One year ago today, after returning from a conference in Brussels, I sat down in Dulles airport, connected to WiFi, researched and wrote this article, called two people, CEI’s Chris Horner to check legality issues, and Marc Morano (who was traveling in car on the PCH in California) to give him a heads up, and pressed the “publish” button just seconds before they closed the door to my flight back to Sacramento. When I landed five hours later, I immediately got back on WiFi and found the the story had exploded, and we lived in a different world. I spent so much time moderating and checking the responses elsewhere, that when I looked up from the computer, I found the airport deserted, and my bag was to lone one sitting on the carousel.
This story, written in haste, uncertainty, and pressure to board a plane, is the most viewed story on WUWT, and spawned hundreds of other stories and links. I’m repeating it again to mark the event, consider this an open thread on Climategate, one year later. – Anthony
===========================================================
UPDATE: Response from CRU in interview with another website, see end of this post.
The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.
UPDATED: Original image was for Met Office – corrected This image source: www.cru.uea.ac.uk
I’m currently traveling and writing this from an airport, but here is what I know so far:
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents
The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.
It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.
I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.
Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments
I’ve redacted email addresses and direct phone numbers for the moment. The emails all have US public universities in the email addresses, making them public/FOIA actionable I believe.
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
Cheers
Phil
“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com)
”
Reported with great sadness
Timo H‰meranta
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Timo H‰meranta, LL.M.
Moderator, Climatesceptics
Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
01620 Vantaa
Finland, Member State of the European Union
Moderator: timohame@yxxxxx.xxx
Private: timo.hameranta@xxxxx.xx
Home page: [1]personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
Moderator of the discussion group “Sceptical Climate Science”
[2]groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
“To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
shows only a lack of imagination”. (Kari Enqvist)
“If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion.
What do you do, Sir” (John Maynard Keynes)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)xxxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxx.xx.xx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
References
1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley
Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not
without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.
My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.
I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this –
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate
change.
Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
then…
I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
it.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?
Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
Cheers, Peck
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) xxx-xxxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
–
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +xxxx
fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag.
Developing story – more later
UPDATE1: Steve McIntyre posted this on Climate Audit, I used a screen cap rather than direct link because CA is overloaded and slow at the moment.
UPDATE2: Response from CRU h/t to WUWT reader “Nev”
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html
The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
“Have you alerted police”
“Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”
Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.
“Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….
UPDATE3: McIntyre has posted an article by Jean S at climateaudit.org which is terribly overloaded. We have mirrored it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
Hard to believe that a year has passed since that explosion of hope that we could begin to stop their madness. Thanks, Anthony, for all that you and others have done to help to turn the tide on the climate hoax that was about to consume the world’s freedom and resources in the name of watermelon environmentalism.
Shame someone can’t find some more incriminating evidence, as most of last years has been carefully whitewashed and swept under the carpet…
A year older and some open items that UEA/CRU need tending to:
aaa) A detailed report on the status of the police investigation of the unauthorized release of the emails.
bbb) A publically held investigation of UEA/CRU by a panel of actual critical reviewers and aggressive journalists.
ccc) All the rest of the requested emails (requested by FOI and related legal processes)
ddd) Retraction of papers and reports that are shown to be compromised by the emails.
eee) Forced resignation / retirement of UEA/CRU leadership
John
I just went back and read this whole thing about an hour ago!!! Then VOILA! Here it is again!! Truly remarkable how an event that seemed so revealing, resulted in the core of the movement to show almost no shame.
Aren’t there more files still “out there”??? Wasn’t only half the original 60MB file released?
That’s odd. “JR” hasn’t seen fit to join the anniversary celebration. /sarc
Climategate ‘broke’ a few months after I seriously started to look into the AGW theory – as a ‘greenie’ sympathiser (but not a zealot) I had believed the published science up until early 2009 when a few internet sites had aroused my curiosity (mostly those harping on about the hockey stick) and encouraged me to check stuff out. Once the seeds of doubt were sown – nominal levels of reading showed there was something fishy going on. I’d never watched AIT – but when I eventually did – I was disgusted at the poor level of scientific content and amazed that anyone would hold this up as some kind of ‘proof’!
No doubt the Climategate event changed the minds of a lot of ‘fence-sitters’ and for the so called deniers it was a ‘hallelujah’ moment. But for the average man in the street, I think it was a ‘seen it all before’ moment and worse still, clearly demonstrated to those who could read, that the climate science brigade was definately ‘not to be trusted’.
I think, personally, the primary lesson has been that debased scientists can and have been allowed to ‘rule the world’ a la James Bond movie baddie style! and it has seriously devalued the peer review process, itself so important to the scientific community. Worse, still the general public will find it very difficult to trust in the peer review process in future – we all know what its like to query a possible misdiagnosis and ask for a second opinon, on lots of things as well as medical advice – how many times have you asked a friend/colleague for his opinion? One would usually ask someone who may know a bit more than you, or has more experience – and one usually expects a fair and unbiased appraisal ! How does the MSM and AGW scientific community stand up when considered in that light?
The AGW based scientists, IMO, are no better than a supposed ‘best or trusted friend’ of whom you may ask, over a quiet drink at the bar, ‘Am I worrying about my wifes fidelity unreasonably?’ – only to find that said trusted friend is indeed the source of the worry!
As an old school (I guess the 70’s is old school these days?) geologist and engineer – I am still truly dismayed at the revelations of climategate and the implications for science as a whole.
Did anyone ever figure out who Harry is?
If Fred West had been brought to trial in which the police and CPS were excluded, and then asked to select the evidence for the court to examine (pace the practice of the Russell Muir inquiry) he’d still be stalking the streets of Bristol.
With someone like algore supporting the hysteria so much, common sense said there was something not right being pushed. It was nice to see the proof that it is all a big con game.
Thanks to all who pushed this to shed light on it.
It is too bad (for me) I did not discover this site until afterwords to see the real science.
Where’s “Bulldust” today? Does he get an WUWT award?
“We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents”
“Random selection” suggests to me that the 60Mb is a subset of the total liberated information. I suspect Jones is dreading the thought of more emails being made public. I wonder at the whistle-blower’s tactics in releasing only part of the information.
Reminds me of how I feel after watching “All The President’s Men” again. Slightly soiled.
Well,
When I posted those three mails at CA, having read the entire stack, I tried to pick mails that were emblematic of the issues at play, issues still at play.
1. Moral character
2. The science.
3. Science and politics.
upon reflection I might pick some different emblems, I was pretty dang tired by that point, but they hold up pretty well .
Eagerly awaiting another random selection. Harry half-promised it to us, didn’t he?
Happy Climategate, Anthony!
It seems surreal. The other camp has a bomb go off in their midst, and they just carry on like some dill-brained comic character – clothes in rags, wisps of smoke, hair askew – but too thick to understand what’s happened.
One year down the track, congratulations on having the guts perspicacity to set it loose.
Steve McIntyre’s site has been very quiet recently…….is he working on something perhaps? 🙂
REPLY: No, not that I’m aware of. I think he’s just a bit toasted. Running a website like his (and like this one) and keeping up the fight over the years can be very wearing down. There are days that I struggle keeping up too. – Anthony
…and the East Anglia police and other law enforcement folks
still have been unable or unwilling to find a “criminal”
or even announce that a “crime” was committed with the
acquisition, release, and publishing of the CRU emails, programs,
and data files.
It’s almost as mysterious as the murder of Dr. David Kelly…
which involved other ministies and investigative hearings with
lots of “Sirs” and no definative conclusion.
The Crack Hack Calvary arrived just in time.
Then came the miracle winter.
Then Al Gore defense collapsed and he retreated after cancelling his Copenhagen speeches; losses about $300K.
Then Copenhagen Collapsed. The Armies of Global Warming Alarmists have been wondering the Earth searching of answers.
It’s Sunspots, Stupid!
Chuck
Happy anniversary all!!!
Thank God almighty for Russian servers.
The souls who exposed this global con need to be honored officially at some date.
Perhaps a Peace Prize for Hoax Busting.
Wouldn’t it be nice if on the 1yr anniversary the hacker realeased more from that file?
Yep, how well I remember. It’s amazing how little has changed since then, unfortunately.
I remain disappointed that no MSM reporter picked this story up and ran with it. I can only assume that it was immediately labelled as a hot potato and best left alone.
However, the wider implications of the leak are still alive and well. There are many many miles left in this incident.
A by-product of the leak has been an amazing demonstration of the power of the establishment to minimise the damage. Five enquiries have circumlocuted what appeared to me to be prima facia evidence of malfeasance over an extended period of time and yet, there they are, still conducting business as usual. Jaw dropping.
It seems that there is still a lot of to do if these so called scientists are to be brought to book.
Natsman says:
November 19, 2010 at 7:49 am
Shame someone can’t find some more incriminating evidence, as most of last years has been carefully whitewashed and swept under the carpet…
The day is not over yet…
From what I can see, lessons learned:
1. Media complicity: 100%. Other than occasional op-ed pieces, I have yet to see any media outlet properly expose Climategate for what it is.
2. Science does not matter. As my own research has shown, people simply don’t understand what is going on and are forced to decide things based on “trust”. It makes sense to trust “scientists”, or NASA. It doesn’t make sense to trust al-Gore. The hypothesis of AGW and “tipping points” has been credibly disproved, but this all ceased to be about science a long, long time ago.
3. Polarization. After seeing this, many fence-sitters that I know hopped off the fence and into the “skeptic” side. Unfortunately, as many appear to have jumped to the other side, seeing the email participants as “victims”.
4. Uncertainty. Maybe the biggest thing exposed by Climategate is uncertainty. We’ve been led to believe for years that AGW is a slam-dunk, irrefutable, self-evident. The emails (and Harry) demonstrated that behind the scenes were a bunch of people who really don’t know what is going on.
5. Politics. I can’t think of any other scientific endeavor that is as politically active as this group. I also can’t think of anything as repulsive as people supposedly in search of the truth trying to “advise” on policy. String theory didn’t result in testimony before Congress. Those people who really don’t know what is going on have never ceased to claim they do.
6. Whitewashing. I doubt that many WUWT readers are surprised, but still for many it’s their first direct exposure to seeing a whitewash up close. Investigations magically exonerate participants, even though their guilt is clearly shown by their own words. Accused are in charge of investigating themselves. It’s pathetic, but not surprising.
7. Religion. Although I know for some this is a touchy subject, it is very valid to compare AGW believers to religious followers. They are more than willing to find proof of their beliefs anywhere they look, and refuse to listen to anything that might tear down their belief system.
Personally, I’ve been very entertained this last year. I never believed Climategate would bust the whole thing open, but I was hoping for more effect than we’ve seen. In fact, I see this as an exceptional demonstration of how well financed people and organizations are able to shape opinions and beliefs, even in the presence of clear evidence that something is completely wrong.
Also, it has exposed a tactic that I’ve observed repeatedly in politics: accuse your opponent of what you are doing… ie. the claim that skeptics are financed by some deep-pocketed special interest, when in actual fact it’s the AGW side that has near-infinite pockets and aggressive interference.
At the very least, Climategate helped to open the door to the DEBATE that would have indicated a healthy quest for knowledge. For a long time “the debate is over”, and “all scientists except a few flakes agree” were the mantras.