From Red Maryland

If the hacked emails and data from the Hadley Climate Research Unit in the UK turn out to be genuine—and the director, Phil Jones says they appear to be—then the global warming alarmist movement has some serious explaining to do.

The emails appear to reveal a pattern by prominent alarmist scientists of concealing evidence contradictory to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, manipulating scientific data, preventing conflicting reports from being published in the IPCC assessment report, and possibly deleting government data subject to public information laws.

Here are some of the emails:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date:
Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc:k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

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 XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX University of East Anglia Norwich

“Mike’s Nature trick” refers to the now discredited Hockey Stick fraud.

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date:Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]

Phil,Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by,say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NHdata also attached.)This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

From:
Gary Funkhouser
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your
consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send it to you. I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands.

I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is. Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary

Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of ArizonaTucson,
Arizona 85721 USA

From: P
To: M
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

M,

Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing A over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.

The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

P

I pulled this email from The Air Vent, which redacted the names of the email’s authors and recipients. However, I can surmise that P is Hadley CRU director Phil Jones, M is Michael Mann, and K is Keith Briffa—all prominent alarmist scientist.

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date:
Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit

Interesting that on the heels of more evidence that global warming has stopped these same alarmist scientists are now left scrambling to find evidence of it. As Ed Morrissey noted, below is a case of scientists using theories to test data, not using data to test theories, i.e. they cannot abide this blasphemy to their green religious faith.

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael MannSubject:
Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles
Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas
R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low…

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

Given that in the past these folks have created convenient data from thin air, then we shouldn’t be surprised when they present us with more concocted evidence.

These emails date back over a decade to 1996, which suggest a clear pattern of manipulation and concealment. These revelations are just big for the mainstream media to ignore. But don’t worry “journalists” like the Baltimore Sun’s Tim Wheeler are sure to investigate this…right?

Flopping Goes Further

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.

Watts has the text of some of the huge file’s emails posted on his website. Saunter over to the first link above to read at his site.

Of special note is CRU’s Prof. Phil Jones’ admission of fudging the numbers to hide the temperature decline.

[Emphasis added by Mata]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 or 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.

Another email was from another associate, Jonathan Overpeck, discussing a proposed letter to the Senate to combat the “continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill”. Overpeck is less than thrilled at being part of alterating data to comply with political aims, suggesting that such nefarious deeds were best left to other organizations.

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. [Emphasis added by Mata] 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.

Dissention in the CRU ranks over a scientific “concensus” has been growing, noted by Watts in his May 2009 post, where Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (aka CRU), Mike Hulme, shed his closet AGW proponent sheeps clothing, and actively started speaking out against the science behind the UN’s IPCC paper. In an interview with UK’s The Register, he is quoted as saying:

“To hide behind the dubious precision of scientific numbers, and not actually expose one’s own ideologies or beliefs or values and judgements is undermining both politics and science”

Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit – currently overloaded with cyber traffic – posted that CRU cancelled all existing passwords… saying “actions speak loudly”. McIntyre – a veteran in the mineral exploration business – focuses on analyzing “peer reviewed publications” that purport the AGW theory.

update:

Global Warming Emails May Have Come From Insider

New information on the CRU emails, now it appears it may not be a hack but a insider:

The anonymous tipster, whom many people initially assumed had “hacked” into the computers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (repeatedly called the “Hadley CRU,” by mistake), might in fact be a CRU insider who released the files for his own reasons.

The user, known only as “FOIA” (which now appears to be a reference to the British equivalent of the US Freedom of Information Act), left only one comment on The Air Vent to announce his release of his 61-MB ZIP archive. He has never been heard from since, nor has anyone stepped forward claiming to be that person since the story became widely known.

Persons knowledgeable in information security hold that this is not the behavior of a hacker. A hacker normally boasts of his act, even if he were hired or otherwise suborned to commit his act by someone else. These two reports provide illustrations of such behavior.

Other commenters have observed that the very form and organization of the archive, which expands to 168 MB of text files, word-processing documents, PDF files, raw data, and even program code, indicate that someone already having access to the system logged in through his usual channels, made the archive, and then logged out. The user’s choice of words indicate someone having a motive to disclose to the world certain activities and mindsets that the user found distasteful, at least.

This Examiner has been able to reconstruct a timeline of the story

Read the original article to see the timeline, it is quite damning evidence that this was no hacker, but an insider and it all boils down to:

Mr. Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit has made no secret of his repeated attempts to demand, under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, that Phil Jones and his team yield up the data that are the basis of their claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its effects. Preliminary analysis of the archived e-mails also indicates that Jones knew of McIntyre’s efforts and was taking steps to stall and thwart them, in violation of the law. Perhaps, then, someone at CRU decided to take the law into his own hands.

Doesn’t surprise me one bit that they would resort to violate the law….all in the name of “science”