Posted on 11/20/2009 1:39:35 AM PST by jsh3180
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.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/annrep93/cru.jpg
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 rtaher than direct link becuase 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….
Drill baby, Drill!!!
Cap and trade, scrubbers, catayltic converters made a big dent
I hope there’s a lot more than one bad email in this lot - we really need to see a consistent chain of evidence in their attempts to produce fraudulent data. One email can be explained away and the MSN will eat it up.
Mel
See NY Times thread, posts 31, 34, 35, 36.
Just this one is enough to put someone in jail I should think.
Who/what is CRU, and why are they so important?
The Hadley CRU feeds most of the UN’s IPCC it’s climate data. They are considered the premier climate change research lab.
Well, well.....I have tried to give AGW the benefit of the doubt b/c of the prominent scientists who support it. I could never understand it, as it countered everything I learned about past climate - and the models were always wrong. Hockey stick? What crap. Now this. We have seen the corruption of political science - now the corruption of natural science. You know, this is all about world control and redistribution of the wealth. This SHOULD end the “debate”. Will it??????
LMAO!!!!!!!!! and I just saw Al Gore on Tv blubbering on about lies about lies.
Woah! Thank you!
God bless this hacker, whoever he/she is!
This scandal does not surprise me in the least. Anyone with the wit the Gods gave a goat should be able to look at the last 5-6 millions years worth of history and realize that life's impact on this mudball is MINUSCULE. We're barely scratching the surface... Literally.
Power and money were the reasons AGW even made it as far as it did. The fraudsters benefiting from the hoax deserve a speedy trial and harsh penalties...
Nothing less. Nothing more.
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected.They are in control of the journals. No anti-warming comment is allowed to be published, and no viewpoint that is not published in a peer-reviewed journal is "legitimate".
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391179/posts
The Day Global Warming Stood Still (But Warming Lies Didn’t)
Investor’s Business Daily ^ | November 20, 2009 | IBD editorial staff
Posted on Friday, November 20, 2009 5:01:45 PM by raptor22
Climate Change: As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.
It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.
The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate’s version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.
“I proudly declare 2009 as the ‘Year of the Skeptic,’ the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard,” Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. “Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked.”
Inhofe added: “Today I have been vindicated.”
The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: “So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, ‘Yes. We’re going to pass a global warming bill,’ I will be able to stand up and say, ‘No, it’s over. Get a life. You lost. I won,’” Inhofe said.
Should be fraud, conspiracy, RICO and anything else that would fit — he made millions if not a billion off of the ‘junk science scam!’
Sen Inhofe has been vindicated as he has been calling it ‘junk science’ for years.
That is an interesting example of what we can do with ingenuity and technology when confronted with a real problem and allowed to apply real solutions (well, maybe not C&T, although I see how that could be beneficial in the short-term.)
I have heard my brother-in-law (TVA engineer) discuss how difficult it is to get government approval for making small changes that would improve air quality. On one hand, the gov't likes to complain about the pollution while, on the other hand, they refuse to allow them the freedom to do what the gov't demands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.