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
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
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!
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 !
@ur momisugly 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.
“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.
Look for “elusive”. Two results. WUWT mentioned in the e.mail dated 2009, have fun!
best
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.
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.
These CRU emails are hotter (“Several million degrees”) than the core of the planet that Al Gore lives on.
From the NY Times article:
Translation: This is nothing. There’s still a consensus. Spend the trillions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
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.
“Just remember this day as the day you almost had a treaty”
– Captain Jack “Al Gore” Sparrow
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.”
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…
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
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?
” 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…”
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.
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.
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.
This is great! I especially like Kevin Trenberth’s questioning global warming based on all the low temps in Boulder Colorado this fall.
The Ville (08:29:17) :
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?
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.
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.
@ur momisugly Simon (08:58:30) :
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.