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

On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.

As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. It is here just as a curiosity!

You can either search using the keyword search box above, or use the links below to browse them 25 emails at a time.

Chasing thru some of the embedded links we come to this :

Open Letter On Climate Legislation

*****************************Small EXCERPT************************

Posted by Jeff Id on November 13, 2009

An open letter reply to a letter written to government by 18 different scientific organizations concerning climate change legislation by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts.

The original letter:

****************************snip*************************

Subject: Letter to Senators concerning climate change legislation – 21.Oct.2009 (right top box).

Dear President or Executive Director,

How could it happen that more than a dozen of the most prestigious scientific associations signed and submitted this letter on ‘climate change’ without having ensured that the used terminology is sufficiently defined. Good science can and is required to work with reasonable terms and explanations. The science about the behaviour of the atmosphere should be no exception. But WMO¹, IPCC and other institutions simply are using the layman’s term of weather and climate not even recognizing that this is very unscientifically.

**************************************8snip*************************************

29 Responses to “Open Letter On Climate Legislation”

and within this we have the single response:

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

FOIA said

November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm

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.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

This is a limited time offer, download now: http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip

Sample:

0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

Trying to find stuff on the Yamil tree rings...and finally got reponse from Mcintyre's website:

Juckes and "Restricted" Data

********************************EXCERPTS*********************************

by Steve McIntyre on October 7th, 2007

Many climateaudit readers will remember Mann's "CENSORED" directory, in which Mann calculated principal components on a network that excluded bristlecone pines (which needless to say didn't have a HS shape. Now Juckes et al introduces us to a new type of climate data: "restricted" data. The Team has introduced a novel data classification system - PG and R. Juckes et al say that the Indigirka series is R-rated and so it can't be used in their reconstruction. Yes, R-rated tree ring data. Data so salacious that you have to keep it under lock and key.

Is it only under-18s that are not allowed to see R-rated tree ring data? Can we show it here if Kristen Byrnes promises not to look?
Or are all climateaudit readers prohibited? Is this a bit like pornography that is only available to priests? You think that I am juck-ing? Here are their exact words from the Euro Hockey Team for excluding the Indigirka series:

The Indigirka series used by MSH2005 is not used here because it is not available for unrestricted use.

I wonder what went through the minds of editor Goosse when he read that this was a "restricted use" proxy? Did Goosse ask what the restrictions were? Or referee Gerd B�rger or the other two anonymous referees? Since they don't appear to have asked or weren't bothered by the answer, let's ask the question here. And, by the way, for readers who may be offended by salacious tree ring data, proceed at your own risk as the R-rated data is shown graphically in the post continuation. Yes, you too can see what the climate priests keep in their secret cupboard. If you are not over 18, please do not continue without parental guidance.

OK, sorry to disappoint you, but the issues are not salacious at all and have nothing to do with XXX-rated tree ring data. They have to do with whether Nature policies that require data to be publicly available apply to the Team and to whether a very weak rider attached to Moberg's dissemination of the Indigirka data prevented Juckes from including the Indigirka series in his composite.

Moberg et al 2005 and the Indigirka Series
The Indigirka series has been discussed here on a number of occasions, for example, here here here here among others.

The series was used in Moberg et al (Nature 2005), whose lead author was a co-author of Juckes et al. Moberg et al 2005 atttributed the Indigirka proxy to Sidorova and Naurzbaev 2002 and illustrated it in their Nature SI as follows:

Excerpt from Moberg et al 2005 SI showing Indigirka series x-axis here and in subsequent plots as years AD (not BP).

So this proxy is actually illustrated in Nature of all places. Nature has the following policy on availability of data:

An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors' published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols available in a publicly accessible database (as detailed in the sections below on this page) or, where one does not exist, to readers promptly on request….Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed at the time of submission of the manuscript, and the methods section of the manuscript itself should include details of how materials and information may be obtained, including any restrictions that may apply.

No such restrictions were reported in Moberg et al 2005. After the publication of Moberg et al 2005, I sought digital versions of a couple of series, including the Indigirka series, which Moberg said that he was unable to provide. I accordingly filed a Materials Complaint under the above policy. I presume that Moberg sorted things out with the data originators as a Corrigendum, was issued, stating that the data could now be obtained from the authors, and, for the Indigirka data in particular, they said:

they [the tree-ring-width data from the Indigirka river region (series G)] may, however, be obtained through A.M. [Anders Moberg]

Under Nature's data policy, of which all parties were aware, Moberg had an obligation to report any remaining "restrictions that may apply" in the Corrigendum. He did not disclose any.

Trying to find stuff on the American Stinker...as one of the emails labeled it...lets post this...there is much more that turned up with a Google search:

Global Warming 'Science'

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

September 27, 2009

By John McLaughlin

It was a startling admission. Prior to passage of "Cap-and-Trade" legislation by the House of Representatives, Mr. Henry Waxman (D, CA), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman and co-sponsor of the bill, in responding to a question from Mr. Joe Barton (R, TX) at a May 22 hearing, admitted the following:

I certainly don't claim that I know everything that's in this bill. I know we left it to ....we relied very heavily on the scientists on the IPCC and others and the consensus they have that there is a problem with global warming, it's having an impact, and that we need to reduce it by the amounts they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. That's what I know, but I don't know the details. I rely on the scientists.

Since then, the House of Representatives has passed and sent to the Senate a major piece of legislation which both Republicans and Democrats agree will heavily tax certain industries, significantly raise prices on energy consumption, and increase the cost of almost all produced goods. President Barack Obama, in a September 22 speech at the United Nations "climate summit," said, "We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations."

Americans have been told that climate change legislation must become law based upon findings by scientists in a group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If that "science" becomes the justification for all of the forecasted economic pain, doesn't it deserve scrutiny and independent validation?

Mr. Waxman's justification for immediate passage of his legislation consists of two major premises:

1. Recent unprecedented global warming appears underway which a "scientific consensus" deems a major problem.

2. This new global warming is caused primarily by human activity mandating reduction of greenhouse gases, specifically levels of carbon dioxide, to reduce potentially profound and calamitous worldwide effects.

It turns out that work done on several fronts over recent years casts serious doubt upon the IPCC work and, in fact, may make a case for claiming scientific fraud. Let's review the situation.

Background

Since its inception in 1988, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has sought to evaluate the risk of climate change brought about by human activity. There has never been a requirement to also evaluate potential natural causes.

The IPCC has published four major reports over a 19-year period. They claim that a number of mathematical models reveal how "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in anthropogenic (manmade) greenhouse gas concentrations". They predict dire effects from rising temperatures including major heat waves, heavy rainfalls, and rising ocean sea levels due primarily to loss of land ice and increasing ocean temperatures.

Their reports include a graph derived from mathematical models showing average global temperatures back to 1000 AD. The graph appears relatively flat for over 900 years. Then, about 1920, temperatures begin to rocket upward with but a brief pause around 1970 before heading still higher with no relief in sight. So startling was this graph when it first appeared, it became known as the "Hockey Stick" chart.

******************************Interruption and notes for the Reader.....

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

The Hockey Stick Graph ....is / was.... used heavily by the Globalist Warming Alarmists community till....Steve MacIntyre basically destroyed their argument...destroying much of the data arguments.....

From other of the many threads...this might be useful....Andrew Bolt at herald sun.au:

Warmist conspiracy exposed?

**********************************EXCERPTS************************************

Andrew Bolt

Friday, November 20, 2009 at 08:34pm

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

8.15 PM UPDATE: The ~~Hadley~~ University of East Anglia CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine:

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight ..."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."…
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.

Not surprising, then, that Steve McIntyre reports:

Earlier today, CRU cancelled all existing passwords. Actions speaking loudly.

But back to the original post - and the most astonishing of the emails so far…

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

Hackers have broken into the data base of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit - one of the world’s leading alarmist centres - and put the files they stole on the Internet, on the grounds that the science is too important to be kept under wraps.

The ethics of this are dubious~~, to say the least~~. But the files suggest, on a very preliminary glance, some other very dubious practices, too, and a lot of collusion - sometimes called “peer review”. Or even conspiracy.

A warning, of course. We can only say with a 90 per cent confidence interval that these emails are real.

(ALTERNATIVE link to the files. And another link.)

UPDATE

Ethics alert! (my bolding - and I’ve update this post with the full alleged email, now):

******************************************snip*********************************************

Destroying government data subject to an FOI request is a criminal offence. Is this data being deleted the stuff CA asked from Jones in repeated FOI requests? If true, Jones had better get himself a lawyer very fast, but I doubt very much he would have done anything remotely illegal.

UPDATE 4

This, if true (caution!), is especially sick. (Note; John Daly was a Tasmanian sceptic who did superb work, especially on sea level rises on the “Isle of the Dead"). I’ve added the boldening):

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@XXXX)
“
Reported with great sadness

UPDATE 5

I said conspiracy, but Professor Overpeck (a contact of Robyn “100 metres” Williams) prefers they be called the “team”:

At 14:09 -0600 13-09-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
thanks David - lets see what others think. I agree, that we don’t want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that all the TAR said was “likely” the warmest in the last 1000 years. Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years. But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete that second sentence.
any other thoughts team?

(Thanks to various readers.)

UPDATE 6

The anonymous hackers offer this brief summary of their alleged finds so far:

**************************************snip*****************************************

UPDATE 7

Regarding that FOI request sent to Jones, referred to above. Here (if the email is genuine) he discusses in a file called “jones-foiathoughts.doc” his evident reluctance to hand over information, presumably to Climate Audit - and lists as one option sending back the information just as raw data, which would “annoy” those behind the FOI request:

Options appear to be:
Send them the data
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.
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.
****************************************snip*****************************************
UPDATE 9
Reader Chemist finds more which - if true - make this proof of a conspiracy which is one of the largest, most extraordinary and most disgraceful in moderrn science, given the stakes:

Here are some gems. “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!""Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets (more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers yougave in your email!!""Ed to be really honest, I don’t see how this was ever accepted for publication in Nature.""Mike,I’d rather you didn’t. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie’semail that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.Cheers""we are having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions - being scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still getting the crux of the information across clearly.”

I decided to take a break and go back to exploring the computer sites and ...on the Register (UK) I find this...I always crack up with their strange Headlines...:

Wrecking CRU: hackers cause massive climate data breach
Secretive scientists' source code goes walkabout

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

By Andrew Orlowski

Posted in Environment, 20th November 2009 16:51 GMT

The University of East Anglia has confirmed that a data breach has put a large quantity of emails and other documents from staff at its Climate Research Unit online. CRU is one of the three leading climate research centres in the UK, and a globally acknowledged authority on temperature reconstructions.

CRU declined to say whether it would attempt to halt the data breach. In a statement a spokesman told us:

*******************************snip************************

A 61MB ZIP file was posted on a Russian FTP server late last night, local time. It contains over a thousand emails, and around three thousand other items including source code and data files. Emails are peppered with disparaging remarks and a crude cartoon of sceptical scientists is also included in the archive - suggesting the hacker roamed wide across the University's servers.

************************snip*************************************

CRU has been the centre of controversy for its roles in creating global temperature reconstructions, and maintaining the archive of temperature data. Recent temperature reconstructions characterise post 1980 temperatures as unprecedentedly warm, and downplay historical periods of warm weather. This is the so called "Hockey Stick" controversy, and many (but far from all) of these reconstructions involve key CRU staff.

In August, Phil Jones admitted CRU had failed to keep the raw data, which would permit outside parties to create their own temperature reconstructions. More recently, CRU dendroclimatologist Keith Briffa defended his sampling methodology which saw the inclusion of one tree core from the Yamal Peninsula create a Hockey Stick shaped graph, dubbed the "hottest tree in the world".

The documents also appear to highlight a chummy relationship between sympathetic journalists - particularly the New York Times Andrew Revkin - and activist scientists.

They're being discussed at Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit here - but there's no reaction yet at the blog frequented by the participants of "Hockey Team", as they have styled themselves, RealClimate.

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.