Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable ( Global Warming Hoax exposed....)

.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=485

From: Phil Jones To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: FOIA Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005 Cc: Ben Santer

Tom,

I’ll look at what you’ve said over the weekend re CCSP.

I don’t know the other panel members. I’ve not heard any

more about it since agreeing a week ago.

As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she

will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.

I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get

used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.

Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,

so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any

requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to

deal with them.

Cheers

Phil

I cleaned this one up a bit. I changed NONE of the content. I only reorganized the emails so the thread was in chronological order and no longer reversed and removed some of the lengthy “TO’s” and “FROM’s” to shorten the page a bit.

The first few emails are a conversation with Keenan and Wang. Keenan is accusing Wang of screwing up basic weather station information and requesting that he retract his paper.

After a bit of back-and-fourth, Wang forwarded the conversation on to Phil Jones. (I can’t figure out when Tom Karl came into play.)

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=802

EMAIL #1

> -—— Original Message -——

> From: “D.J. Keenan” [13]

> Date: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:31 am

> Subject: retraction request

>> Dear Dr. Wang,

>> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.

>> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained from 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.

>> 49 have no histories

>> 08 have inconsistent histories

>> 18 have substantial relocations

>> 02 have single-year relocations

>> 07 have no relocations

>> Furthermore, some of the relocations are very distant—over 20 km.

>> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here: [14]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970

>> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.

>> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me. I have received no response.

>> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your university at Albany.

>> Douglas J. Keenan

EMAIL #2

> 4/22/2007 4:46 PM e-mail Wang to Keenan-————

> Dear Dr. Keenan,

> I was really surprised to see your e-mail (below) after I logged into SUNYA webmail in Nanjing/China, after several days of disconnection (from internet) while travelling in central China.

> I flew to China early morning on 4/14, the day after your call to my office when I was in a meeting. My understanding was that you are going to call me again, but you never did.

In any case, becuase of 4/14 trip to China, I origionally plan to respond to your 4/11 e-mailed questions when I return to Albany the end of this month. To answer your questions more accurately, I need to look into the file (if I can find it since it has been a long time), and also contact the co-author, Ms. Zeng, who brought the data and visited SUNYA as a visiting scientist from the Institute of

> Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, during that time.

> Regards,

> WCW

(EMAIL #3)

-—— Original Message -——

From: [7]

To: “’D.J. Keenan’” [8]

Cc: “’Phil Jones’” [9]; [10];

“’Wei-Chyung Wang’” [11]; “’Zeng Zhaomei’”

[12]

Sent: Monday, 30 April, 2007 6:14

Subject: Re: retraction request

> Dr. Keenan,

> The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed that she used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that the selected stations for the study of urban warming in China have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times over the study period (1954-1983).

> Regards,

> WCW

EMAIL #4

-——Original Message-——

From: D.J. Keenan [[6]mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:43 AM

To: Wei-Chyung Wang

Subject: Re: retraction request

Dear Dr. Wang,

I had something urgent arise, and so had to leave this matter for a while.

Please find attached a rough draft report. If you believe the report to be inaccurate or misrepresentative, kindly let me know.

I hope that you will reconsider. If you decide to publish retractions, I will cease to bring this forward.

Sincerely,

Douglas Keenan

EMAIL #5

Dr. Keenan,

The only valid scientific issue described in your June 11, 2007 e-mailed pdf

file (attached here as reference) concerning our 1990 GRL paper is the

“station histories”, while others are strictly your own opinions and

therefore irrelevant to your inquiry. So let me elaborate further on this

issue.

Digitization of the hard copies of “station histories” was prepared in

1989-90 by Ms. Zhao-Mei Zeng (IAP/CAS) only for the 60-station network,

while the “station histories” of other stations, including those we used in

1990 urban warming study, were available in paper form, as I have already

indicated in my 4/30/07 e-mail to you. Therefore, the use of the word

“fabrication” in your document is totally absurd.

Concerning the current status of these hard copies of “station histories”,

Ms. Zeng told me when I was in Beijing in April 2007, that she no longer has

the access to these information because it has been a long time (since 1990)

and also IAP has moved office. But if you are interested, you can make an

inquiry to the China Meteorological Administration using the web site:

[4]http://211.147.16.25/ywwz/about/cma.php.

I believe that I have made it very clear what we had done with regard to the

“station histories” in 1990 urban warming study. What and how you are going

to proceed from now on is entirely your decision.

WCW

EMAIL #6

Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:

Wei-Chyung and Tom,

The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?

Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.

In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.

Nothing much else to say except:

1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.

2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.

3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.

Cheers

Phil

EMAIL #7

From: “Thomas.R.Karl” To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: FW: retraction request Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400 Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang

Thanks Phil,

We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site of 40 of the USHCN stations

showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.

We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.

Regards, TOm

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=877

Mike, Ray, Caspar,

A couple of things - don’t pass on either.

1. Have seen you’re RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go, but it will drum up some discussion.

Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these will appear in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this article by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This likely won’t get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence.

Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C too cool globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which measure SST better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low relative to the ship-based 1961-90 base.

This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc.

There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can’t even measure it properly now.

The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means there will be warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move the post-40s cooling to a little later - more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s.

The paper doesn’t provide a correction. This will come, but will include the addition of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the WW2 years.

More British SST data have also been digitized for the late 1940s. Budget

constraints mean that only about half the RN log books have been digitized. Emphasis has been given to the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books.

As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the Pacific. They have digitized all the logbooks of the ships journeys from the Indian Ocean south of Australia and NZ to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here - it turns out that most of the ships are US ones the UK got under the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. All the RN bases in South Africa, India and Australia didn’t have parts for these ships for a few years.

So the German group would be stupid to take your bet. There is a likely ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing!

2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.

I can’t wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on.

The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report.

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!

Cheers

Phil

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=873

A discussion about the recent drop of surface temps...

No 6...don’t we have suppression of contrary opinions....in there.?

That’s *exactly* what they’re saying.

It gets even better. Phil is discussing working with GOVERNMENTAL agencies to shut CA out.

The BMRC is the “Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre”

http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/

The UEA is University of East Anglia. This is where the files were hacked from.

This also happens to be the workplace of a certain Mike Hulme. Prof. Hulme was referenced in a Works document found in the hacked files titled “jones fioathoughts” dated 4/23/2007. (Jones is referring to Phil Jones, the same author of Email #6)

Here’s what is in that document:

Options appear to be:

1. Send them the data

2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

~~~ So here we find Mr. Jones trying to figure out how to get out of a FIOA request...

This one is interesting:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=710
_____________________________________________________

At 09:01 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote:

Hi Tim and co,

Thanks for the figure. I like the figure showing the model results and the general outline/graphic style.

However, I am concerned about what is shown in the forcing figure.

1) Volcanic panel: I strongly believe that we should show what was used by the model and not some 40 year smoothed curves for volcanic forcing or any other forcing. So please use the original data file. Scientific honesty demands to show what was used and not something post-processed.

2) solar panel:

2a) We must show the Wang-Lean-Shirley data on the original resolution as used to drive the models. In this way, we also illustrate the magnitude of the 11-yr annual cycle in comparison with the background trend. The record being flat, apart from the 11-yr cycle, during the last decades is a reality.

2b) Do not apply any smooting to the Bard data. Just use them as they are and how they were published by Bard and used in the model.

2c) It is fine to supress the Bard 0.08 case after 1610 (not done in my figure version) 2d) the emphasis of the figure is on the solar forcing differences. So, please show solar somewhat overproportional in comparison to volcanic and other forcings.

3) other forcings: again no smoothing needed here. It would be hard to defend a double smoothing.

4)- normalisation of solar forcing to some period mean. If the different solar forcings disagree for today as in your option, we may send the signal that we do not even know solar forcing today. Thus, I slightly prefer to have the same mean forcing values for all solar records during the last few decades as shown in the attached version. However, I also can see some arguments for other normalisations.

To illustrate points 1 to 4, I have prepared and attached a version of the forcing panel.

other points

- Your choice of colors is fine

- time range 1000-2000 AD is fine - suggest to remove the text from the y-labels except the units W/m2.

Sorry for this additional comments coming a bit late. However, I did not realise that you planned to smoothed the model input data in any way.

With best wishes,

Fortunat
_____________________________________________________

Tim Osborn wrote:

Hi all,

thanks for the responses, Peck and Fortunat.I drafted the new figure 6.14 following as closely as possible the approach used for the original forcing/simulation figure (now 6.13).

This is why I smoothed all series and used a common anomalisation period for all curves across all panels. It can greatly help to interpret why the simulated temperature responds in the way it does, because the zero (or “normal” level) is comparable across plots and because the strengths of different forcings can be compared *on the same timescale* as the simulated temperatures are shown. And, for 6.13, with so many different forcings and models shown, it would have been impossible to use unsmoothed series without making the individual curves indistinguishable (or indeed fitting them into such a compact figure).

Now that the EMIC panels are separate from the original 6.13, we do have the opportunity to make different presentational choices. But I think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13 probably also hold in 6.14.

However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat, specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern reference period removes the interpretation that we don’t even know the forcing today.

So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these competing demands. One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat’s implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then presumably the same holds for 6.13 (but its impossible to distinguish all the different volcanic forcings if shown unsmoothed), but also to every other graphic... should I be showing the EMIC simulated temperatures without smoothing too, so you can see the individual yearly responses to the volcanic spikes? But annual means are formed from the temperatures simulated on the model timesteps, so we still wouldn’t be showing results that had not been post-processed.

Most climate models, even GCMs, respond in a quasi-linear way, such that the smoothed response to unsmooth forcing is very similar to the response to smooth forcing. So if we are interested in the temperature response on time scales of 30 years and longer, it seems entirely appropriate (and better for interpretation/comparison of forcings) to show the forcings on this time scale too, because the forcing variations on those time scales are the ones that are driving the temperature response (even though the forcing may be intermittent like volcanoes or have 11-yr cycles like solar). The choice of smoothing / no smoothing is not, therefore, anything to do with honesty/dishonesty, but is purely a presentational choice that can made accordingly to what the purpose of the figure is. Here our purpose seems to be long-term climate changes, rather than response to individual volcanoes or to the 11-yr solar cycle.

So the position is:

(1) smoothing or no smoothing: there are arguments for both choices, though clearly I prefer smoothing and Fortunat prefers no smoothing. I could make a figure which kept the smooth lines but put the raw annual histogram volcanic spikes underneath in pale grey, as Peck requested anyway (and possibly put the 11-yr solar cycles in pale brown underneath the smoothed brown solar series). This would be a compromise but the main problem is that the scale of the largest volcanic spikes would far exceed the scale I am using to show the smoothed series (so the panel is not large enough to do this)!

(2) pre-industrial or present-day anomalisation reference period: again there are arguments for both choices. Whatever we choose, I firmly believe it should be the same for *all* curves in this figure (which can make a dramatic difference).

(3) exaggeration of solar scale or proportional vertical scales: this is the one that I have the firmest opinion about. I see no reason to exaggerate the scale of the solar forcings relative to volcanic or anthropogenic forcings. The difference between the forcings looks clear enough in the version of the figure that I made. Exaggerating it will wrongly make the Bard 2.5% case look (at first glance) bigger than the anthropogenic forcing, and make it look more important than volcanic forcing.

I’ll hold off from making any more versions till decisions are made on these issues.

Cheers
Tim
______________________________________________________

At 13:45 18/07/2006,

Fortunat Joos wrote:

Dear Tim,

Sorry, that was a very careless and a totally inappropriate choice of words. I seriously apologize.

Of course smoothing is not dishonest (I do it also all the time). To the contrary, I very much apreciate all your hard work to do these figures. I know that it is very time consuming from own experience ... (that is perhaps why I did not reflect on my wording when writing the e-mail).

What I wanted to say is that if one has the opportunity to show directly what forcing was used by the model than I very much prefer to do so.

I hope there remains no misunderstanding. I realize now that I should have used more modest wording at various places.

Let us see what Eystein, Peck and Keith are thinking about it.

With best wishes,
Fortunat

_____________________________________________________

Keith Briffa wrote:

Fortunat et al

My opinions were consistent with Tim’s expression - we discussed his response. The importance of consistency between different modelling Figures (time response of filters and in the absolute magnitude of forcing scale) are the most important aspects. To start showing apparently different volcanic spikes (in the sulphate and EMIC Figure ) will lead to confusion also.

Ultimately we should remember that the point of this Figure is to show that you can not get simulated temperatures to match observations without anthropogenic forcing - not to show proportional responses to different solar or volcanic events.

cheers
Keith

What you are reading is articles against global warming that these scientists sent to each other.

looking at a website mentioned in James Delingpole's Blog at the Telegraph ...FR Thread:

Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

which is Bishop Hill--

********************************EXCERPT*****************************

Climate cuttings 33

November 20, 2009

Climate

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

See #150.

Another website mentioned is:

Climate Depot

***************************EXCERPT ************************************

And from Rush:

ClimateDepot.com: Substantial Fraud in Climate Change Hoax?

**********************************EXCERPT*****************************

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, folks, I want to give you a website to go to when you get a chance. It's called ClimateDepot.com. Something fascinating has happened, and I was first alerted to this today by our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer. "A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU." That is Britain's largest climate research institute. They're a huge proponent of global warming. The hacker "seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the 'evidence' on global warming; the unlawful destruction of records to cover up this fraud" to keep it away from Freedom of Information Act requests, for example. Deceit in the entire operation. And the best place to get all the detail is Marc Morano, our former "man in Washington" on my TV show, who runs ClimateDepot.com. All the details are there. It's a great place to keep up on the global warming debate. He's probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what's going on here.

But apparently they got 62 megabytes of e-mails from this computer, and it looks bad. And it looks like... You know, you see something like this and you say, "Okay, we gotta make sure this is not a hoax." Dr. Spencer looked at this. He said, "This is too, too, too elaborate to be a hoax," in his estimation. I don't know if the jury's still out on that, but more and more people are picking up on this. I've instinctively known this from the get-go, from 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up, and the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it! When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus. It's never what they say it is. There's always a hidden reason behind the objective. The objective, stated objective, is just designed to get you feeling guilty, responsible, frightened, scared -- and your kids as well. But it looks like substantial fraud -- a lot of evidence of substantial fraud -- in reporting the "evidence" on global warming.

Clarice Feldman at the AmericanThinker.com has posted on this, and she's got a sample of the purportedly hacked materials here. There are 1,079 e-mails and 72 documents, and they are available online. The hackers put 'em up.

"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 temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from the 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline [in temperature]."

To hide the decline in temperature!

"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" blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, there are other examples of e-mails. Thomas Lifson adds here, "One interesting hacked e-mail childishly insults American Thinker, by calling [them] the 'American Stinker'." So these people are clearly aware of the people out there who are the so-called deniers. But if this is the real thing, it could be huge. You know, and I must claim that I have saved one soul on this: The lovely and dear Rachel sitting across the glass from me, who is transcribing our calls today. She was an early believer in Algore's movie and book -- and, it's not her fault. I mean, the way this stuff has been positioned, who doesn't want to save the planet? I mean, who wants the planet to be burned up? Who wants the environment to go so bad that we're all going to die? Who wants the polar bears drowning? Nobody wants that, and this is the way the left comes and grabs your heartstrings in order to separate you from your money while they take your soul. And Rachel no longer believes. You don't, do you? (interruption) She no longer believes the gunk. But she at one time was a prisoner of this stuff, and there are a lot of people who are. So it will be interesting to watch this story get played out and disseminated. But if it's true, it is huge.

From the comments to Bishop Hill Blog item...see post #150:

************************************EXCERPT******************************

These emails are very damaging to Jones and Mann, others are not nearly as damaged. I suggest that they were likely specifically targeted by FOIA2009.

Searching:

*********************************

Exact match results

You searched for FOIA

There were 22 results for the exact phrase FOIA, see below for more results.

********************************************EXCERPT************************************

1.

filename=1229468467

From: Tom Wigley To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: FOIA request Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:01:07 -0700 Cc: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan Solomon , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz , "David C. Bader" , Bill Goldstein , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Hal Graboske , Cherry Murray , mann , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Bill Fulkerson , Professor Glenn McGregor , Luca Delle Monache , "Hack, James J." , Thomas C Peterson , vladeckd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, miller21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Wehner , "Bamzai, Anjuli"

Dear Ben,

This is a good idea. However, will you give only tropical (20N-20S) results? I urge you to give data for other zones as well, viz, SH, NH, GL, 0-20N, 20-60N, 60-90N, 0-20S, 20-60S, 60-90S (plus 20N-20S). To have these numbers on line would be of great benefit to the community. In other words, although prompted by McIntyre's request, you will actually be giving something to everyone.

Also, if you can give N3.4 SSTs and SOI data, this would be an additional huge boon to the community.

For the data, what period will you cover. Although for our paper we only use data from 1979 onwards, to give data for the full 20th century runs would be of great benefit to all. This, of course, raises the issue of drift. Even over 1979 to 1999 some models show appreciable drift. From memory we did not account for this in our paper -- but it is an important issue.

This is a lot of work -- but the benefits to the community would be truly immense.

Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to list the 47 models that he wants the data for. The current request is ambiguous -- or, at least, ill defined. I think it is crucial for McIntyre to state specifically what he wants. Even if we think we know what he wants, this is not good enough -- FOIA requests must be clear, complete and unambiguous.

This, after all, is a legal issue, and no court of law would accept anything less.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++++

Continuing ...see link at #154:

Emails - 1231257056.txt

*********************************EXCERPT*************************

From: Stephen H Schneider To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: [Fwd: data request] Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:50:56 -0800 (PST) Cc: "David C. Bader" , Bill Goldstein , Pat Berge , Cherry Murray , George Miller , Anjuli Bamzai , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Doug Rotman , Peter Thorne , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan Solomon , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "Philip D. Jones" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz

"Thanks" Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had a similar experience--but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a private institution--with Stephen McIntyre demanding that I have the Mann et al cohort publish all their computer codes for papers published in Climatic Change. I put the question to the editorial board who debated it for weeks. The vast majority opinion was that scientists should give enough information on their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capable can do their own brand of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal computer codes with all their undocumented sub routines etc. It would be odious requirement to have scientists document every line of code so outsiders could then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not in the business of producing software products for general consumption and have no resources to do so. The NSF, which funded the studies I published, concurred--so that ended that issue with Climatic Change at the time a few years ago.

This continuing pattern of harassment, as Ben rightly puts it in my opinion, in the name of due diligence is in my view an attempt to create a fishing expedition to find minor glitches or unexplained bits of code--which exist in nearly all our kinds of complex work--and then assert that the entire result is thus suspect. Our best way to deal with this issue of replication is to have multiple independent author teams, with their own codes and data sets, publishing independent work on the same topics--like has been done on the "hockey stick". That is how credible scientific replication should proceed.

Let the lawyers figure this out, but be sure that, like Ben is doing now, you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented personalized codes etc. The end of the email Ben attached shows their intent--to discredit papers so they have no "evidentiary value in public policy"--what you resort to when you can't win the intellectual battle scientifically at IPCC or NAS. Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to international climate policy actions, We are witnessing the "contrarian battle of the bulge" now, and expect that all weapons will be used.

Cheers, Steve PS Please do not copy or forward this email.

Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net

patientfromhell.org

BFL

See the updates....

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.

Input McIntyre for the search and you will find unethical emails right away.

McIntyre of course being for Steven McIntyre

From the email at post #154:

Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to list the 47 models that he wants the data for.

************************************

McIntyre is like a bull dog after these sleazy characters......