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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Andrew Bolt is a columnist for the Murdoch press in
Australia. The ABC (OZ for BBC) hate him. He has
a list of the news services that have picked up the
story
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
The list is getting quite long
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810
To quote the good professor’s website statement:
So this is quite clearly grafting one dataset onto another one and showing it as one continuous green line. Even the wording of this statement is deceiving. The green line is Briffa (1999) tree ring reconstruction. It does not “include” proxy data it IS proxy data. Proxy data that went to 1980 but was cropped at 1960 when it went the wrong way. So it is “only” proxy data 1960. The weighted mean blends the two together around that date to you don’t see the GRAFT.
The fact that these data are from totally incompatible sources : tree rings and thermometers and the fact that this “trick” makes a declining temperature into a steeply rising one makes this more than just bad practice it is clear, willful deception.
The cover graphic they provided to WMO was a deception.
I would thanks Prof Jones for his clear(ish) statement on what was done.
Since he refers to this as “Mike’s Nature trick” this would also seem to be a clear statement that this was what was done in preparing Mann’s paper in Nature to produce the hockeystick.
The graphic they presented to the world in IPCC TAR was a fraud.
Mann should not be at Penn State he should be in the state pen. !!
I wonder if the Team doesn’t feel that they have been transported back in time ‘communications-wise’. They must be having serious second thoughts about using emails to discuss how to extricate themselves from this mess. With flies on every wall now, phone booths might be looking pretty good.
Thank you Ric Werme for posting John Daly’s obituary. I’ve read everything in Daly’s “Still Waiting for Greenhouse”, but missed his obituary. Some lines from his obit:
There is little doubt in my mind that the incriminating emails were posted by an insider, for two reasons: first, because hackers normally just hack: they either destroy information, steal it to sell, or they simply post everything without comment or analysis. The emails posted here were specific, and they were posted with an explanation pointing out certain emails to readers as a starting point. Those emails show collusion to bias the public’s perception, rather than simply investigating and reporting on discoveries in climate science. The emails are almost entirely political in nature.
Also, the fact that the alarmists’ comments are uniformly the same: “It was a hacker.” “We were hacked,” etc. That is their talking point. Naturally, I’m skeptical when everyone says the same thing.
What is shown by these emails is a vicious hatred of anyone who threatens their control of the AGW meme in the slightest way. They constantly attempt to tweak the facts to fit their hypothesis, which is based almost entirely on some tree rings and which ignores or suppresses other, more credible scientific evidence.
Finally, the obvious bullying of colleagues by Michael Mann [who was, IIRC, only in his early 30’s when he published his “hockey stick”], and constant attempts to micromanage information, must have had an abrasive effect on colleagues who are sincerely working to find the actual reasons for climate fluctuations and cycles, and who might resent an upstart with such a colossal ego pushing them around and telling them what they may and may not say.
No doubt there is paranoia and frantic speculation in the alarmist community now regarding the identity of the whistleblower. They may even have a good idea as to his identity. Their problem is what to do about it. We can already see their first move: publicly state for the record that the information was ‘stolen’ by a ‘hacker’. Classic misdirection.
“It is interesting that “leaked” information is somehow better than “hacked” information. Perhaps leaking something is more honorable in the public perception.”
Except when it’s Sarah Palin’s email.
This is the end of the “New World Order” (try and search for that term too).
The global change movement would use the climate fear to build the New World Order. Without climate fear no world government CO2 tax!
I find myself wondering, if like the Andrew Breitbart strategy of releasing material on the NEA and ACORN slowly as a dare to the mainstream media to pick up on the stories before they release even more damning evidence, if the evidence in this archive is an attempt by a whistle-blower to get the mainstream media to take this issue seriously and, if they don’t, we’ll see even more damning material released in the future.
In the following story, BBC published at least one excerpt from the e-mails obtained illegally through hacking Sarah Palin’s account:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7622726.stm
Harrabin is a hypocrite. Also, search “Harrabin” in the e-mail archive. His name comes up at least once.
Smokey (07:01:05) :
It was nice seeing traces of Daly at work. For those who missed it, please check out http://www.john-daly.com/obituary.htm
In another post, I mention I’m convinced this was an inside job too, the amount of organization, filtering out the “Honey, please pick up a bottle of milk on the way home” Emails, etc are not what hacker would have done.
I’m going to refer to “the whistleblower” in future comments.
Whoever he is, he must be amazed at the reaction. There can’t be too many suspects, so I won’t be surprised if he’s caught. A defense fund will follow shortly.
Time to contact your congressional delegation. You can locate their contact information here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Sent this e-mail to mine:
By now you must be aware of the release of thousands of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University by what is probably a conscience-stricken insider. The e-mails to and from some of the leading researchers in the field and key players in the IPCC, document attempts to manipulate scientific data, control the scientific review process, subvert FOI officers, destroy materials that should have been preserved under FOI regulations to avoid release, and the use misleading and deceptive information to influence both the public at large and policy makers.
It is imperative that you get out in front of this issue and take the lead in calling for a congressional inquiry. So far, there has been muted reaction from the press, but you can find interesting articles here:
Andrew Revkin, New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hpw
Keith Johnson, Wall Street Journal
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
The British Blogger Bishop Hill has an easy-to-read summary of major issues here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
The Blogger Anthony Watts describes the on-going events here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
Jeff Id, whose The Air Vent blog was the site where the whistle-blower first announced the release of the files on a server in Russia, has a number of posts.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/
It is worth noting that Jeff was away on a hunting trip at the time and got back to find a bomb shell sitting on his blog. He removed it, but it had already been discovered by a number of readers.
The actual e-mails and documents can be found here, among other places:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php
This issue needs to be thoroughly aired in a Congressional Investigation before our nation damages its economy, security and liberty any further.
Sincerely,
son of mulder (04:00:54) “99% !!!! this is disgraceful bias by the BBC”
I interpret this as evidence that truth is 100% irrelevant to them. (I state this from the perspective of a statistics educator.) They appear willfully dismissive or ignorant of the ludicrous & scandalous assumptions underpinning the estimates. I have become very suspicious of the UK media as a direct result of the international influence they try to wield via misinformation about climate.
MWP discussed: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=367&filename=1065723391.txt
“Hi, I don’t understand why we cannot cite the borehole data for the MWP – that in a
sense is the only legitimate data set that shows a ~1 C cooling from the MWP to the LIA
– forget the deforestation problem for the moment, that is later in time –
if the borehole data for the MWP are legitimate then there is still a case for
concluding that the MWP was significantly warmer than the LIA
tom
“
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=227&filename=988466058.txt
A search for Milankovitch turns this line up in a long correspondence:
“”>Finally consider this. I read recently (don’t know the pedigree of
>this number but it WAS published!!) that Milankovitch cooling at this
>point in the Holocene should be about 0.4°C/millenium (other plots
>I’ve seen would suggest about 2.3 to 1/2 of that). If that’s true,
>then all the cooling since the year 1000 is Milankovitch and there’s
>no room for variations in solar activity and multiple volcanic
>eruptions. Now I’m not saying this is the best way to think about
>such things, but it does remind us that much of the cooling seems to
>have been due to Milankovitch, and, given the small amplitude of the
>proxy records, that is a bit worrisome. What do people think about
>this?””
That doesn’t wash with the no MWP or localized MWP, Earth has never been hotter view.
Two major blogs ‘RealClimate’ and ‘WUWT’ are the most prominent internet discussion platforms currently voicing many views and opinions on the matter of the unauthorized release of emails.
There are scientists of either persuasion attending both blogs. It does not require great deal of courage to express your view publicly to a sympathetic audience. In many authoritarian societies scientists risked frequently not only ‘excommunication’ but personal freedom or even more to stand by their ideas.
Hereby I propose that contributors from both camps ‘RealClimate’ and ‘WUWT’ (using their names) should be welcomed by moderators to post on the competing blog.
The above will be posted on both ‘RealClimate’ and ‘WUWT’ and I hope the moderators, in the interest of freedom of scientific expression, will publicly issue invitation and welcome the opposition.
“Relating forcing to response, the sensitivity from the models is then on the order of
0.6°C/ Wm-2 (or higher, depending on the model used); the sensitivity from the
observations, if taken at face value, would be considerably less.”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=475&filename=1105653626.txt
Thomas Fuller of the Examiner is on the 6th part of his excellent summary about ClimateGate
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d22-Global-warming-truths-were-based-on-political-need
I’m pretty sure #1 on the list below is illegal.
Alleged CRU Email – 1182255717.txt
Enter keywords to search (no need for quote marks)
The below is one of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Browse by 10 | 25 | 50 | 100
Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: “Thomas.R.Karl”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: FW: retraction request
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400
Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang
Thanks Phil,
We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations
showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.
We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
Regards, TOm
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990)
paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to
submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers
to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press
in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in
the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested
JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.
In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization
at two sites in China.
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil
“3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.”
Isn’t that the stuff he wanted deleted?
He being Dr. Phil.
I sent the following to Phil Jones.
Re: vukcevic (12:57:49)
I applaud your suggestion and add a dose of realism:
Forthright, objective comments from nonalarmists about natural climate variations are blocked on alarmist websites.
Alarmists appreciate nature less than their unsupportable, abstract notions about it.
The ballad of Andy Revkin
There once was a journalist named Andy
Mann and Jones kept feeding him candy
He wanted to taste lamb stew
They said, “Its made of spew”
So Andy kept on eating the candy
Search for ‘weather generator’ turned this curious statement from Dr. Phil up:
“This period will very likely cover all temperature extremes (if we forget the very cold
ones), but
it will be inadequate for rainfall (changes in daily, monthly and seasonal extremes).”
Sorry, link:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=884&filename=1211491089.txt
“1.some models don’t give the data one would like.”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=915&filename=1219844013.txt