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

anelegantchaos.org ^ | 20 November 2009 | anelegantchaos.org

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

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.

[Marie]

That was the first thing I opened up when I downloaded the file. To me, it reads very much like the Rules for Radicals.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well...ROFL....The first line:

These are our principles. If you don't like them, we have others...

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

It gets better........

Kevin Trenberth wrote:

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. [PDF]

<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.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.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see

[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt

Kevin

..... I love it.

Best quote so far: “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.”

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

They have a nice banner:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Send a note of thanks to winoneforthegipper for posting this link... on the

Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

[Texas Fossil]

Yes, that is much easier to search.

Your e-mail addresses are redacted.

I also downloaded it with bittorrent.

Filed for posterity.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

increasingly intelligent guesses

Just DAMN!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

but the data are surely wrong.

Scientists in search of their next research grant.

[musicman]

BFLR & BTTT !!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

A new thread:

NY Times: Hacked E-mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics

[Uncle Miltie]

Mike

your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole

process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often

wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these

kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not

always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you

well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed

and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding

the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we

were basically railroaded by Susan.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=32&pp=25

[Fred Nerks]

thanks Ernest.

Lucy, the e-mails are a hoot!

[Repeat Offender]

From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: 1996 global temperatures Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT) Cc: llivingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djcarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Phil

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20 Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is) cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

[TASMANIANRED]

Need to sue and make them repay all of the tax dollars involved.

[Uncle Miltie]

I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1045

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now about the NY Times author of the article at linked at post #30:

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

Exact match results

You searched for REVKIN

There were 12 results for the exact phrase REVKIN, see below for more results.

*****************Looking at

Alleged CRU Emails - 1254259645.txt

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

From: Michael Mann To: Andrew Revkin Subject: Re: mcintyre's latest.... Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400 Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx



HI Andy,



Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don't quote

anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically--thanks.



Re, your point at the end--you've taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential

for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But

legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in

particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition

for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate

scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside

of this system are not to be trusted.



mike



On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:



thanks heaps.

tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the

reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon.

just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ... a little unclear . ?

I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions

made over at climateaudit.org.....

I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on

the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge

building happens, would you agree?



p.s. Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) is probably the best person to contact for

further details, in Keith's absence,



mike



On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:



Hi Andy,



I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and

is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I

have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.



It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some

of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of

these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method),

let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature

shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming

is anomalous in a long-term context.



So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key

conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem

with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual

information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of

this, in Keith's absence.



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. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic

warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't

submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will

be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you

are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap

published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and

the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn

Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are

parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections

with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer

review.



Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?



mike



I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the

science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is

no



On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:



needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid

picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements

about Yamal data-set selectivity.

Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking

journal publication for his deconstruct?

--

Andrew C. Revkin

The New York Times / Environment

620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018

Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556

Fax: 509-357-0965

[2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin



--



Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075



503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663

The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

University Park, PA 16802-5013

website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html



"Dire Predictions" book site:



[5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html



--



Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075

503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663

The Pennsylvania State University email: [6]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

University Park, PA 16802-5013

website: [7]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html



"Dire Predictions" book site:



[8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

--



Andrew C. Revkin

The New York Times / Environment

620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018

Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556

Fax: 509-357-0965

[9]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin



--

Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075

503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663

The Pennsylvania State University email: [10]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

University Park, PA 16802-5013

website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

"Dire Predictions" book site:

[12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

References



Visible links

1. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

2. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin

3. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

6. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

7. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

8. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

9. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin

10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

12. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html



Hidden links:

13. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

14. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

typical email chain...somewhat garbled...

[editor-surveyor]

After reading through the emails, I have reached the conclusion the the leaker was Kevin Trenberth in Bolder.

He “gets it.” - He continually points out the descrepancies, and the others poo-poo him.

[winoneforthegipper]

Thanks EATB!

This email caught my eye, going to the heart of the AGW industry’s distain for accountability!

“From: “Graham F Haughton” To: “Phil Jones” Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1”

I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we’ve had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I’ve signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, ‘and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!’

Graham”

Found here:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065

[Uncle Miltie]

One thing I thought I might add is more about the other two

surface data sets. A key point may be that 1998 is not the

warmest year in the GISS record — do you trust GISS? I’ve

not looked at NOAA. Perhaps this still has 1998 as warmest?

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1042