CRU Emails – search engine now online

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.

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

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

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

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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Re: TJA @ur momisugly 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.”