Not to be facetious, but this is HUGH and SERIES, indeed.
CRU has now admitted the data released is real and they have cancelled all existing passwords to their site.
Visit the link to this post and you'll find links to other places to follow this most excellent development.
Whoa.
Keep this sucker bumped to the top!!!
From the story, one email:
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 UnitTGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding “the decline”, and Jones explained he was not trying to mislead.“No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.” Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
The other emails are described by skeptic commentators as “explosive”, one talks of stacking the peer-review process to prevent qualified skeptical scientists from getting their research papers considered.
This is the biggest "See, I Told You So" in El Rushbo history.
Related???
(no link)
HOW COLD DOES IT FEEL? - NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE USES NEW FORMULA FOR WIND CHILL FACTOR
Evansville Courier, The (IN) - Friday, November 2, 2001
Author: RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press writer
It may not seem quite so cold this winter.
The National Weather Service introduced a new wind chill index Thursday that eases some of the extreme coldness estimates of the old formula.
The wind chill index is a formula that estimates how cold it feels based on the combination of temperature and wind . It is widely reported in winter to help people decide how warmly to dress.
Under the new formula, a 10 mph wind makes a reading of 30 degrees Fahrenheit feel like 21 degrees and a reading of 15 degrees feel like 3 degrees. The old formula calculated that with a 10 mph wind 30 degrees felt like 16 and 15 degrees felt like minus 3.
A 20 mph wind under the new formula makes a 30 degree reading feel like 17 and 15 degrees fell like minus 2. The old formula showed a 20 mph wind making 30 degrees feel like 4 and 15 feel like minus 17.
(snip)
My favorite:
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
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
NOTE: FOI ???...Mann is a government employee...if mann delete those emails it would be a criminal act???
Mikie Mann is a big fish!
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/
Bookmarked!
DEEEEEEEE-LISH! Pass the popcorn. ;-)
The Yellow Bird is on the Credenza, I repeat, The Yellow Bird is on the Credenza ...
BBC is just reporting they were hacked, not what the data was.
It’s going to be interesting to see how the people who supported leaks from the Bush Administration are going to react to this. Will they support “the public’s right to know”?
LOL
Here’s my concern.
It’s only blog type news sources that are even saying it was hacked. This Hadley guy appears to talkt to bloggers but not real reporters about the situation.
Then you see things like “If this is fake it’s so elaborate that it’s impossible to conceive someone would do such a thing.” or “I’ve seen the files and they are massive”
We have to be careful not to be like Dan Rather, “Fake, but true”
Can’t wait to see what the spin is.