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
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! ………”
steven mosher (10:24:20) :
And ironically in the end they ended up being the thing they feared.
Nice.
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.
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.
“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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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?
Shurley Knot (10:41:34) :
Just listen to yourselves!
You are projecting.
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! 🙂
@ur momisugly 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/
“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.”
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
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?
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.
@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++
rgds
KlausB
If nothing else these emails show that these researchers have corrupted the peer review process.
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.
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.
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.”