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”.
Interesting stuff.
NOTE: Link updated to new website on 1/23/10
Hi moderators – I just posted a list of Emails from John Daly (those old Emails do have something worthwhile!), but it appears it was eaten by the spam checker. Can you rescue it so people have a chance of seeing it before it gets swamped in this mass of comments?
Thanks. So much for Saturday being a slow day, huh?
Oh dang – it just occurred to me that cutting and pasting stuff from http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php looses the obfuscated Email addresses (they get swallowed by the HTML parser). I’ll try to remember to replace occurrences of “<” with “&<“. (I hope I got that string right and displayable.)
Oops – how about “<”?
Re: Robinson (17:01:40)
Good find:
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2009/11/cern-cloud-experiment-starts-up.html
“Clouds are one of the biggest factors in determining global surface temperature, but the UN’s IPCC admits the level of scientific understanding of them is poor.”
This quote is suitable for inclusion in a professionally-produced, tasteful television ad.
An observation:
Mann and Jones may yet find themselves under the bus and over time may not be able to redeem themselves at their previous stature. In large part they were pawns to a more ominous game plan. Check out http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
If this site is correct, and I don’t have information why it isn’t credible, folk like Mann and Jones and Hansen are the scientific veneer to a much greater political scheme with direct ties back to Al Gore and a high quality public relations campaign. This issue will be dealt with the political wiz-bang of any ruthless national expose. These people are expendable to preserve the political objective. Realclimate will survive, as will a strong AGW campaign. Other “scientists”, will be found to step forward, as deemed necessary by Environmental Media Services and Fenton Communications (one in the same – Al Gore) who is running this campaign.
Count on it.
Hell hath no fury like a dogmatist scorned.
From: Tom Wigley
To: santer
Dear all,
I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to
be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but
I doubt it.
In normal circumstances, what Douglass has done would cause
him to lose his job — a parallel is the South Korean cloning
fraud case.
I have suggested that someone like Chris Mooney should be
told about this.
1197325034.txt
Re: Just The Facts (17:27:27)
Very good find.
Wall Street Journal – Nov. 21, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
“[…] they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a “unified” view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to “beef up” conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a “big public splash.””
“[…] climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.”
“[…] it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science.”
“In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.”
“Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.”
They even include what appears to be a tribute to Anthony & colleagues:
“The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.”
Drudge has picked it up now, with a link to a Washington Post article. They contacted Mann, with predictible resulting quote.
Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center
Scientists’ e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html
Paul Vaughan (13:39:13) :
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
I have the current Hadley SST record on my disk and backed up. Suggest others do the same. Go to KNMI climate explorer.
Policyguy (23:26:05) :
its been known for a long time. If you want to see the PR engine at work look at some of the PR training materials in the documents folder.
There is just too much in the CRU emails to get around. I hope someone has the time to research this piece for its significance.
“—–Original Message—–
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann
Subject: Wahl/Ammann
Gene/Caspar,
Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn’t appear to be in CC’s
online first, but comes up if you search.
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it
hasn’t
changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006!
Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today.
Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those
skeptics something
to amuse themselves with.
Cheers
Phil”
That last sentence is illegal where I live.
The full text is on
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=816&filename=1189722851.txt
At 17:07 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
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
JR (19:51:55) :
note that gavin DOESNT say he will. he says he will take you seriously.
tallbloke (23:46:10) :
Paul Vaughan (13:39:13) :
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
1254147614.txt
From: Phil
To: Tom
Subject: Re: 1940s
Date: Mon Sep 28 10:20:14 2009
Cc: Ben
Tom,
A few thoughts
[1]http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/preprint/2009/pdf/10.1175_2009JCLI3089.1.pd
f
This is a link to the longer Thompson et al paper. It isn’t yet out in final form – Nov09
maybe?
[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.
Have looked at the plots. I’m told that the HadSST3 paper is fairly near to being
submitted, but I’ve still yet to see a copy. More SST data have been added for the WW2 and
WW1 periods, but according to John Kennedy they have not made much difference to these
periods.
Here’s the two ppts I think I showed in Boulder in June. These were from April 09, so
don’t know what these would look like now. SH is on the left and adjustment there seems
larger, for some reason – probably just British ships there?
Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, but the adjustments won’t reduce the 1940s
blip but enhance it. It won’t change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug
45.
I expect MOHC are looking at the NH minus SH series re the aerosols. My view is that a
cooler temps later in the 1950s and 1960s it is easier to explain.
Land warming in the 1940s and late 1930s is mainly high latitude in NH.
One other thing – MOHC are also revising the 1961-90 normals. This will likely have more
effect in the SH.
With the SH around 1910s there is the issue of exposure problems in Australia – see
Neville’s paper.
This shouldn’t be an issue in NZ – except maybe before 1880, but could be in southern
South America. New work in Spain suggest screens got renewed about 1900, so maybe this
happened in Chile and Argentina, but Mossmann was head of the Argentine NMS so he may have
got them to use Stevenson screens early.
Neville has never been successful getting any OZ funding to sort out pre-1910 temps
everywhere except Qld.
Here’s a paper in CC on European exposure problems. There is also one on Spanish series.
Cheers
Phil
tallbloke (13:47:32) :
KlausB (12:56:27) :
@ur momisugly 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.
It’s down to 274 results this morning. Has the coverup begun?
From the Washington Post article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html
Note the obligatory line, “whose group is funded in part by energy companies”. Well, BIG NEWS to the idiots out there: BOTH SIDES are funded in part by energy companies. Pointing it out for one side but not the other is bias, a particularly nasty and repulsive kind of bias. It’s a way to belittle and marginalize a person and whatever they have said.
More than anything, I would like to see this kind of bias and guided manipulation stopped. Really, it should be noted that the “other side” uses this tactic daily, in almost every article and comment regarding those who question them. I’d love to see an “honesty in reporting” law that makes it unlawful to manipulate opinions when “reporting”.
While we’re at it, wouldn’t it be interesting to see a ban on misleading reporting like: “sea levels COULD rise AS MUCH AS xxx feet by 2100”, which is deliberately crafted to leave the reader with the impression that the high number is actually expected. Also, “some scientists say” is overused… which scientists? What are their credentials? When did they say this?
Oh, another nit: the claim that “Hackers broke into” is unfounded. It’s far more likely that a whistleblower or someone internal to UEA intentionally released this material. The continued drumbeat of “hackers” marginalizes the data and focuses the great unwashed on the likelihood that what was released is “stolen” and is safe to ignore.
Policyguy (23:26:05) :
“An observation:
Mann and Jones may yet find themselves under the bus and over time may not be able to redeem themselves at their previous stature. In large part they were pawns to a more ominous game plan. Check out http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html”
Excellent reference, thank you …
I was busy trying to piece all the connections together, and PopularTechnology has already been there and marked the trees.
If you plan to kill a snake, you have to chop its head off. These emails are only the start of the trail. What needs to be shown now, is where it leads, who is really orchestrating it, where the money comes from, where it goes, and who profits.
Re: tallbloke (01:05:16)
Good find – recent too.
I still haven’t seen any evidence (including publications) that they have even the foggiest clue about EOP and the related confounding.
Anyone who has a clue about shared variance will realize how incredibly naive their ‘adjustment’ plan is.
Anything on the 1988 shift in AO/NAM?
[ For reference:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumAO70.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumDJFM_NAM.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumPDO(76,88,98).png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumGLAAM.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSum(-SOI).png ]
Robert E. Phelan (18:03:18) :
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.
If you try to press ‘Count Me Out’ straight away it shows ‘please enter a valid email address’ even if you do.ALL these Government polls are rigged.If you try to vote against Brown in a No.10 poll,your ‘confirmation email’ is days in arriving so that a torrent of instantaneous votes can’t be tallied to show how much he is disliked.
CodeTech (01:34:46) :
“… the claim that “Hackers broke into” is unfounded. It’s far more likely that a whistleblower or someone internal to UEA intentionally released this material. The continued drumbeat of “hackers” marginalizes the data and focuses the great unwashed on the likelihood that what was released is “stolen” and is safe to ignore.”
I was originally cautious about this material, thinking it could be misinformation (paranoia from a previous life). I now accept it is unaltered, so on that basis it was either hacked or leaked.
A statement from CRU that I have read, said that THE (my emphasis) server had now been taken off line pending an investigation.
If the site had been hacked, I would presume that the hackers would have access to the internal network and would have been able to remove data from other servers as well (unless CRU only has one, which I doubt). So there may be more revelations to follow …
If the information was leaked, then this is probably all that we will get. However, the person responsible would have ensured that the material achieved whatever purpose they had in mind, so what we have now would be the jewels.
It is interesting that “leaked” information is somehow better than “hacked” information. Perhaps leaking something is more honorable in the public perception.
Also the spin from the team is interesting; “The information was stolen, therefore you cannot believe it, because it may have been doctored”.
Which brings me back to my original paranoia.
tallbloke (01:11:17) :
It’s down to 274 results this morning. Has the coverup begun?
going up
11.00 am GMT :Results 1 – 10 of about 53,800 for climategate. (0.07 seconds)
” 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.”
Well, assuming this statement is roughly true (when is the ‘dawn’ of the Industrial Revolution, and in what country?), couldn’t the causality be the reverese to what is assumed here? The beginnings of industrialization involved the digging of canals and then the rapid laying of rail lines. If, say, an improvement in climatic conditions added two weeks of temps and soil conditions conducive to laying tracks (in early spring and in late fall), then the efficiency of the construction of rail networks would be enhanced.
” I’d love to see an “honesty in reporting” law that makes it unlawful to manipulate opinions when “reporting”.
You might want to think twice about the consequences of such a law for open inquiry and debate.
Caveat lector! The only news source I trust any more for the whole truth is the New York Onion.
I haven’t seen any linkage of this story with two other related scandals: the Hadley/Cru dog-ate-my-data farce of no more than a month ago, and the suggestions of the suppression of mildly dissenting science at the EPA earlier this year.
Note the quote from Roger Harribin at the BBC see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm
“The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU. Despite continuing uncertainties in some areas of climate science, they say officially that their overall confidence that humans are warming the climate is now more than 90%.
One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at 99%. ”
99% !!!! this is disgraceful bias by the BBC yet his colleague Richard Black in http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/ has the nerve to prevaricate on the details because
“Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.”
Potential legal issues!!!! Go on Richard be like Roger and quote some unofficial hearsay….or heresy.
None of the luvvies in the media in the UK or politicians here have the guts to open the debate. Happy to brainwash school kids into believing the AGW hypothesis as gospel. Happy to spend billions on solving an unsubstantiated problem. In the face of clear duplicity in these e-mails, keeping this core issue on the reputation of climate science suppressed by whatever means, obfuscation and legal claptrap.
Keep up the great work Messrs Watts, Mckintyre and co workers.