Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?

posted at 8:48 am on November 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line.  The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt’s Up With That):

The internet is on fire this morning with confirmation computers at one of the world’s leading climate research centres were hacked, and the information released on the internet.

A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents, has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones.

In an exclusive interview with Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition, Jones confirms his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to have come from his organisation.

“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.”

One of the most damning e-mails published comes from Dr. Jones himself.  In an e-mail from almost exactly ten years ago, Jones appears to discuss a method of overlaying data of temperature declines with repetitive, false data of higher temperatures:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
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 [sic] from1961 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

Jones told Investigate that he couldn’t remember the context of “hide the decline,” and that the process was a way to fill data gaps rather than mislead.  But when scientists talk about “tricks” in the context of hiding data, it certainly seems suspicious.

Andrew Bolt points to a couple of other suspicious entries in the database as well for the Herald-Sun.  For instance, here we have scientists discussing how to delete inconvenient data in order to emphasize other data that supports their conclusions:

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/NH data 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.

Hmmm. Sounds like “hid[ing] the data” once again.  And here we have them privately admitting that they can’t find the global warming that they’ve been predicting:

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: 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.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

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.***

Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data.  That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

Dr. Jones has confirmed that these e-mails are genuine.  Whether the work represented by these scientists is as genuine seems to be under serious question.  Tim Blair says, “The fun is officially underway.”

Update: These e-mails may explain this:

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Or maybe it didn’t exist at all, except when scientists at Hadley were “hid[ing] the decline[s].”

Update II: This follows on a more mundane controversy over competence at Hadley that erupted in September:

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

Ed, the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (in Norwich) and the Hadley Centre for Climate Change (part of the Met Office in Exeter) are separate institutions. You and the whole blogosphere seem to have failed to make this distinction.

The Hadley Centre has nothing to do with this (nor with the Register link you posted). I hope you will correct this. It doesn’t take away from your central point, but leaving it in does reflect poorly on your error checkers.

zmrzlina on November 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Al started a hoax. Which started the whole world thinking they were going to be a frying.
But what Al didn’t see was that the joke would be on he.
Oh, no, Al started to cry. Which started the whole world laughing.
Oh, if he’d only seen that the joke would be on he.

Al looked at the skies. Running his hands over his snowed up eyes.
And he fell from his throne. Cracking his head on the ice and choking on things that he’d said.

Till Al’s power finally died. Which started the whole world living drilling.
Oh, if he’d only seen that the joke would be on he.

Oh, no, that the joke would be on he.

MB4 on November 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM

It’s a travesty that we can’t?!?

WHY THE HELL ISN’T THE WORLD EXPLODING IN ANGER AT THESE PEOPLE? WHY?!?

Ryan Anthony on November 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM

It’s a travesty that we can’t?!?

WHY THE HELL ISN’T THE WORLD EXPLODING IN ANGER AT THESE PEOPLE? WHY?!?

Ryan Anthony on November 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Friday dump.

I have been too busy to do news… and I saw it.

Word will spread.

All credibility of any of these scientist/politicians– or more properly opportunists… has been lost.

Hopefully their names will become known and they will never have a career again!

If we had a decent Congress… we should have public hearings we should have all the ties to the “new green economy” exposed for the sham that they are! Follow the Money.

But our current Congress is part and parcel of every corruption on the planet right now.

American Democrats have sold their souls to corruption of every kind. It is sickening to see them keep defending each other! Just sick.

Religious zeal explains much of it… like those teeny boppers on Disney Channel… indoctrination in schools and TV have ruined this generation!

But for the instigators… like GE, don’t discount good old fashioned greed! This has always been Big Bad Corporation Alarmist Environmentalism! They found Ralph Nader’s old job to be quite lucrative.

petunia on November 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Yep. Crooks. The whole man-made global warming thing has been shown to be a political scam. It sure isn’t science. The man-made global warming crowd are not engaging in anything that resembles reputable science, except to the gullible. Come to think if it, even the flat earth people and the creation science guys are more credible at this point.

Science involves independently verifiable, objective studies; openly accessible data, and the free exchange of information. It requires the practitioners to address the flaws other researchers find in their work with more data, not stonewalling, name calling, and attempts to intimidate researchers with differing theories. What we find is evidence of the sort of goon-quad intimidation tactics to prevent publication more frequently associated with organized crime. Looks like a good reason for a RICO investigation, or at least an investigation to see if our tax dollars were being mis-used by these so-called researchers engaging in political propaganda for the environmental lobby.

We damn sure don’t want to pass cap and trade based on this garbage masquerading as science. Which reminds me – take a look at the comments from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the UK. their committee examining efforts to reach the carbon emission reduction goals states by Britain were telling. Tim Fox, the chairman of this committee has admitted that it is not technologically possible to reach the goals, which call for a reduction of carbon output by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. Fox days: “The ability to undertake the size of task needed to meet the 80% target is not possible within a modern industrialized democracy.” Fox calls for stronger measures p- something like a war footing with forcible re-ordering of the economy and society. I think we should be very careful NOT to allow that to happen. Demand a NO vote on Waxman-Markey.

Orson Buggeigh on November 21, 2009 at 3:39 PM

In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
The problem with peer review in the climate community, is that the same handfull of people review each others papers over and over again.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Read the article in the Telegraph, It explains how they controlled the boards of ALL the peer review publications, until the real scientist took over one. They were quite upset and did their best to discredit it…

Will this truly get the attention on the left to make people search the “truth” they are always being fed? I guess I could ask my brother… a true, Prius driving, climate science believing, liberal… but I tend to stay away from conflict within my family… So I wish some lefties strangers would pick this up.

petunia on November 21, 2009 at 3:43 PM

The only unanswered question for me ..
Did any of these folks (in the e-mails) ever give testimony before Congress or any court under oath ?

If so, they should go to jail.

J_Crater on November 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM

J_Crater on November 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Very good question. If so, I hope they all did and end up there.

Ryan Anthony on November 21, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Ed, the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (in Norwich) and the Hadley Centre for Climate Change (part of the Met Office in Exeter) are separate institutions. You and the whole blogosphere seem to have failed to make this distinction.

The Hadley Centre has nothing to do with this (nor with the Register link you posted). I hope you will correct this. It doesn’t take away from your central point, but leaving it in does reflect poorly on your error checkers.

zmrzlina on November 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Yes and no. they work very closely together. From the CRU website:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

From the beginning of January 2006, we have replaced the various grid-box temperature anomaly (from the base period 1961-90) datasets with new versions, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3 (see Brohan et al., 2006). The datasets have been developed in conjunction with Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office. These datasets will be updated at roughly monthly intervals into the future. Hemispheric and global averages as monthly and annual values are available as separate files.

toliver on November 21, 2009 at 5:39 PM

“Ed, the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (in Norwich) and the Hadley Centre for Climate Change (part of the Met Office in Exeter) are separate institutions. You and the whole blogosphere seem to have failed to make this distinction.”

True. But don’t forget the global temperature series used by the IPCC and others is called HadCru(t) where ‘had’ stands for Hadley and ‘cru’ is CRU for Climatic Research Unit. Phil Jones, of Cru, is the one who maintains the data series and is the keeper of the flame.

MaggiePoo on November 21, 2009 at 8:50 PM

What is up with this? And the WSJ is on the “friends” list.
http://www.hopenhagen.org/mission

njpat on November 21, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Did anyone ever get maximus assus to look through a telescope?

riverrat10k on November 21, 2009 at 10:29 PM

See article. I’ll quote some of it:

The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns…Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists…“ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”…Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names…

I suggest there will be a backlash. People forget that Nixon’s paranoia due to the “Pentagon Papers” leak lead directly to Watergate.

SunSword on November 22, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Well, they are doubling down…This came out the same day this entire global warming scam was revealed for all to see:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html

AUINSC on November 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Did anyone ever get maximus assus to look through a telescope?
riverrat10k on November 21, 2009 at 10:29 PM

If they did he only would have seen further up his a$$

ya2daup on November 22, 2009 at 11:43 AM

A better solution would be to remain agnostic on the data itself while denying that, should GW be proven true, draconian remaking of the economy is the way to solve it. (Why not, for instance, lobby for more and better air-conditioners? Stronger sea-walls? Tax credits for relocating out of the south?)

hicsuget on November 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM

So in your mind, if I can use the term that losely. We should act against every perceived threat, until such time that it is proven conclusively to be false.

Why not propose a fund to train people to trap the monsters under the bed while your at it? I have never seen a solid, scientific study, that proves they don’t exist.

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7