Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

Here goes another little subset of emails regarding the quality of Mann's tree core methodology:

The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study

www.powerlineblog.com...

SNIPPET FROM LATER IN THE ARTICLE:
This strikes me as a damning commentary on the entire alarmist enterprise. Meanwhile, not only are Briffa's data flawed and seemingly cherry-picked, the assumptions on which the tree-ring studies are based may be bogus in the first place. The email collection includes these two messages from a plant scientist, both within the last 60 days:

Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell. However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers.

As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009). As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;

1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the "Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner.

Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers. As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science.

There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller.

Tree ring studies are vitally important to the conclusions reached by the U.N.'s IPCC report, which is the main foundation for the claim that anthropogenic global warming has been "proved." That being the case, one would think that Briffa, one of the two or three primary authors of the tree ring studies, would have a ready response to these very basic questions. But no: he did not reply to Dr. Keiller's email. That prompted this second inquiry from Dr. Keiller:

Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology; ([5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm) and the chronology itself; ([6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/)

Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre ([7]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588) Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions

1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?

2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low individual weighting?

And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my initial email.
Dr. D.R. Keiller

READ THE REST:
www.powerlineblog.com...

[edit on 21-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by Shirakawa
From the Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Data breach at climate research center in U.K

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 20, 2009; 8:35 PM

..........

In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director Phil Jones alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. "It's hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

.........

The original article


Notice in this article they COMPLETELY avoid explaining WHY he "used Nature's trick". He used the trick to HIDE THE DECLINE!!! This is not explained in this article!!!

The WP is cleverly skirting around WHY he did that, and only explained HOW he did it. Outrageous!!

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ACEMANN]

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ACEMANN]

The story finally made it to ABC News (via AP):

abcnews.go.com...

Hackers Leak E-Mails, Stoke Climate Debate

Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming

By DAVID STRINGER Associated Press Writer
LONDON November 21, 2009 (AP)


Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.

The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.

In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

The scientist's use of the word "trick" has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change.

"Words fail me," Stephen McIntyre — a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change — wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.

However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," he said in a statement Saturday.

The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous."

"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement.

And also Treehugger

Climate Researcher Database Hacked

by Daniel Kessler, San Francisco, California on 11.21.09

Email communication has made us efficient--yes--but also short-tempered, imprudent at time, and sloppy. Need proof? Check out emails between climate scientists stored on servers at the University of East Anglia that showed not a plot but perhaps too much information-sharing on climate change between scientists. The server was hacked into and the emails--almost 20 years worth from prominent scientists--showed up on a Russian FTP.

The result is a bonanza for climate change skeptics and deniers, but before they crow too loud I would advise them to actually read the emails which contain in some cases poor choices of words but not any real information that shows a conspiracy from scientists to cook the numbers.

The most damning exchange was explained by the NYT's Andrew Revkin:

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a "trick" employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word "trick" to refer to a good way to solve a problem, "and not something secret."

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. "It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you're talking about, there's nothing there," Dr. Mann said.

You don't have to be too conspiracy minded to find a link with this story to the upcoming climate negotiations. But if anything, the emails prove that over decades the science has become more conclusive that climate change is happening and is more dangerous than ever. We need action to save the climate, create jobs, and gain energy independence. Maybe, in some perverse way, this story will help by popularizing the lengths that skeptics will go to to continue business as usual.

Many of the scientists exposed have responded on RealClimate. Go there to read what they have to say.

[edit on 2009-11-21 by Shirakawa]

Timeline:

Tuesday Nov. 17th -
The leaker/hacker first tried to post the files to RealClimate. RealClimate took the files down and notified Jones.

Tuesday Nov. 17th -
A user named "FOIA" posted a link to the Russian anonymous FTP account at The Air Vent, with the following comment.

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:

Thursday Nov. 19th -
A user named Steven Mosher alerted The Blackboard by posting a link to the files, without comment.

Thursday Nov. 19th -
Steven Mosher published an alert to Climate Audit

Thursday Nov. 19th -
Shortly afterward Anthony Watts at Watts Up With That posted about the release.

Thursday Nov. 19th -
The Examiner followed suit shortly after that.

The rest is already known.

Notice that for 2 days it lingered on the Russian FTP server until someone took note.

Reference:
Who leaked the Hadley CRU files and why?



[edit on 11/21/09 by makeitso]

The story directly from AP:

www.google.com...

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate

By DAVID STRINGER (AP)

LONDON — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.

The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.

In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

The scientist's use of the word "trick" has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change.

"Words fail me," Stephen McIntyre — a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change — wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.

However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," he said in a statement Saturday.

The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous."

"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement.

This is McIntyre's post from a mirror site of ClimateAudit which should be able to cope with the traffic. I think it's rather interesting:

camirror.wordpress.com...

CRU Refuses FOI Request

Given the tumultuous events of the past few days, the receipt of yet another refusal to provide station data pursuant to an FOI request may seem a little uneventful. But the chronology of this most recent refusal is, to say the least, interesting.

In late July 2009, I appealed CRU’s decision not to provide then current station data, sending a follow-up letter on Sept 2, 2009, pointing out the inconsistency between their claims to be protecting confidentiality agreements dating back to the 1980s and their delivery of station data to the US Department of Energy in the early 1990s and posting on their website of station data versions in 1996 and 2003.

On Nov 18, 2009, I received the letter attached below from Jonathan Colam-French, Director of Information Services of UEA, turning down my appeal. The letter is dated Nov. 13, 2009. In the letter refusing the appeal, Colam-French says that he consulted a file on the matter.

Now consider the following chronology.

On Nov 17, 2009 at 9.57 pm occurred the first public notice of the 63 MB CRU file entitled “FOIA.zip” came at Jeff Id’s blog by a poster called “FOIA”, who stated:

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.

The file contained emails up to and including Nov 12, 2009 (the most recent is 1258053464.txt) the day prior to the date on the letter refusing the appeal.

Housekeeping emails are absent from the file. In addition, the file contains statements by Jones that he had “deleted loads of emails” (1228330629.txt) and a request from Jones to Mann to “delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4″, noting that similar requests were being made to Briffa, Wahl and Ammann (1212073451.txt).

I first learned of the existence of the file a few hours after notice was posted at Jeff’s blog and first saw the files a day later. I know nothing of the provenance of the FOIA.zip that is not in the public domain.

Here’s the letter.

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 – INFORMATION REQUEST (Our ref: FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03)

Pursuant to Mr. Palmer’s letter of 21 September 2009 to you regarding the handling of your appeal of 24 July to our response of the same date in regards your FOI request of 26 June 2009, I have undertaken a review of the contents of our file and have spoken with Mr. Palmer and other relevant staff involved in this matter. I apologise for the delay informing you of my decision but we were awaiting the ‘further particulars’ in relation to this matter that you mentioned in your email of 2 September. Having not received such particulars, I have decided to proceed, given the passage of time, with my decision in their absence.

As a result of this investigation, I am satisfi [...]

I couldn't paste it all (out of characters), so you have to read the rest on the original article.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I think it is time for people to seriously consider their own actions in their personal battle with science.

Commonly, people opposed to the proposition of man-made global climate change completely neglect the core principle.

Whether it is man-made or not, whether it exists or not, the Human race has been a child, spoiled and abusive, violent and greedy.

I do not care what the climate change truth is, all I care about is that Humans now have the chance, misinformed or not, to start being responsible for the way we treat our environment.
Going on a crusade to debunk the very idea in a complete form is not the way to do it.

By all means, debate the truth and get the facts, but acting so irresponsibly as in this case does nothing to promote the idea of responsibility amongst the populations truly responsible for supporting the raping and pillaging of this planet.

Basically, screw both sides of the argument, we have a responsibility to this planet and future generations. This act, regardless of "truth" does nothing beneficial.

The facts are that we have been denied viable alternative energy solutions for decades, yet we are the ones who appear to be blamed for GW (er Climate Change) and we are also being maniplulated into something we know nothing about (World Government?).

We have also been told that the science about GW is undisputeable, yet this is clearly not the case.

The proof that we have been lied to can be verified at the US Patent Office, which contain legal documents that hold up in a court of law and must serve a useful purpose.

Why would one even consider believing those who have lied to us for so long?

I agree though that changing the world begins in your own backyard, so it is up to you become as independent from Govt and large corporations as possible simply by finding your own energy and medical solutions.

New ClimateAudit.com Wordpress Mirror:
camirror.wordpress.com...

Funny bit I found on Wattsupwiththat blog:

www.anelegantchaos.org...

From: Ben Santer To: “Thomas.R.Karl” Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request] Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:57:22 -0800 Reply-to: [email protected] Cc: Karen Owen , Sharon Leduc , “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” , Professor Glenn McGregor , “Bamzai, Anjuli”

“I’m sorry that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today’s events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s “ClimateAudit” website.”

Self-fulfilling prophecy?

[edit on 2009-11-21 by Shirakawa]

Update directly from CRU, Climate Research Unit:

www.uea.ac.uk...

Climatic Research Unit update

It is a matter of concern that data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites.

The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine. We took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation and have involved the police in what we consider to be a criminal investigation.

The material published relates to the work of our globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. CRU's published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.

CRU is one of a number of independent centres working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are willing to have their research and theories subjected to scrutiny by the international scientific community. The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to ngage with this issue in a responsible way.

Comment from Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit:

The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.

"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."

The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram - not a scientific paper - which was used in the World Meteorological Organisation's statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 (WMO-no.913).

The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.

Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.

The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.

There's coverage on some Italian media too (I can read Italian, but I prefer English news sources):

www.climatemonitor.it...

Fuga di notizie, clamoroso! – update

La notizia è di quelle che vanno prese assolutamente con cautela. Diversamente da molti siti sulla rete (in questi minuti la notizia sta dilagando incontrollata), abbiamo deciso di analizzare l’accaduto ma anche di aspettare una verifica di credibilità della notizia stessa. Veniamo ai fatti.

Poche ore orsono[...]

Original article (in italian)

Thought I would let everyone know that all these emails and documents work best if used/viewed on a UNIX or Linux based Operating System. Alternatively for Windows the CMD.exe program is good to use, you can just go to "Start"/"Run" and type the word "CMD", type the word "TYPE" then spacebar then drag the mails/documents into the CMD window. Press Enter. The text should now display correctly, although there are various other files, raw files and files that say "Video CD Movie" or just plain "File"; for example in this directory: "...FOIA\documents\briffa-treering-external\belfast\garrybog\pine\gb5fil". Filetype: FILE.

It would be interesting to see what the file named "gb5fil" would contain. This file is apparently holding information regarding my city Belfast.


[edit on 21-11-2009 by the_denv]

Article from the Wall Street Journal:

online.wsj.com...

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

By KEITH JOHNSON

The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.

Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet.

The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence policy makers around the world.

The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in climate models such as the IPCC's.

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.

Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate scientists have dismissed those claims.

The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.

Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.

Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.

Original source

READ_ME_HARRY.txt file is hilarious.
It describe some scientist efforts to get CRU calculation program to work again. It was legacy of some other scientist.

Summary about the file:

"The conclusion of a lot of investigation is that the synthetic cloud grids for 1901-1995 have now been discarded. This means that the cloud data prior to 1996 are static."

"... BUT.. it wouldn't work, and on investigating I found 200-odd stations with zero precipitation for the entire 1901-2006 period!"

"Note that the Dec 1991 value is anomalous, but not as extreme as the 1945 datum, which would get the same treatment with normals and climatologies, so should produce an even bigger spike for 1945 DJF! Unless of course it's screened out by the 4SD rule.. which it is! Well - no value in pre.1945.12.txt for this location."

"ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

OH # THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

"Ulp!

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and
semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more."
Text

Question arise that how good data climate research uses and does anyone actually understand even inside CRU how valid result their FORTRAN and Matlab codes do and how much synthesized values they plugging to the datasets.

At least it seems that even CRU has difficulties to reproduce their research results.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by northwoods]

From TG Daily:

www.tgdaily.com...

Hackers steal confidential global warming data

By Aharon Etengoff
Saturday, 21 November 2009 16:04


A team of unidentified hackers has managed to steal "confidential" global warming data from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. 



The hackers accessed 1,079 emails and over 3,800 documents which were subsequently posted on an anonymous FTP server in Russia along with the following note:

"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."

SophosLabs security analyst Graham Cluley responded to the critical breach by noting that the data had already been distributed over peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.

"However much the Hadley Climate Research Unit may have wished their communications to have remained private, the truth is now that the genie is out of the bottle," explained Cluley. "Interested parties around the world have grabbed the archive of documents - so even if the Russian FTP site is shut down, others will be able to share the data to other interested parties."

So what did the stolen files contain?


One e-mail, authored by research director Phil Jones, included information about climate statistics graphs that were formulated using a controversial technique.

"He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to 'hide the decline' in recent global temperatures," reported the Associated Press. "Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing."

Jones, however, denied that he manipulated statistics to conceal a worldwide temperature decline.


"The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," Jones claimed in an official statement.

Original source

A related article from Powerlineblog:

www.powerlineblog.com...

The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study

November 21, 2009


A fascinating, hot-off-the-presses story emerges from the emails that were hacked yesterday from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre. It is one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.

The story began when Steve McIntyre, the same researcher who was largely responsible for destroying Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph purporting to show unprecedented warming in the 20th century, turned his attention to a famous article published by Keith Briffa of East Anglia's CRU in 2000. This article analyzed the diameters of tree rings, including rings from an area called Yamal in Siberia, and conveniently generated another hockey-stick shaped graph. You can read an account of the ensuing controversy here. McIntyre's work appeared to show that Briffa had cherry-picked trees in order to get the result he was looking for. One fact that this story highlights is that global warming alarmists publish their results in scientific journals, but refuse to make the underlying data publicly available so that the validity of their analyses can be checked.

McIntyre's revelations caused a firestorm of controversy, in response to which the alarmist community circled its wagons to fend off the threat from an outsider. This process can be clearly seen in the East Anglia emails.

The alarmists' effort to respond to McIntyre was complicated by the fact that Briffa had been ill and undergone surgery, and was then recuperating. So several of them wrote to Briffa's co-author, Tim Osborn, for advice on how to respond to McIntyre's critique. Osborn replied on September 29, 2009:

Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month ....

Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil....

Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this....

So: these scientists don't really have any idea whether McIntyre's critique of Briffa's work is correct or not. Even Briffa's co-author professes ignorance. There is one person they could approach who could "shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal." But they don't do it. Why? Because "he can be rather a loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted...." In other words, his loyalty to the cause of climate alarmism may not be absolute. This is much like the case noted here where Michael Mann, one of the recipients of the above email, warns against sharing information with a scientist named Andy because he is "not as predictable as we'd like."

Despite having no idea what the facts are, the alarmists don't hesitate to formulate a position. Thus, on the next day, September 30, Osborn writes:

[...]

The long article continues here

reply to post by Shirakawa


I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hackers for
exposing this "inconvenient truth" about the corrupt scientists
and their alarmist political agenda.
These emails are a disgrace.
The hackers have truly SAVED millions of jobs by breaking into
their computer.
I'm guessing Al Gore is feeling really sick right now.
The party is over.
In this case the ends clearly justifies the means.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark it down on your calendars.
--- Global Warming Scandal Ended November 2009 ---

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Eurisko2012]

Another Climate Audit update:
camirror.wordpress.com...

(snippeted)

CRU Refuses FOI Request

Given the tumultuous events of the past few days, the receipt of yet another refusal to provide station data pursuant to an FOI request may seem a little uneventful. But the chronology of this most recent refusal is, to say the least, interesting.

In late July 2009, I appealed CRU’s decision not to provide then current station data, sending a follow-up letter on Sept 2, 2009, pointing out the inconsistency between their claims to be protecting confidentiality agreements dating back to the 1980s and their delivery of station data to the US Department of Energy in the early 1990s and posting on their website of station data versions in 1996 and 2003.

On Nov 18, 2009, I received the letter attached below from Jonathan Colam-French, Director of Information Services of UEA, turning down my appeal. The letter is dated Nov. 13, 2009. In the letter refusing the appeal, Colam-French says that he consulted a file on the matter.

...

Here’s the letter.

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 – INFORMATION REQUEST (Our ref: FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03)

Pursuant to Mr. Palmer’s letter of 21 September 2009 to you regarding the handling of your appeal of 24 July to our response of the same date in regards your FOI request of 26 June 2009, I have undertaken a review of the contents of our file and have spoken with Mr. Palmer and other relevant staff involved in this matter. I apologise for the delay informing you of my decision but we were awaiting the ‘further particulars’ in relation to this matter that you mentioned in your email of 2 September. Having not received such particulars, I have decided to proceed, given the passage of time, with my decision in their absence.

As a result of this investigation, I am satisfied that our overall decision to not disclosethe requested information is correct.

In response to your first point in your email of 24 July regarding the non transmission of data to non-academics, I have concluded that the reference to non-academics was in error and that the status of yourself, or any other requester, is irrelevant to the factors to consider regarding disclosure of the requested information.

Turning to the points you raised in your email of 2 September, you note that other earlier versions of this data are available on the US Department of Energy website and that Dr. Jones had sent an earlier version of the data to you and had mounted it on FTP server.

In regards the information provided to the US Department of Energy, my investigation has revealed that this was done in the early 1990s prior to the imposition of the restrictions now pertaining to the data pursuant to a contractual obligation at the time. Therefore, the analogy you are drawing does not apply to the data that is the subject of this request.

In regards your second point regarding the provision of the data to yourself, and the fact that the information was mounted & left on our FTP site & also provided to Georgia Tech without securing consent of the institutions that provided it, we would, upon reflection, consider this an action that we not choose to take again. However, having made errors in past does not, in our eyes, justify making the same errors again.

I note that in your email of 2 September, you state that your request was ‘for the current version of the data set’ but in your original request, you asked for the subset of data that was sent to Georgia Tech University. I would advise that the many of the same restrictions apply to the full CRUTEM dataset as apply to the subset sent to Georgia Tech, but this analysis and answer is based on your original request.

In regards the substance of the exception claimed under Reg. 12(5)(f), I would maintain the position taken to date. There are restrictions on the release of at least some of the data cited, and our opinion is that any release would be contrary to the agreements, and release would have an adverse effect on those organisations. DEFRA guidance notes that the Aarhus Convention, which contains the origins of the Directive on which the EIRs are based, protects information volunteered by a third party and requires their consent to disclose it. The purpose of the exception is to encourage the free flow of information from private persons or institutions in order to protect the environment where making it available to the public could inhibit that process. To provide information that has a restriction on further transmission on it would not only damage CRU’s ability to secure such information in future, but would also harm the interests of the organisations providing the information, who clearly have an interest in restricting transmission of the information due to the very existence of the restrictions.

Regulation 12(11) requires that we provide as much requested information as is possible outside the coverage of any applicable exception. After consultation with Phil Jones and other relevant staff in regards the nature and composition of the requested dataset, I have concluded that the data is organised in such a way as to make it extremely difficult and time-consuming to segregate the data in the manner that you suggest and would indeed, in our view, amount to an unreasonable diversion of resources from the provision of services for which we, as an institution, are mandated. Further, we would maintain that where no such segregation has, or will occur, we should not release any of the data for fear of breaching such restrictions as do exist.

I would note that we are, however, proceeding with efforts with the international community to secure consent from national meteorological institutions for the release of the information that they provide us with, and it is fully our intention to publish such data where, and when, we have secured such consent. This is in line with guidance from DEFRA that suppliers of volunteered information should be encouraged to consent to release where appropriate, and where it is lacking, such consent can be sought later in response to a particular request or in order to proactively disseminate the information.

In regards our obligation to assess the public interest in applying these exceptions, I am of the opinion that the public interest balance is in favour of non-disclosure of the requested information. As noted above, the public interest in maintaining the flow of information from institutions to CRU, and maintaining good working relations with international organisations, outweighs, in this case, the interest in the release of the data.

We have contacted the Information Commissioners Office in regards this matter and their advice is that if you are still dissatisfied with this response, you should, at this time, exercise your right of appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely
Jonathan Colam-French

A part I left out related to the whole email debacle, whereas McIntyre quoted the hackers:

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.

Let us all hope that they downloaded everything, and this first little random set is random from their take, meaning theres still much more to come...

could the smarter ones enlighten me if this leak has anything to do with upcoming meeting of leaders in Copenhagen to talk about the climate change deal/treaty? if so, knowing what we know now about the leak, who leaked it, etc can we join some dots? thanks

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


That's okay.
We don't need any more information from them.
We have seen enough.
--- You Are Fired !!! ----
I trust Mickey Mouse more than i trust these PHD crooked clowns.
They can take all of their "tricks" and get lost!