 21, 2009 5:25 pm

Phil Jones seems to have an issue with,
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
> Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
> Hull University
> Editor, Energy&Environment
> Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk),
Phil says this to Graham F Haughton when he learns of the e-mail she sent to Stephanie Ferguson;
“Dear Professor Haughton,
> The email below was brought to my attention
>by the help desk of UKCP09 – the new set of UK
>climate scenarios developed for DEFRA. It was
>sent by the person named in the header of this
>email. I regard this email as very malicious. Dr
>Boehmer-Christiansen states that it is beyond her
>expertise to assess the claims made. If this is
>the case then she shouldn’t be sending malicious
>emails like this. The two Canadians she refers
>to have never developed a tree-ring chronology in
>their lives and McIntyre has stated several times
>on his blog site that he has no aim to write up
>his results for publication in the peer-review literature.
> I’m sure you will be of the same opinion as
>me that science should be undertaken through the
>peer-review literature as it has been for over
>300 years. The peer-review system is the
>safeguard science has developed to stop bad science being published.”
Perhaps it was the 1st paragraph of Dr. Sonja’s e-mail to Stephanie that rattled Phil’s cage, that went like this;
“Dear Stephanie
>
> I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work
>is based on the data provided by CRU (as does the
>work of the IPCC and of course UK climate
>policy). Some of this, very fundamentally, would
>now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and
>may even face future legal enquiries. It may be
>in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good
>time and become a little more ‘uncertain’ about its policy advice.
Phil seems to be the muscle behind the operation, strong arming people into submission. Read all the sorted details here;
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt

Shurley Knot
November 21, 2009 5:26 pm


From: Ben Santer
To: Smithg
Subject: Re: data request
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:33:53 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mr. Smith,
Please do not lecture me on “good science and replicability”. Mr.
McIntyre had access to all of the primary model and observational data
necessary to replicate our results. Full replication of our results
would have required Mr. McIntyre to invest time and effort. He was
unwilling to do that.
Our results were published in a peer-reviewed publication (the
International Journal of Climatology). These results were fully
available for “independent testing and replication by others”. Indeed, I
note that David Douglass et al. performed such independent testing and
replication in their 2007 International Journal of Climatology paper.
Douglass et al. used the same primary climate model data that we
employed. They did what Mr. McIntyre was unwilling to do – they
independently calculated estimates of “synthetic” Microwave Sounding
Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate model data. The Douglass et al.
“synthetic” MSU temperatures are very similar to our own. The scientific
differences between the Douglass et al. and Santer et al. results are
primarily related to the different statistical tests that the two groups
employed in their comparisons of models and observations. Demonstrably,
the Douglass et al. statistical test contains several serious flaws,
which led them to reach incorrect inferences regarding the level of
agreement between modeled and observed temperature trends.
Mr. McIntyre could easily have examined the appropriateness of the
Douglass et al. statistical test and our statistical test with
randomly-generated data (as we did in our paper). Mr. McIntyre chose not
to do that. He preferred to portray himself as a victim of evil
Government-funded scientists. A good conspiracy theory always sells well.
Mr. Smith, you chose to take the extreme step of writing to LLNL and DOE
management to complain about my “unresponsiveness” and my failure to
provide data to Mr. McIntyre. You made your complaint on the basis of
the information available on Mr. McIntyre’s blog. You did not understand
– and still do not understand – that the primary model data used in our
paper have always been freely available to any scientific researcher,
and are currently being used by many hundreds of scientists around the
world. Any competent climate scientist could perform full replication of
our calculation of “synthetic” MSU temperatures – as Douglass et al.
have already done.
Your email to George Miller and Anna Palmisano was highly critical of my
behavior in this matter. Your criticism was entirely unjustified, and
damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in
establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in
the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or
post it on Mr. McIntyre’s blog.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ben Santer


omg please don’t tell me my tax dollars are funding this guy’s arrogance!
Folks, I have to say, as an impartial average person, though of uncommon beauty, that reading this archive … to be honest, I think you’ve shot yourselves in the collective foot.

Editor
November 21, 2009 5:27 pm

The Wall Street Journal has taken an interest in this story and they seem to be shifting to a more skpetical stance:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

April E. Coggins
November 21, 2009 5:32 pm

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=762&filename=1167928837.txt
Attached is the Met Office forecast for 2007. It seems that I’m
getting the credit for this in the media. All I did was talk to the
Independent about what I thought 2007 had in store weatherwise. With an El Nino going on, I thought it might be a record and just trotted off the typical
things that happen in El Nino years.
Cheers
Phil

Which led to this alarming article to be printed:
World faces hottest year ever, as El Niño combines with global warming
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-faces-hottest-year-ever-as-el-nintildeo-combines-with-global-warming-430407.html

rbateman
November 21, 2009 5:40 pm

Paul Vaughan (16:41:16) :
I too am concerned that the AGW soapbox had occluded any attention to events that should have resulted in preparedness. There is much callousness in regards to populations. Perhaps that is the decision they felt they had to make in order to secure their agenda.
From hot-proposal doc:
Quality of science
Participation improves the quality of science as the inclusion of all different viewpoints prevents misuse of science and maintains science’s integrity
Participation does not improve the quality of science, as stakeholders lack a reasonable level of knowledge to participate effectively, and are not capable of rational judgement
Legitimacy of science
Participation contributes to the legitimacy of science, as all stakeholders are capable of a rational judgement on an issue that is of their concern
Participation threatens the scientific integrity, as stakeholders only look after their own interests
Legitimacy of democracy
Participation legitimates democracy as it enhances popular sovereignty and political equality
Participation threatens democracy as it conflicts with legal procedures and rights
Quality of decision-making
Participation enhances the quality of decision-making as it enables decision-makers to take into account all the relevant perspectives on an issue, and improves implementation
Participation is an obstacle to decision-making as there are no objective selection criteria for participation. Furthermore, it tends to worsen conflict and raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled
Table 2: Overview of different views on participation
Looking through various emails, I come to the conclusion that the human race in general is being sneered at/looked down upon as ‘pedestrian’.
Participation in thier process is decidedly exclusive.

marnot
November 21, 2009 5:42 pm

I was wondering do these emails provide sufficient grounds for defamed scientists Like Pat Michaels, Von Sotch or Neibitz to take legal action acgainst Journals and individuals who have acted against them to exclude their publications and pressure their resisnation from editorial posts? Also has there been a restraint of trade? Have the individuals been materially disadvantaged by false accusations.

Roger Knights
November 21, 2009 5:45 pm

Juraj V. (08:44:03) :
Thank you again, Mr Gore, for inventing the internet.

Touché!
============
vulgarmorality (08:46:08) :
This isn’t about data but about politics – and not really about politics but about a certain mindset. Many scientists have succumbed to the temptation to became Platonic guardians, telling the rest of us how we must life. See
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/the-scientist-as-political-guardian/

They are the psychological type that wants to “play parent.” (From the book I’m OK, You’re OK.) Their stance is “I’m OK, You’re Not OK,” which makes them feel “One Up” and in control. (A compensation for God-knows-what pathetic complex or anxiety.)
============
“Dr. Jones said his H-index ( an index indicating how significant one’s scientific papers have been) is about 52 …”
Could someone check out (skeptic) Dr. Akasofu’s H-index? I’ve heard he’s the 12th most cited scientist in the world.

Nemesis
November 21, 2009 5:47 pm

BBC radio 4 covered the story on their midnight news and Roger Harrabin did a total white wash. Id like to see the the BBC go down with these so-called scientists.

kuhnkat
November 21, 2009 5:50 pm

Shirley Knot,
does the term USEFUL IDIOT mean anything to you??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

November 21, 2009 5:50 pm

Let’s game plan this. The hacker is likely to have gigs of emails, and might release 200 megs a fortnight. Mann, Jones etc have to presume that every email they ever wrote will be drip fed into the public domain.
Mann, Jones etc won’t get any respect on their public outings from here on. There is at least one book in this. It will be a “Caspar and the Jesus Paper” writ large. I think it is Bishop Hill’s job to write the book.

Roger Knights
November 21, 2009 5:52 pm

Here’s to the whistle-blower:
“And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”

David Schnare
November 21, 2009 5:59 pm

The Christian Science Monitor just put up a story. They use the “tempest in a teapot” line, giving you an immediate idea on how they are playing the story. They do, however, quote both Pielke Sr. and Christy on this mess.
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/21/hacked-climate-emails-conspiracy-or-tempest-in-a-teapot/

Editor
November 21, 2009 6:03 pm

If there is anyone reading here who has not yet voted in the Science Museum Prove It! poll, which asks you to send a strong message to the UK Government in advance of the Copenhagen Conference, you can find it here:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
If you want the full story behind that poll, this thread makes interesting reading:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/
By all means, let them know you’ve seen the evidence. Let your legislators know.

Jim
November 21, 2009 6:03 pm

*******************
Paul Vaughan (15:18:21) :
Basically I’m hoping people are digging for more than just gossip items while this info is still available.
*************************
This info will be available when the Sun goes red giant and global warming becomes a reality.

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 6:04 pm

Lucy Skywalker (13:49:13) :
….not yet the end of the war.
But the Russians are moving toward Berlin.

David Schnare
November 21, 2009 6:05 pm

The Google New Aggregator is now covering the story, indicated over 200 news stories available at this point.
The Wall Street Journal article is a well balanced piece that reaches into the more serious problems raised by these emails.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 6:13 pm

Smokey (14:24:38) :
Actually, if you read the sentence closely, you will see that Gavin is prevaricating…
O, there will be a lot of tap