Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

camirror.wordpress.com...

Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008:

About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.

Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009 Guardian

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Human activity negates CO2, as global cooling So2 is also released...

www.powerlineblog.com...

Another intensely interesting email thread, which doesn’t seem to have gotten much notice, relates to the fact that the last decade, contrary to the alarmists’ predictions, has tended to get cooler, not warmer.

At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:
On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true. What’s interesting is that in January of this year, another climate alarmist named Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones and another East Anglia climatologist, saying that their predicted warming may not occur:

Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting…and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India…. While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).

That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution–most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface–something also that is, so to speak, ‘clear’ from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo–and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.

Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming–I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading…. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean…. Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won’t get rained out for 10 days or so.

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.

Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc.

Sulphur dioxide, like carbon dioxide, is emitted as a result of industrial activity. Unlike carbon dioxide, it is actually a pollutant. But whereas carbon dioxide tends to warm, sulphur dioxide tends to cool, and MacCracken suggests that SO2 emissions from China and India may well be offsetting the temperature impact of CO2. The net effect of human activity, therefore, may be much closer to neutral than the alarmists have been claiming.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

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

www.smalldeadanimals.com...

From: Keith Briffa To: [email protected] Subject: Re: quick note on TAR Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007
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*. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes

Keith
Keith
At 18:14 29/04/2007, you wrote:

Keith, just a quick note to let you know I've had a chance to read over the key bits on last millennium in the final version of the chapter, and I think you did a great job. obviously, this was one of the most (if not the most) contentious areas in the entire report, and you found a way to (in my view) convey the the science accurately, but in a way that I believe will be immune to criticisms of bias or neglect--you dealt w/ all of the controversies, but in a very even-handed and fair way. bravo! I hope you have an opportunity to relax a bit now. looking forward to buying you a beer next time we have an opportunity

mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

This just occured to me...

WE HAVE AN ANOMOLY HERE FOLKS!

The last email in the set was Nov. 12th:
link

Yet somehow Paul Hudson at the BBC claims to have been forwarded the archive on October 12th!
www.bbc.co.uk...

This now points to an insider, unless the hacker somehow had ongoing access to keep updating the data. Regardless, unless Jones et al had been adding to the archive as some sort of easy to delete archive, it would have taken anyone a long time to sift thru to build that collection.

This new theory could make sense:

If you look at all the emails you will that some bozo transmitted a logon and password ( steve, tosser) in one of the mails.

So, it’s entirely possible that at sometime Gavin or somebody else sent a admin logon and password for RC to somebody at CRU, say briffa. So that the person at CRU could upload a file. Then, the insider at CRU found this mail
and had everything he needed. A file to upload and a RC password to allow him to do it. And he completed the
irony by linking to the file by a post at CA.

just a theory.
camirror.wordpress.com...

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


I think it was a leak from the inside. A hacker doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things. A hacker would have had to have known exactly what to look for and then strip all the header files from the e-mails. Then just the sheer volume of it all.

I can't wait to see what the investigation turns up.

Well then, Mel, is a whistleblower leak still a crime? Is it still a crime for people to publish contents of the letters now? Without the red herring debate over the ethics of hacking out that sort of data, now all you'll have to talk about is the actual content of the letters. I posted some new stuff above for your delight. Besides you know well that if the scandal was in the opposite direction you'd be nailing the deniers to the wall just the same.

But here goes some funny:

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Now_Then

 

Hmmm, the quote from this email, along with the other pretty dire one's they haven't already explained (but they have said some are likely to have been changed by the hackers):

Steel yourself for the new reality,
>because the data needed to verify the
>gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
>
> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were
>either lost or purged from some discarded
>computer. Only a very few people know what really
>happened, and they aren't talking much. And what
>little they are saying makes no sense.

THat was written by Pat Michaels, criticizing the alarmists.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by jdub297
Um, no. Publicly funded research is not subject to selective publication. You consider public funding to be a gratuitous license to speculate without accountability. Basic sucking on the most readily available public tit.

Sorry, you'll find that is wrong. The emails are actually property of the university and they will protect confidentiality issues.

Check the FOI act in the UK. Privacy is still protected here in the EU, and exemptions cover personal information, confidential information, and prohibited disclosure.

I'm sure you'd like the publicly-funded parasites to be able to hide behind 'mothers'skirts, but you're wrong:

Right to information
1 General right of access to information held by public authorities

(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—

(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and

(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

However, people are breaking UK laws by posting those emails.

They may be breaking your heart, but they are not breaking the law with 'those emails.'

Anything funded by public treasure is subject to FOIA. You want to pursue a private agenda, do it on your own nickel and your own time.

Your fear and desperation grow by the minute, Hadley.

jw

lol, you sound like some crap Bond villain.

And you cannot deny your complicity in the obfuscation.

Your silence, Hadley, speaks volumes.

jw

reply to post by melatonin
As I predicted, you've been drawn in like a moth to light. Even so, legalistic sticks and stones fail against reality's bones. Hadley loses, the Earth wins.:

Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

Yes, this is a theft of data-but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory

I know these journalists'assessments conflict with your's, but they've got standards and ethics, all you've got is a bag of abbreviations, cute names and phrases; how sad.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

What? "Peer review" doesn't count?

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

Oooops.

Just a few disgruntled skeptics, eh? Girl talk (you should know) among sisters in the bedroom?

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Yet you sit, thumb-sucking, and ask, "what does it mean?" "That's not MY mommy."

Well, mommy's a whore. Face it.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

I remember your reference to skeptics as following pipers for the cheese; how ironic.

Deny Ignorance!

jw

[edit on 25-11-2009 by jdub297]

Is this a legitimate post on internal mail?

From: Earth Government
Subject: Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:05:07 -0800

Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

This Press release from Earth Government is found at
[1]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm

Formation of Earth Government for the good of all

March 27th, 2003


To all Peoples of the Earth,

Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal values,human rights, global concepts and democracy. Earth Government might as well be created now, there is no longer any reason to wait. We are the Earth Community, and we will form the Earth Government. Earth management is a priority and is a duty by every responsible person.
A democratically elected Earth Government will now be formed, and we want you to reflect on future effects of such an event on the history of humanity. Certainly one will expect extraordinary changes: a reorganizing of human activities all over the planet; participation by all societies on the planet in solving local and global problems; new alliances forming; north meeting with south (eradication of poverty will be the price to
pay to get votes from the south) in order to gather more votes within the newly created Earth Government to satisfy power struggles between European, Asian and Western countries; adoption of democratic principles, human and Earth rights, global concepts, and universal values by every human being; expansion of consciousness; gathering and coordinating of
forces to resolve social and political problems in a peaceful way (no more conflicts or wars); gathering and coordinating of forces (technologies, scientific research, exploration work, human resources, etc.) to resolve global problems such as global climate, environment, availability of resources, poverty, employment, etc. Thousands more changes!

Let your heart and mind reflect on 'the good' of a democratically elected Earth Government.
Everyone is part of Earth Community by birth and therefore everyone has a right to vote.
Everyone should be given a chance to vote. Decisions will be made democratically.
Earth Government is proposing that:
a) different nations may require different political systems at different times
b) a democratic system is not a "must have it" to be a responsible member nation of the Earth Government
c) all democracies are to be upgraded, or improved upon, to be a responsible member nation of the Earth Government. The Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of the Earth Government are the newly added requirements to all democratic systems of the world.
In today's Earth Government it is important for our survival to cooperate globally on several aspects such as peace, security, pollution in the air, water and land, drug trade, shelving the war industry, keeping the world healthy, enforcing global justice for all eradicating poverty worldwide, replacing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, and entrenching the Charter of Earth Government as a wayof life for the good of all.
Earth needs urgently a world system of governance. The United Nations fail to satisfy the needs of the people of the 21st Century. It has never improved upon the old ways and thinking of the middle of the 20th Century. Its voting system no longer satisfy the 6.157 billion people on Earth. The challenges are different and require a world organization up
for dealing with the needs of all these people.
During the past several years, the Earth Government has been pleading the United Nations leaders to make changes in the UN organizational structure and ways of doing things. There has been an urgent need for fundamental changes in the United Nations organization. The decision of the United States Government to invade the Middle East nations and Afghanistan
has shown to be a result of this incapacity for changes on the part of the United Nations. A lack of leadership at the United Nations is a major threat to the security of the world.
The world wants a true democratic world organization. The UN is not!
The most fundamental requirement of a world organization is a democratic system of voting. Democracy must be a priority. The right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) is a human right. It should be respected. The actual UN system of
voting is undemocratic, unfair and noone likes it. It does not work! Earth Government has proposed a voting system based on democracy.
Of the 190 Member States of the United Nations, it takes only one of the five permanent members to overthrow any decision or proposal during a meeting.

www.freerepublic.com...

Prob'ly not, but who knows anymore?

jw

[edit on 25-11-2009 by jdub297]

This video is new, I think:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

theres spin there...'climate change is still real but they should be sacked'..but at least its a start...

the comments at the bottom show that the general public may not as naive as many of us here think...theres hope yet..

[edit on 25-11-2009 by alienesque]

dunno if it's been posted beforre, but

www.eastangliaemails.com...

is interesting, too

Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
..
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

really, i'm not very interested in the crooked aspects, i just want to make clear that most if not all AGW related conclusions are based on nothing!

[edit on 2009.11.25 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by jdub297
'm sure you'd like the publicly-funded parasites to be able to hide behind 'mothers'skirts, but you're wrong:

No, I'm not.

Check the act itself. Part II is the bit you want - Exempt Information.

Nice to know what you think of scientists and those working for public services.

Your silence, Hadley, speaks volumes.

jw

*smoothes & curls mustache*

[scooby-doo]If it wasn't for you pesky kids...[/scooby-doo]

lol, I was sleeping and then doing work. Do you think I'm your online pet or something?

Hundreds of icebergs drifting toward New Zealand

23 Nov 09 - More than 100, possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are floating toward New Zealand, prompting a maritime alert to ships in the south Pacific Ocean.

www.iceagenow.com...

And if New Zealand becomes entirely surrounded by icebergs, will
that be even more proof of global warming?

Record lows in Alaska: another proof of global warming?

www.iceagenow.com...
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

Yeah, but it's a quote in the media. If that is really what Phil Jones meant, then he's an idiot. Of course people delete their emails. I doubt he just means any old email. Again, there are no restrictions that I've ever seen or heard of for deleting emails from a university webmail system.

I think that quote is poor. The CRU/UEA website has a similar comment, but this time more specific:

In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.

UEA

And the apparent deletion of the AR4 emails would fit this comment. No deletion of requested information. Once the request is refused, they could do what they like. And, again, most email accounts only delete on the local systems, lol.

Did you know that during a five day period in July, the CRU received over 50 FOI requests from McIntyre and his cronies? This is just pure political attack. Harassment of scientists going about their business. They have been told that there is data they can't have due to restrictions and obligations, other data is already in the public domain. Both of those are also clearly covered by the Exemptions to the FOI act.

Even these attempts to string him up for his supposed compliance or non-compliance to the FOI act is just political BS. If you want him to step down as head of CRU, I'm sure he won't be that bothered. The admin of heading a department only gets in the way of doing science.

Is this all that's left? I know much of this is just attacks by anti-science ideologues, but you might want to at least try to give the illusion of it being about the science.

The recent actions by the CEI also show these same political shenanigans - harassment of climate scientists. Suppose it's all that's left when ya got no science. And I'm sure you'll be spreading the noise and propaganda for these people. Enjoy. The sugar-rush will only last so long.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by melatonin]

This is certainly a bombshell. I know somebody who is going to the Copenhagen conference on climate change. He is a believer that the climate is having problems because of mankind, and no matter what arguments I give him, he refuses to believe them. I think this bombshell might just give him something to think about.

reply to post by ahemot


I live here in New Zealand and I haven't seen much in the way of icebergs. There are always some floating about, but nothing too unusual. What I do know is that the winter has been terrible here... VERY cold and wet with lots of fierce winds. Not a warmer winter by any means.

I just posted the same comment in another thread, but I think it bears repeating so I'm going to post it here.

Smoking gun????

From the FOIA.zip FOIA/documents/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro

;
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;

Let's see what is extremely wrong with what is going on here...

First thing that pops out at me.... In all caps it says:

"****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********"

The second thing that pops out at me is a comment at the end of the variable "valadj" that reads "fudge factor".


Yep, whatever it is completely clear at this point that the only "deniers" are the ones that are refusing to accept the truth that the whole basis and supposed "science" of CO2 driven AGW is completely false.

There it is in black in white.