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 2 3 4 5 7

Wait and see, “global cooling” will be the knee-jerk reaction and excuse for these clowns.

Polar bears in Texas…..Chicago an icy tundra……sea levels falling…….millions of acres of farmland now frozen solid, etc.

Why?

HUMANS!

JoeinTX on November 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM

No, you and your gallery of peanut throwing monkeys think you know it. But you also worship every ghost-written pronouncement of the Queen of the Untruth, so why am I surprised?

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Typical liberal resorting to personal insults when their religion is threatened by like actual facts.

Yeah we all have known for quite a while that manmade global warming is a hoax. Well anyone with a functioning brain anyway.

Now we have evidence that the conspiracy Al Gore called a consensus was a deliberate con job. Again, a lot of us surmised as much.

Those two villages emerging from the glaciers kinda gave it away.

dogsoldier on November 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I’m sorry. *This* is your smoking gun? Scientists discussing apparent problems with the data and theory? That’s it?

It is well known that getting consistent measure of global temperature is problematic. When anomalous data appear, you try to figure out if it’s an artifact of measurement. If you can’t, then you have to adjust the theory. That’s standard practice.

As for global warming “stalled”, explain again how the last decade was the warmest on record?

Whatever it takes to refute the massive pile of evidence accumulated over the last century, I guess…

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Hey, climate alarmists’s kids gotta eat too!

29Victor on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Here’s a video of FishMan(aka Grow Fins) responding to the posts in this thread.

Rod on November 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Ah yes. The scientist hired by oil and coal interests! Sure he’s trustworthy.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:43 AM

You’re so pathetic. Multiple ‘climate change’ scientists are caught manipulating their data in order to get the results they want and you respond with this? We’ve got Hansen fudging his math, we’ve got the scientists who were forced to finally make their data public and ‘warming’ was shown because they cherry picked 12 trees from Siberia to base their conclusion on, and UN bureaucrats writing large portions of the IPCC and fudging the scientific ‘data’, and now these jokers.

There are lots of scientists who have always been hesitant to claim we’re experience warming or that if there is warming it’s due to human activity. To simply right these many scientists off as shills paid off by the oil industry while simultaneously demanding that we understand everything these egghead scientists are saying before we can claim they were lying is hypocrisy of the worse kind.

gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM

I’m sorry. *This* is your smoking gun? Scientists discussing apparent problems with the data and theory? That’s it?

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

No. It’s advocates obscuring data that doesn’t match their advocacy position. It’s pretty much the definition of scientific fraud.

But don’t stop believin’ hold on to your feelin’

29Victor on November 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

What part of ‘Hide the Decline’ don’t you understand? These Scientists were deliberately manipulating data for politically calculated results.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM

It looks like all these “global warming” advocates are going to have to resort to their fallback careers in phrenology and alchemy.

Grow Fins is going to have to go back to figuring how they got all those clowns in that little car.

John Deaux on November 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

How many veins did you pop and how much spittle flew out of your mouth when you typed that rubbish?

I’d fisk your statement, but seriously, its more fun just to point and laugh.

You know, if these “rising tempartures” are such a problem, why don’t you contribute to the solution, sparky? One less carbon footprint…

PimFortuynsGhost on November 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM

You are like a abused women, you keep coming back for more
right2bright

Bingo. Trolls are mentally ill, sad but true.

beachgirlusa on November 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

No, the “smoking gun” is scientists talking for 10 years about manipulating data and misleading the public. The smoking gun would be a lack of warming for years. The smoking gun would be even global warming proponents admitting they can’t find the warming. The smoking gun would be places like NASA, which proponents based much of their propaganda upon, altering data in an admission that they totally screwed up.

amerpundit on November 20, 2009 at 10:09 AM

If you can’t understand that, then how the h-e-double-hockeysticks can you understand that email.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Look at Grow Dumb getting all folksy. But… your handle suggests you really buy into this nonsense. Is your world crashing now that you know you’ve been lied to? Are we going to have to put you on suicide watch?

alliebobbitt on November 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM

As for global warming “stalled”, explain again how the last decade was the warmest on record?

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Please provide some proof of your claim. Scientists have already proven the Middle Ages were warmer than now.

John Deaux on November 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Scam.

Plain and simple.

Hundreds of billions spent to prevent something that does not exist.

And Bernie Madoff went to prison for less.

coldwarrior on November 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM

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.***

One of the worst things any so-called “scientist” can say–the data are wrong!!! Have these people ever learned the scientific method–that theories are supposed to be based on experimental data?

Yes, measurement devices can fail and give erroneous readings, but measurement errors tend to be random in either direction, and would tend to cancel each other in an average of a large sample.

So, if “our observing system is inadequate” NOW, was it also “inadequate” during the 1980′s and 1990′s, when alarmists were using to warming temperatures to justify theories about carbon dioxide?

You can fool some people all the time, or all people some of the time, but you can’t fool Mother Nature.

Anyone who fudges data to prove a theory is not worthy to be called a scientist, but only a liar.

Steve Z on November 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM

As for global warming “stalled”, explain again how the last decade was the warmest on record?

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

You have to ignore several warming periods in the past to come to this conclusion.

Can you explain how Mars has also experienced similar climate change to Earth (hint: it has less to do with SUV’s and more to do with that gigantic ball of fire at the center of our solar system).

gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM

No, the “smoking gun” is scientists talking for 10 years about manipulating data and misleading the public.

amerpundit on November 20, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Maybe I’m being nitpicky but they’re not scientists they’re a bunch of low life parasitic shysters masquerading as scientists. Sort of like Algore masquerading as a humanitarian.

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 10:16 AM

As for global warming “stalled”, explain again how the last decade was the warmest on record?

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Why is the temperature cooling right now when CO2 levels have not dropped?

gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM

No wonder why Al still flys around in his private jet and eats meat. He know global warming is a scam to make himself rich. I hope Gore and GE now fail.

Brat4life on November 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM

gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM

It was snowing in Baghdad for the first time in 100 years.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 10:19 AM

As for global warming “stalled”, explain again how the last decade was the warmest on record?

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Warmest year on record according to NASA? 1934.

NPR:

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

Scientists suddenly don’t understand what they’ve understood for years? Unlikely. The oceans haven’t warmed for years. In fact, there has been a “slight cooling”.

And as much as the scientists try to spin in the article, it inevitably comes back to the oceans not warming.

amerpundit on November 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Blasphemy!

Gaia will be angry!!!!

Kasper Hauser on November 20, 2009 at 10:21 AM

As for global warming “stalled”, explain again how the last decade was the warmest on record?
Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

That explanation is easy, Hal.

The last decade WASN’T and ISN’t the warmest on record.

We all felt it. We all know it.

They just made stuff up. That’s what the post is about.

marybel on November 20, 2009 at 10:22 AM

This is big and we have to stay on this story. This could be the beginning of the end for Algore inc.

DJ Rick on November 20, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Wow! Greenpeace is advertising on this site through google ads for this article. Are you kidding me????
This looks like another smoking gun to the whole global warming lie. Not just man-made global warming, but all global warming! It is a lie!

Christian Conservative on November 20, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Hiding data is the latest code word for dealing with anamolous data?

As to the last decade being the warmest, a recent study out of Georgia Tech found that at least half of the warming from the US (the US has by far the highest quality and most complete ground based temperature sensor network) was caused by land use changes. IE urbanization and microsite contaminations.

The truth is that we have no idea how current temperatures compare to historical temperatures because the system has been been corrupted too badly.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Wow! Greenpeace is advertising on this site through google ads for this article. Are you kidding me????

Ha ha ha. I know. Priceless. Talk isn’t cheap, you know.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:25 AM

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

Interesting that they started fudging the data in 1999. Most of the unfudged data showed a sharp warming spike in 1998, which (honest) scientists attributed to a strong El Nino, and temperatures started falling in 1999. Those with an agenda to warn of an accelerating warming due to CO2 needed to fudge the 1999 data to “prove” their theory, while honest meteorologists, who have continued to measure temperatures until now, would conclude that 1998 was a warm anomaly, after which there have been random fluctuations around a weak cooling trend.

Steve Z on November 20, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Geez! Scientific academia must be in total disarray this morning. I love it. They were caught red-handed. Almost half of them have been discredited. Who to beleive anymore? Well, certainly not Algore. Little Timmy Geithner can’t be believed either. Eric Holder? Hmmmmmmm. Maybe not him either. Well, what about Slow Joe Biden? Harry Reid? After all the CBO gave his healtcare bill the good numbers. Oh, wait! The Prez says that accounting is an inexact science. WTH? Obama also said that maybe we were spending too much money. Ya’ think????
This government is a total and unmittigated failure.

BetseyRoss on November 20, 2009 at 10:25 AM

It was snowing in Baghdad for the first time in 100 years.

So what? I ate cheerios for breakfast. And?

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Almost half of them have been discredited

Almost half. 48%? 49% Could you be a bit more accurate please?

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Please provide some proof of your claim. Scientists have already proven the Middle Ages were warmer than now.

John Deaux on November 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM

The Roman Warm period was even warmer than the Mideval Warm period. Then there was the Minoan Warm period that was as warm as the Roman Warm period. Go back another 10,000 years or so, and there was the climate optimum, which was 3 or 4 degrees warmer than today.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM

The problem is that the earth is warming and we just can’t explain why. It’s never warmed this much, this fast before, so humans must be the cause.

I mean, there’s no way the earth could warm that much as the result of a natural mechanism. Something like that would have to be enormous, like on the order of magnitude of our sun.

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Welcome back, liar.

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Whatever it takes to refute the massive pile of evidence accumulated over the last century, I guess…

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Apparently you can’t read…or you are blinded by your faith.
Read the emails again, and look at the links…they purposely replaced wrong data for good data because the correct data didn’t fit their theories…in other words the “massive pile of evidence” is a massive pile of something, and the evidence pointed the other way, so they manipulated the data.
Don’t get angry or upset at the whistleblowers…get upset at the “scientists” you have been depending on, as they were manipulating the data instead of informing you of the real data.
You were duped, and as far as the “centuries” of data, that data was also presented in the 60′s as global cooling, an ice age.
That’s okay, everyone gets duped by con men at sometime…you were fooled, now show some objectivity and get angry at those responsible for telling you these lies all these years.

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Sort of like Algore masquerading as a humanitarian.

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 10:16 AM

FIFY

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Can you explain how Mars has also experienced similar climate change to Earth (hint: it has less to do with SUV’s and more to do with that gigantic ball of fire at the center of our solar system).

Kudos to gwelf for admitting that the sun is at the center of the Solar System (and not God, or the Church, or Sarah Palin). But the Mars data? According to who?

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM

You look it up. Then come back with the “correct” figures. You are smarter than me so have at it!

BetseyRoss on November 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Can you explain how Mars has also experienced similar climate change to Earth (hint: it has less to do with SUV’s and more to do with that gigantic ball of fire at the center of our solar system).
gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM

The Sun wouldn’t be a ball of fire if not for SUV’s, snowmobiles and cow methane, no, it would be a veritable Eden full of life and promise and hope and polar bears.

Bishop on November 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM

BetseyRoss

Fudging the data are we?

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Welcome back, liar.

BadgerHawk on November 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM

He had to go upstairs to get a hug from Mom.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Heh. I love the Australians.

None of this surprises me. Science is not objective because people are not objective. It is impossible. It’s the same reason we have trouble seeding the Supreme Court with justices who will just follow the law and not try to create their own. Scientists start out testing anything by stating a hypothesis and anyone who believes such a hypothesis does not contain at least a shred of bias is deluding him or herself. Certainly there are other theories science tests everyday where those conducting the tests do now have much invested either professionally or personally, but in the case of global warming, which has evolved into a religion of sorts, I think it is inevitable that people are going to allow their own agendas to erode their “objectivity.”

I think we all should do our part not to be wasteful or irresponsible, but not because I believe we’re going to annihilate the earth but rather because I believe God charges us with being stewards of the planet and no one wants to live in a pig sty. But the notion that we are significant enough to destroy a planet that has been around for 4 billion years and has survived far, FAR more catastrophic effects than what it is experiencing now is absolute insanity. How long have we been keeping records on climate shifts? A hundred years, give or take? For a planet this old? We aren’t even remotely close to having an accurate sample from which to make ANY statement about climate change one way or the other.

NoLeftTurn on November 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Eisenhower warned of this sort of thing …

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

J_Crater on November 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Nope, just look it up. If I am wrong, then tell me. Your the snarky one!

BetseyRoss on November 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM

So what? I ate cheerios for breakfast. And?

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM

I am amazed (not really)…are you upset at those scientists misleading and lying to you all these years…or do you still believe the data.
You aren’t really addressing the problem of scientist purposely putting out false data to con you.
Are you upset at them for fooling you, or are you upset at it not really being global warming? Or do you, despite these actual emails, still believe that their is this “global warming”…curious on how a liberal deals with facts, and new facts…

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Read the emails again, and look at the links…they purposely replaced wrong data for good data because the correct data didn’t fit their theories…in other words the “massive pile of evidence” is a massive pile of something, and the evidence pointed the other way, so they manipulated the data.

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

But in the past it hasn’t been so much about the “evidence” as about the computer models, the computer models that we were supposed to trust so much that we would be willing to destroy our economy to prevent its predictions, the computers models that didn’t predict this 10 year “pause”.

The weatherman can’t tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow…or for the next ten years…but he can tell me what it will be like for the next one hundred?

29Victor on November 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM

So Obama and The Gang want to prosecute CIA members and the entire Bush Administration for supposed crimes committed against terrorists. What then is going to happen to these schmucks who have committed crimes against the world for creating a false hysteria over global warming?

This hoax has harmed entire nations and their citizens in massive ways. From outrageous taxes to trash cans that Daniel Hannan said would weigh your garbage to make sure you were not exceeding your garbage quota! A new device to be thrust upon the Brits sometime soon. And then there are the entrenched Big Brother types in many a nation’s government which have created governmental positions along the lines of the Brits health care governmental behemoth. How now are these weak and spineless countries going to set about not only setting things right by totally getting rid of these governmental agencies, but also in seeking justice against those who created this massive Madoff scam?

There are many a scammer which need to serve jail time and let it begin with the Goracle! I demand the Hague investigate this based on human rights issues! Paging all you human rights wacko groups who claim to be on the side of justice! FREAKS!

freeus on November 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Changing data? Hm. Reminds me of this:

“For example, the Ministry of Plenty’s forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at one-hundred-and-forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than one-hundred-and-forty-five millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all.

UnderstandingisPower on November 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Whatever it takes to refute the massive pile of evidence accumulated over the last century, I guess…

Hal_10000 on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

There hasn’t been a “massive pile of evidence”. What little evidence that has been accumulated (IE the ground based temperature sensor network has been shown to be badly corrupted, WattsUpWithThat has been doing a survey of the US network (they are starting to expand into Canada, they also have helpers in Europe and Asia) has shown that almost 80% of the stations in the US fail to meet even the most basic of NOAA’s standards. Things like being too close to buildings, actually being in the middle of parking lots, being surrounded by air conditioner units, etc.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming Scientist Says

Or maybe it has been the dozen or so probes made out of fossil fuels that we sent to the planet that increased atmospheric CO2 by 1 Million of 1% that caused the Martian Polar Ice Caps to shrink.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM

The truth is that we have no idea how current temperatures compare to historical temperatures because the system has been been corrupted too badly.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Well, not quite. We do have enough of a historical record to know that Europe, at least, has been significantly warmer then it is today. It has been colder too obviously.

As others have mentioned in this thread, the response of climate “scientists” to this fact was to try and disprove the fact through cherry picked data, not fit it into their models which is enlightening.

This also brings up the question of what the effects of global warming would be. Al Gore and the warmists have made the case of massive destruction in the very near future if we do not immediately stop the supposed temperature increases – but there was no comparable destruction with past warming periods, quite the opposite in fact.

18-1 on November 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM

These are the same duplicitous clowns that basically said: “the dog ate our Global Warming data.” And that even if he hadn’t eaten it, nobody can see it anyway because, well, just because.

mudskipper on November 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Someone should go to jail over this. When you think about all the human energy wasted as a result of falsified data . . . of course, the hacker will probably go to jail and these other guys will write a book

phillypolitics on November 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Ha ha ha. I know. Priceless. Talk isn’t cheap, you know.
Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:25 AM

So what? I ate cheerios for breakfast. And?
Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Does GF get paid by the post?
No matter how moronic or incomprehensible?

Juno77 on November 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM

But the Mars data? According to who?

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

NASA.

Additionally, all of the other planets have been warming as well.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM

If I “hid” data like this at my job I would be fired.

loudmouth883 on November 20, 2009 at 10:40 AM

And I would pry myself from Dancing With The Stars for this?
As with ACORN if Sarah Palin is not in anyway behind this offense, it isn’t really news worthy. For crying out loud man the kid that got her daughter pregnant… is… uh… out there!
You keep bringing us these piddly stories of massive industrial strength corruptions draining our tax dollars!? Have you even considered Levy’s take on any of this!?
Exit question; For crying out loud would somebody please pry Letterman out of one of his perpetual “job interviews” and tell him about this silliness?

onomo on November 20, 2009 at 10:40 AM

IIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

abobo on November 20, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Solar Variation accounts for the recent warming trend we were in. An small increase in an insubstantial greenhouse gas does not account for that warming trend.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 10:41 AM

The weatherman can’t tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow…or for the next ten years…but he can tell me what it will be like for the next one hundred?

29Victor on November 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM

It would easier to model the average climate (say over a decade) a hundred years in advance than it would be to tell the specific whether of a particular hour one week in advance.

However, its pretty clear that we can’t do either at our current level, so that is something of a moot point.

Count to 10 on November 20, 2009 at 10:42 AM

The Sun wouldn’t be a ball of fire if not for SUV’s, snowmobiles and cow methane, no, it would be a veritable Eden full of life and promise and hope and polar bears.

Bishop on November 20, 2009

But it would still be pretty warm so the polar bears would only come out at night.

SKYFOX on November 20, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Also, even according to Al Gores graphs an increase in CO2 levels FOLLOW warming – and by hundreds of years.

gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 10:44 AM

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM

I see grow fins won’t answer any legitimate questions, just throwing bombs.
Is he upset at us for reporting this, or is he upset at being fooled by his own people? Curious how the liberal mindset works.
When conservatives find out they have been fooled, they go after the perpetrator…liberals go after the whistle blower.
An interesting difference…

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 10:44 AM

SKYFOX on November 20, 2009 at 10:44 AM

But Sarah Palin would still be shooting them.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Well, not quite. We do have enough of a historical record to know that Europe, at least, has been significantly warmer then it is today. It has been colder too obviously.

18-1 on November 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Minor nit.

The records that you refer to are more along the lines of geological than historical.

To me at least, historical records are records written down by men. They for the most part only go back 200 years or so.

Older than that you have to do things like look at tree rings, or glacier moraines, or examine isotope ratios in stalactites or ice cores, etc. There are lots of different methods for determining ancient temperatures, and they are constantly being compared against each other to improve accuracy.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM

It would easier to model the average climate (say over a decade) a hundred years in advance than it would be to tell the specific whether of a particular hour one week in advance.

However, its pretty clear that we can’t do either at our current level, so that is something of a moot point.

Count to 10 on November 20, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Good point. Predicting next week’s weather is different than predicting the climate 100 years from now but climate scientists have not been able to show that they can accurately predict climate changes so until they do we should take whatever their models say with a large grain of salt.

gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Here’s a tasty tidbit:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/no-consensus/#more-6203

Just in case you were wondering how ‘non-consensus’ is dealt with.

And yes, this is from the CRU hack.

The gift that will keep on giving

CPT. Charles on November 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM

LOL! the global criminal left exposed for all to see.

elduende on November 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Climate change on other planets is not proof that human activity doesn’t dramatically affect climate on Earth. There are several theories about what causes climate change on other planets – and solar activity being one of them. The biggest point, however, is that climates do change dramatically on other planets which happens in the absence of human activity.

gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 10:51 AM

The globaloney believers are reacting to the real data the way Andrew Sullivan reacted to Sarah Palin’s book. They’re bleedin’ gobsmacked.

Give ‘em a bit of lacuna to recover their composure. Poor dears.

OhioCoastie on November 20, 2009 at 10:51 AM

It would easier to model the average climate (say over a decade) a hundred years in advance than it would be to tell the specific whether of a particular hour one week in advance.

However, its pretty clear that we can’t do either at our current level, so that is something of a moot point.

Count to 10 on November 20, 2009 at 10:42 AM

In some ways it’s easier, in other ways it’s much harder.

For example, to make a weather forecast, you aren’t concerned with how temperature and precipitation changes will impact plant growth in a region, and how that plant growth will then impact albedo and water traspiration. But to make a climate forecast, that’s information you have to have.

Weather forecasts don’t care if a warmer atmosphere will make changes in ocean circulations, and how those changed circulations will affect sea ice formation and how much heat and water vapor is transfered to the atmosphere. But such knowledge is vital for climate forecasts.

There are 5 spheres in weather talk, atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, and I forget what land surface is called.

How these “speres” interact is irrelevant to a weather forecast, but form the basis for a climate forecast. The problem is that scientists have very little understanding of any of THESE interactions.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Making the data fit the theory is a hallmark of global warming theorists. When the mid-lattitude upper-atmosphere warming failed to show up in the balloon observations like all the AGW theories said it should, \”scientists\” came up with yet another computer model to show how the balloons somehow magically all flew around the warm air and totally missed it, and used wind data instead of temperature to show the theoretical warming was really there.

Socratease on November 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM

IIRC there was also an email that requested others to delete their emails. This runs up against UK laws if the emails were related to an information request. Also, the climate science process is claimed to be transparent, and multiple independent studies. These emails show quite differently.

aikidoka on November 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM

climate scientists have not been able to show that they can accurately predict climate changes so until they do we should take whatever their models say with a large grain of salt.

gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM

To test their models, scientists do what is called hindcasting. That is, they take historical data, plug it into their models, and see how well the models predict historical and current climates.

This has been done on all of the models. They all fail miserably.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM

I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “tricks” is.

Maybe the employees of ACORN could help us out with that.
They may not be scientists at ACORN but they do seem to know a “trick” when they see one.

Lily on November 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Wait, I knew their models fail with regards to the future but they can’t predict what has already happened?

If your Theory does not accurately explain previous or predict future events, isn’t the Theory then a load of Bull?

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM

If we are only entering a 200 year sunspot cooling, or the cyclic mini ice age, not so bad.

However, a report by a pollen expert I read some years before the global warming crowd organized, predicted we may be in the hundreds years preliminary to a new major ice age, during which time temps fluctuate considerably. That report was based upon pollen in ice strata from arctic regions. I lost the article in a hard drive crash, but that was sorry news, assuming major ice ages are also cyclic. Not that I, or many future generations would live to see the end of stage one, but the concept of thousands of years of ice age predicts a radical future. Hundreds of years from now temps would stabilize towards cooling and the world population will have to rethink. I doubt our divilization will avoid a major war before that point

The Global Warming crowd is part of the despicable science crowd. These jokers study science as religion, and fill the news with weak extrapolations to control behavious. They seem incapable of allowing for variables other than the one, two or three correlated.

My aunt was warned her son might be slow by teachers. He was tested and found to have a problem with multiple choice tests. My cousin was so intelligent, he could find valid reasons why all choices were wrong, and could find multiple better answers than the ones offered and so had low scores.

In despicable science, the scientists cannot see beyond their conclusions. Persons who eat almonds have less cancer. Therefore, eat almonds to reduce cancer. Yet, persons who eat almonds might be hard core health fanatics while persons who avoid almonds might be those who enjoy softer junk foods. Almonds are often in trail mix. Trail mix is a choice of athletes and hikers. Perhaps it is the hiking that reduces cancer. Etc etc.

Despicable science. Find a conclusion and make it dogma. Use it to promote your agenda. Destroy the nay sayers.

entagor on November 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM

BTW Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org has made a PDF of the emails. It’s 2000 pages and he has already found some of his emails in there and they are reproduced accurately. I think he used the word shocking. Unfortunately, his website has been having problems lately.

aikidoka on November 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I don’t know what people are upset about. Clearly, if I decide a patient has pneumonia and his chest x-ray is negative, his bloodwork is negative, he doesn’t have a cough or fever or chills and his pulmonary function test is normal, he still OBVIOUSLY has pneumonia.

My data is just wrong.

/If Al Gore were a physician.

DrAllecon on November 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM

entagor on November 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM

From what I understand. The last ice age cycle is about 10,000 years of Interglacial Warm followed by a longer Glacial period. It has been some 10,000 years since the Hollocene began.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Well maybe not the theory but it sure would bring your model into question.

Oldnuke on November 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM

scientists do what is called hindcasting.

MarkTheGreat on November 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM

That’s kind of what these scientists did…they pulled these figures out of there “hind”…often referred to arsecasting.

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM

“There’s a $$$$$ucker born every minute” and $$$money$$ can’t be made without them.

redridinghood on November 20, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Does this mean Al Gore has to give his oscar back?

DrAllecon on November 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM

um… duh?

Mazztek on November 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM

This is a crime many thousands of times worse than what Bernie Madoff did.

The criminal politicians are using this data to foist hundreds of trillions of dollar burdens on the world.

They intend to ruin the oil and gas industry and devastate many other industries.

Everybody involved in the scam should be jailed for life.

And the first one should be Al Toad.

notagool on November 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM

If you can’t understand that, then how the h-e-double-hockeysticks can you understand that email.

Grow Fins on November 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Look at Grow Dumb getting all folksy. But… your handle suggests you really buy into this nonsense. Is your world crashing now that you know you’ve been lied to? Are we going to have to put you on suicide watch?

alliebobbitt on November 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Why? So we can sell tickets?

Fighton03 on November 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM

The only thing I needed to know to debunk Man-made global warming was the FACT that Mars, Saturn and Neptune were also showing higher temps. that told me that man had nothing to do with it

unseen on November 20, 2009 at 11:08 AM

From what I understand. The last ice age cycle is about 10,000 years of Interglacial Warm followed by a longer Glacial period. It has been some 10,000 years since the Hollocene began.

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Give or take a couple of thousand years…think about it, a differening of temp of a few degress over 10,000 years…let’s say 20 degrees (which is really extreme), we would see an average drop or rise of 2 tenths of one degree, per year.

right2bright on November 20, 2009 at 11:08 AM

If it hasn’t already been mentioned, what is being discussed in these emails is being supported by public money. That brings them in for another world of hurt.

aikidoka on November 20, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Juno77 on November 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Grow Fins has become one long bitter ad hominem lately. Must be the pressure of defending stupidity day in and day out.

lorien1973 on November 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Holger on November 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM

And the grant money,don’t forget what a cottage industry thrives on.

inevitable on November 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I hear sputtering and foot stomping…Fins, you okay?

Bishop on November 20, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Snorting and scatching the hooves

This is a bad week for Warm Mongers

Last week Algore referred to the plane earth having temps of several million degrees down 2 kilometers.

seven on November 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Next week these same clowns will be yelling “We’re about to enter a new ICE AGE!”.

GarandFan on November 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM

here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

It’s actually not religious belief. It’s simply just a trick to fool the (m)asses. They don’t believe it themselves.

Has it really taken you this long to finally figure out that the mainstream science so called is simply total lies to fool the masses?

In fact most of the things people take for granted as fact have been exposed as totally fraudulent:

Moon landing: Total hoax/scam to steal billions of dollars.

Evolution: totally fraudulent and unscientific.Purely an attempt to De-Christianize the masses

Oil as a fossil fuel that takes MILLIONS of years to produce: Total hoax to make oil prices high

Global Warming: Total hoax to develop carbon trading scam where they print carbon credits and sell them

MaximusConfessor on November 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7