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/
I don’t think most of the US general public is even aware of ClimateGate and the core issues therein. My wife certainly isn’t, and I’d consider her an average person. No one I work with, or come into contact via work, ever talk about it. My friends only know about it because I told them, but they didn’t seem to grasp the core issues (or didn’t care).
I think this is still an underground battle. Even after CNN had Steve McIntrye on to discuss it, they didn’t know the right questions to ask, and didn’t seem to understand the answers (or chose not to, considering their “Planet in Peril” series, they’re deep into the AGW hype).
Happy anniversary to all! Climategate and WUWT gave me probably three of the happiest months of my adult life. Thank you for your perseverance, Anthony, Charles the Moderator and the other wonderful moderators and contributors here, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Bishop Hill and other intelligent skeptics around the world, and the funny and insightful commentators of WUWT.
Nov. 19, 2009 is one of those dates I will always remember. I’ve never been in such a state of exhilaration while doing boring archival work… a strange combination indeed, but I could barely concentrate on my work the next day, as I was raring to discover what new revelations the Moshpit and others had uncovered.
The discourse re global warming has definitely and irreversibly been altered. Anthony warned last year that Climategate was just the beginning, and that there would be a long struggle ahead. All of you who think that things should have moved further ahead seem to forget the stranglehold that the CAGW people had on the media and how deeply mired they were and continue to be in vested interests. Such things are not undone in a flash. But scientists have noticed, and even though this is more a political movement than a scientific one, in our current civilization, science provides the ultimate ‘moral’ justification for policy. With the slow but sure spread of recognition of the falsity and base self-interest of CAGW ‘science’, the political foundations will falter. Thank God for the US as this is most likely to unravel with greatest speed in the land of free speech.
Anthony, I am going to hit the tip jar in thanks. Please use my donation to do something for yourself and your wife. You both deserve a treat (and a break). What a year you have had! I hope Mrs. Watts is on her way to a strong recovery.
I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to re-apply the scientific method; this was the moment when the overheated rhetoric of the greens was greeted by cool dismissal by the masses; this was the moment when we embraced empiricism and realized that simulation is no substitute and restored skepticism to its rightful place in scientific thought.
Here’s to hope and change.
Please to remember
Nineteenth of November
Member-dismemberment day:
Climate’s “Gates” came tumbling down
Their keepers tumbling after.
(I was lucky enough to make the first post on the famous thread on that date. I forget what I said, probably nothing more memorable than “hmm. “)
I spent many a late night, up till all hours of the morning, keeping up with the expanding coverage online of this.
I sincerely hope i’m wrong but in light of the blatant whitewash of the CRU investigations, and the business as usual attitude of the warmist brigade I have an uneasy feeling that the hacker has been secretly identified and unfortunately has been eliminated. The MMGW industry has simply grown too big and there is too much at stake.
I remember sitting up virtually all night when that news came in. I was praying, too, that it might work in the best way for all – because I knew what hot emotions it would release. While I’m aware of Phil Jones playing loudly and inexcusably “poor me”, I don’t want to forget either that he did have death threats.
Here are the exact URL’s for those wishing to remember the exact form in which the breaking news came forth. I think these original sources are important to check – just as with all scientific evidence – because to me they still give a loud hint as to how they came through.
Jeff Id’s website
Steve McIntyre “A miracle just happened”
Warren Meyer – often forgotten
Now while I am a passionate devotee of Scientific Method, I am also aware that its practice by scientists has often fallen short, and often this shortfall has been with the most precious happenings in Science.
In a totally scientific way, I know that miracles do happen. I have checked the evidence, from the best sources. I also know the bad sources, and the bad arguments. The equivalent of John Cook’s Skeptical Science.
One factor of miracles is that they can happen at a low point, when nothing but a miracle would suffice; they may help through the low point but not solve the problem totally. The Angel of Mons is a case in point.
I personally think, still, that FOIA was a miracle, comparable to the appearance of the Angel of Mons. The whole objective lucidity and compassion is that of the angelic realms, rather than that of any human being, the best of whom would have been extremely keyed up at that point.
FOIA took us through a low point that could not have been survived without a miracle. But there is still work to do. I believe that for the Long Haul, we still need to collect together a body of science that all skeptics agree, basically, and that deals with the whole of Climate Science basics and the refutation of AGW’s serial refutation of “skeptics’ issues” like John Cook’s Skeptical Science, RealClimate, BBC, etc etc all do.
I don’t think it is enough to keep on catching news. I think that skeptics need to go back to the science basics, and put them forth in forms that are easy for anyone to grasp. I’ve started a wiki, for this purpose. It’s under wraps, of necessity, at this point. Too important NOT to keep under wraps, IMHO. If you want to participate in this, please email me – click my name, etc.
I remember Bernstein and Woodward’s original ‘Gate’, for which, weren’t they awarded the Pulitzer Prize? So how do we go about getting the PP Committee to recognise Anthony et al? I can’t think of a more deserving bunch of (real!!) journalists.
Congrats to all involved. I so recall the sheer incredulity I felt as I read the original posts a year ago, including reading pretty much all the harry.readme file. It took hours, but was sooooo worth-while.
You said it. It has to suck to be one of the hockey team members or any Climategate celebrity, waiting for that other shoe to drop. I remember that early morning as this story unfolded and for about two weeks after, a calm uneasy atmosphere at many of the warmie blogs (-cough- Gavin, -cough- Tamino). They seemed to be acting like the dog that crapped on the nice rug waiting in the corner for their inevitable comeuppance. I got the feeling they were expecting more emails and stuff to surface at any moment, which IMHO means there really is more to come. So to our Whistleblower friend: please make it so! Put these misbehaving
dogs, I mean Scientists out of their misery.Well said! Anthony/WUWT, McIntyre/CA, BH, Mosher and also Lubos/TRF busted their butts on this story and deserve all this praise. I think they were all up for like 24 hours straight reading, processing, dissecting, posting, linking, the facts of the story. I know that we, on the receiving end of these blogs put in countless hours reading and downloading, which pales in comparison to what these bloggers and moderators had to do. So, Pulitzers all around! Hey that sounds like some kind of beer, okay then, beers all around, Bottoms Up!
And finally most of all: a gigantic THANK YOU to our friendly neighborhood Whistleblower, whoever they may be. You deserve, I mean really really REALLY deserve a Nobel Prize, a Pulitzer or at least Time Man of the Year (not that these awards carry any weight with me anymore, but I’m sure someone out there thinks they are meaningful). Maybe we can prod James Inhofe to press for a Congressional Medal of Honor instead. Okay, I am kidding of course (we reserve this for the bravest usually deceased soldiers!) but wouldn’t this cause massive 10:10 spontaneous combustion of the AGW Climate Cult members!
Mermink hunters hunt bad ideals, it is never personal the most prettiest part of us is hardship.
I read this blog, you hunt people not bad ideas, You fail in the harpoon of survival, you see people and not bad practice.
Our history is built on discovery, not people or politcs or tribes.
Our species is built on better truth.
The law is absolute, there is no law only discovery.
In science fiction people talk about Law.
In Mathematics there is no law.
In mathematic statement the word is axiom, law until better law, progression.
In mathematics, there is no law.
a = a is a symbolic logic statement, never been disproven, but it is not a law.
It is what is called axiomatic.
Math and science hang on this simple statement.
In Symbolic Logic this is called the Existential equation.
It no longer has a symbol, it’s symbol is the backward 3.
I once wore the yellow with pride over my shoulder.
Never more.
Math and logic went political and gutless.
They know baseline, they went for tenure.
a = a is the foundation of math called Algebraic statement
a being existent.
Able to be measured. Not estimated. Algorithmic statement, however is different, it is approximational to existential observation future and therefore relies on divergence and must track and compensate and if it does not do this the algorithic process has failed.
So on two basic principles the CAGW failed, it failed existentially ie observation, it failed to adjust algorithmically and failed again.
Muskrat Love.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYV_7a0FQs ]
The hardest bit about being numerical you know the numbers,
You make a change you know.
At the end of the day man will not descend into darkeness again, not without a debate.
My Name is
John Van Krimpen.
A316558
B.App Sci Maths.
On behalf of me and me dad. Got an issue find a [snip] ~jove, mod
It seems likely the leaker was Mr. Ian (Harry) Harris: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/190801/re-cru-scandal/mark-steyn
Perhaps he was just fed up with the whole situation.
To the tune of Frank Valli “Big Girls Don’t Cry”
Hide that decline, hide that decline
Temperatures no longer ri-i-i-se (they don’t rise)
Models say it’s otherwise (I’m rather surprised)
We better find some trick (my oh my)
To hide that decline (let’s use bristlecone pine)
(Silly man) Told my friends that temps were up
(Silly man) Lone tree in Yamal matched that stuff
(Silly man) Michael, man, so big and wise
Said “Hide that decline”!
Warmistas try and try (ignore UHI)
Fund my research or the earth will fry (and seas will rise)
Taxpayers are such fools (bunch of tools)
Fund research for me and you (IPCC junkets too)
(Silly CRU) Shame on you the public said
(Silly CRU) Turned the decline on its head
(Silly CRU) Hockey Stick shown far and wide
You hid that decline
Let’s ignore FOI-I-I (you wanna know why?)
The data’s m-i-i-i-ne (you taxpayer swine)
Hide that decline
Hide that decline
(Repeat to fade)
I am proud to say that not only did The National Post (my favourite newspaper) cover the Climategate story in full, both then and in follow-ups, but that they had already been on the case of the global warming scam long before the emails came to light. Since 2006, Lawrence Solomon had been writing a regular series called “The Deniers” in which he showcased the actual credentials of various scientists dismissed by the AGW crowd as heretics and crackpots.
For my part, after several weeks of silence from the rest of the media, I used the opportunity to introduce the anti-warming perspective to my analytical writing class under the guise of not trusting the media to report important information. We looked at the actual e-mails, compared the importance of this leak with that of the John Kerry Swift boat controversy and the amount of media coverage given to both.
That semester turned out several dozen newly sceptical young people.
Jeff Alberts;
Just nod sadly to them and say, “Well, if you don’t know about Climategate, then your opinions are uninformed, and don’t matter.” And turn away.
>:)
Keith G;
Not tea bags! Scans pretty well.
But I kinda resent you making me do all that nasal singing in my head! >:(
If you can take a bit of humour while sitting down, RC has decided to comment on the anniversary. Obviously they still have not read the e-mails, as one year later it is the same people still in fantasyland.
Colin Porter says:
November 19, 2010 at 10:01 am
So where are we 12 months on?
OK, Colin, I am so stealing that to pass on to many in need of updating. Thanks for that cogent and ultra-accurate summary!
I was, come to think of it, just watching a NatGeo prog on Herculanium, showing examples of skulls of those touched directly by 500°C pyroclastic gasses. Boiled brains blasted out of skulls, either through a split in the top or by explosive defacing. I’d better stand well back.
>>:-)
Knowing much more today than what we knéw 1 year ago, those e-mails sound to me even more damning. It’s amazing that commissions could be so corrupt as to sweep it under a rug.