CRU Correspondence

Words fail me.

CA is VERY slow right now, but WUWT, Jeff Id and Lucia are all less affected. Tom Fuller picked up the story here http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails.

353 Comments

  1. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Found this on the airVent.

    Posted on Lucia. This is huge.

    Lucia,
    Found this on JeffIds site.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.c…..en-letter/
    It contains over 1000 mails. IF TRUE …
    1 mail from you and the correspondence that follows.

    And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.
    And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia
    And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain..
    you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy.
    you get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you
    get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect.
    I don’t know that its real..
    But the CRU code looks real

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: steven mosher (#101),

      Your link got truncated in the middle.

      • TerryMN
        Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Calvin Ball (#105),

        The link is intact on Lucia’s posting, but goes to the open letter thread. Bunch of links in that thread, but nothing that looks like “a zipped directory of e-mails”

    • Craig Loehle
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: steven mosher (#101), Looks real to me. I love the email from Trenberth expressing outrage. Looks like an inside job.

  2. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    One wonders if this can be true. It can’t be. can it?

    From: Phil Jones
    To: mann@virginia.edu
    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@john-daly.com)

    Reported with great sadness

    Timo H‰meranta
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Timo H‰meranta, LL.M.
    Moderator, Climatesceptics
    Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
    01620 Vantaa
    Finland, Member State of the European Union

    Moderator: timohame@yahoo.co.uk
    Private: timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi

    Home page: [1]http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm

    Moderator of the discussion group “Sceptical Climate Science”
    [2]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics

    “To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
    shows only a lack of imagination”. (Kari Enqvist)

    “If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion.
    What do you do, Sir” (John Maynard Keynes)

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJ
    UK
    —————————————————————————-

    References

    1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
    2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics

  3. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 2:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From: Phil Jones
    To: ray bradley ,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real 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.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJ
    UK

    —————————————————————————-

  4. TerryMN
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    mosh – can’t find the link – is it on JeffId’s open letter somewhere?

  5. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From: Jonathan Overpeck
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: letter to Senate
    Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
    Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@virginia.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu, omichael@princeton.edu, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley

    Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not
    without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
    political, and that worries me.

    My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.

    I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -
    e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate
    change.

    Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
    then…

    I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
    it.

    What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
    org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
    scientists to do as individuals?

    Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real
    thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.

    Cheers, Peck

    Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
    Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
    Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
    the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
    Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
    title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
    Thanks in advance,
    Michael M and Michael O

    ______________________________________________________________
    Professor Michael E. Mann
    Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
    University of Virginia
    Charlottesville, VA 22903
    _______________________________________________________________________
    e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
    http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

    Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)

    Jonathan T. Overpeck
    Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
    Professor, Department of Geosciences
    Mail and Fedex Address:
    Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
    715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
    University of Arizona
    Tucson, AZ 85721
    direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
    fax: +1 520 792-8795
    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

  6. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    comment #10
    Click you get a zip file

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: steven mosher (#107),

      I’m starting to think that you got the benefit of a server hiccup. There’s nothing there that I can access in the form of a zip file.

  7. TerryMN
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Same here. I’d be gracious to see it at a gmail address called summitepa though :)

  8. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    If it’s real, then it’s an atomic bomb on the AGW citadel. Whoz the Deep Throat? A disgrumbled, ethically disappointed Team Member?

  9. Tim G
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Someone needs to re-post the zip somewhere. I think it has been removed from the original link. At least I cannot find it.

    –t

  10. AKD
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    At least remove personal info from the correspondence.

  11. Cold Lynx
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It seems to be the real stuff. Just to much specific information to make up
    Link

    Since it is out on several sites.
    62 Mb of zipped files.

  12. Richard Hickey
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think this kind of data should be put up at wikileaks.org. They are fairly diligent about trying to verify sources. Not that I’m doubting. They are also successful at keeping the data from being suppressed after the fact. The data will also be verified clean of virus’s and the like.

    This way the data can be made available to the community at large. I’d love to peruse it myself. Just to see what’s said.

  13. Robert E. Phelan
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    David posted at WUWT the following link. I just downloaded 62 MB of zipped file. If this is a Steve Mosher prank I will track him down in some dark parking lot and eat his heart. If real… Steve, the beer is on me.

    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftp.tomcity.ru%2Fincoming%2Ffree%2FFOI2009.zip

  14. Antonio San
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Obviously, Steve has yet to see these postings. Let’s see his reaction first.

  15. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Unbelievable.

  16. Jean S
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    jones-foiathoughts.doc:

    Options appear to be:

    1.Send them the data
    2.Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
    3.Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

  17. RT
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From: “Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)”
    To: “Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)” , “Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)” , “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)”
    Subject: RE: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
    Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:33:16 +0100
    Cc: “Summers Brian Mr (REG)” , “Preece Alan Mr (MAC)”

    WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means – for the man-in-the street).

    Given the fact that this campaign is clearly not going to die down & we now have a silly attempt to escalate it locally (dragging Norfolk’s reputation thro the mud), I have revised my view & feel we do need to pursue the spectator more vigorously. To me, it seems straightforward – Keith has been accused of fraud on an official Spectator website – that is (wharever the legal word is).

    Trevor

    1256214796.txt

  18. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This seems legitimate… But I can not believe that this is legitimate… I mean seriously if this information is true… Well it doesn’t prove anything other then information hoarding and manipulation, which have seemed apparent for some time… And still…

  19. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From: Michael Mann
    To: Andrew Revkin
    Subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest….
    Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
    Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

    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@uea.ac.uk) 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@psu.edu
    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@psu.edu
    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@psu.edu
    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@uea.ac.uk
    2. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
    3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
    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@psu.edu
    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@psu.edu
    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

    • rod fabian
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Hoi Polloi (#25),

      I suppose it goes without saying, but these guys keep insisting that science should be done through the peer review process even while they are moving behind the scenes to manipulate that process, keeping people they regard as skeptics out of it, leaving only those they can trust to be “predictable” in charge of journal publications. The same goes for grant study boards and the like.

      Taken all together, this is a huge indictment of the peer review process. It shows how bogus the claim that the only legitimate way to disseminate science through that process is.

      • bender
        Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: rod fabian (#299),
        Mann apparently sought to monopolize control of ALL information flow. Not just through his blog war offensive.

  20. Ryan O
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hehehehe. Steve created a “Climate Research Centre crisis”! Hahahahaha!
    .
    Awesomeness.
    .
    As I download this, all I can think of, though, is “SHOW ME THE CODE”. Please oh please let there be Mann code in there . . .

  21. Les Johnson
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Good lord. This apparently to Briffa:

    I will send you the time series you need in a minute for the Central
    west Greenland Stack…
    And some other bits and pieces,,, The NGRIP record has the trend in it
    that is no doubt closer to the truth for the fixed elevation temperature
    history. But even there one could need a correction for elevation
    change. The elevation corrected south GRIP Holocene has a very strong
    negative delta trend in it and I expect there should be some correction
    done to the north GRIP record too,, eventually I think they should all
    come out looking like our records from Northern Canada. Now at least
    ice core records have some low frequencies to correct… not like your
    bloody trees that can not remember one century to the next,,,
    (alderheimers )

  22. Adam Soereg
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Tomcity is an ISP company located in the city of Tomsk, Siberia, Russia. Here is the result of my lookup:

    mnt-routes – TOMLINE-MNT
    source – RIPE # Filtered
    status – ASSIGNED PA
    % Note – This output has been filtered.
    nic-hdl – SK3784-RIPE
    tech-c – ZMOD-RIPE
    person – Sergey Kazakov
    address – Tomsk, Russia
    country – RU
    mnt-by – TOMLINE-MNT
    netname – TOMCITY-NET
    origin – AS25446
    route – 88.204.24.0/22
    inetnum – 88.204.24.0 – 88.204.31.255
    phone – +7 3822 228666
    descr – TOMCITY-NET route object
    fax-no – +7 3822 452121
    e-mail – neiks@iao.ru
    admin-c – ZMOD-RIPE
    role – Tomline ISP Tech role
    remarks: trouble – 12/5 phone number +7 3822 228666

  23. Geo
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    An ideological hacker smart enough to hack CRU is smart enough to manufacture a bombshell or two and seed it amongst the rest of the data. Treat “too good to be true” material with a lot of caution initially from such a source.

  24. Robert E. Phelan
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Does the person who posted that file at the Russian FTP site have the courage to come forward and identify himself? You can identify yourself to Steve, Anthony, Jeff or Lucia simply by posting a comment with your real e-mail address and asking them to contact you. The rest of us will never know who you are and they will never reveal your identity. But the provenance of this material needs to be proved.

  25. dougie
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    i think a dam has just broke!!

    thanks Steve

  26. Eric
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    if it looks to good to be true…

    also, even if real, crimes were likely committed in procuring and distributing this material. I suggest everybody take a deep breath and proceed very carefully.

    • Dave Thomson
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Eric (#135)
      I thought a crime to reveal crimes was called “whistleblowing” and is itself protected by law.

  27. Les Johnson
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    mann’s code appears to be here.

    mbh98-osborn.zip

    I also see Yamal, Harry, the whole lot.

    Go nuts Steve, Ryan et al. This appears to be a treasure trove.

  28. Ryan O
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m thinking an FOI request may be in order, in which the archived files from UAE’s IT department are requested to confirm the authenticity of the emails, as multiple emails indicate a deliberate attempt to hide or destroy data in order to prevent having to fulfill FOI requests. The content of these emails, I believe, would make the archived IT files subject to FOI.
    .
    Wondering if anyone else has any insight. Before everyone goes hog-wild, it is important to see if the apparently incriminating emails are actually legit. An FOI request (or similar) would seem to be in order relatively quickly to establish a legal requirement that the archived IT files not be destroyed.
    .
    If this turns out to be a hoax (even part of it), shame on the person who did this. If not . . . well, some of the emails speak for themselves.

  29. windansea
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve at Lucia

    Steve McIntyre (Comment#23773)

    November 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    I’m having trouble getting into CA right now.

    I made up a pdf of the emails to help browse through them and it’s over 2000 pages. Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine.

    It is really quite breathtaking.

  30. Charlie
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My bet is that it was an inside job by someone who was shocked at what they saw going on.

    FOI2009 is an interesting choice for the filename.

  31. Jean S
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, there is a long correspondence between Osborne and Mann about MBH99 confidence intervals… maybe we can finally figure those out!

  32. romanm
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This comment wasted on a number of sites on the 17th of November:

    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

  33. stumpy
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
    have his new email address.
    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
    I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
    Cheers
    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJ
    UK

    WOW!

  34. Eric
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dave #143

    It may turn out that this is a whistle-blower case. It may not.

  35. Michael Jennings
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Folks I would run, not walk, away from this as quickly as possible. To think they would be stupid enough to not cover their tracks on this is not credible IMO. While parts are likely real, some could be added as embellishments meant to create the furor it is already creating in the skeptic community. Let’s not make any judgements on the authenticity until we are sure what we have here is real and not a plant.

    • Dave Thomson
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Michael Jennings (#145),
      After looking at the files, I agree with Michael. All the file dates in the documents folder have the original dates for the files. This is good for obtaining the data. However, all the email files in the mail folder have had their dates changed artificially to Jan 1, 2009 at 00:00:00. This seems like it was done to hide alterations to some of the files. Be careful reposting the emails.

      • Eric
        Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Dave Thomson (#163),

        Nice catch. That casts the emails in a very suspicious light in my opinion.

        There are real people with real reputations and careers at stake who will know the veracity of these emails. Those people are almost certainly reading through this data now and they are going to be very pissed off and even desperate.

        Be very cautious about what you assume and especially what you distribute or publish. Heads are going to roll one way or the other, at this point it is only a matter of whose.

      • Calvin Ball
        Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Dave Thomson (#163),

        That might be an artifact of the way the files were lifted, too.

    • Luis Dias
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Michael Jennings (#145),

      Impossible thing to do. Might as well erase them all, because they will never admit those e-mails are true, and there’s no way to tell them from truth to false. And even the HadCRU will politely ask people to erase these data and anyone who feels in the need to be taken seriously will politely concede.

      So a lot of furor but nothing really substancial. This is the way of the nets. It might be possible that there are some “secret sauces” that might help the community to understand what some papers really did here and there, and what HadCRU is really doing with their data. But I doubt this will happen, and so, big bluster no content.

      The really big consequence of this is that there will be a lot of people really pissed off. I see major heads will roll and many “skeptics” will feel the “revenge”. Just saying, I can almost have a feel of next Gavin’s post.

      This is very serious, folks. And unless there’s a smoking gun somewhere in the database, it will only result in pain. I think this is a bad day overall.

      • Calvin Ball
        Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Luis Dias (#176),

        Impossible thing to do. Might as well erase them all, because they will never admit those e-mails are true, and there’s no way to tell them from truth to false. And even the HadCRU will politely ask people to erase these data and anyone who feels in the need to be taken seriously will politely concede.

        Not that simple, at least in the US. There are laws about data retention, and if the IT people want to stay out of hot water, even the “deleted” files are archived. It doesn’t matter if the scientists want the data destroyed, they’d have to have complicit IT people to really destroy it.

        If any of it gets subpoenaed, the IT guy is going to save his hide and hand it over.

  36. Punch My Ticket
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The sanctity of peer review ..

    From: Phil Jones
    To: Kevin Trenberth , Grant Foster
    Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
    Date: Wed Aug 5 16:14:34 2009
    Cc: “J. Salinger” , James Annan , b.mullan@niwa.co.nz, Gavin Schmidt , Mike Mann , j.renwick@niwa.co.nz

    Hi all,
    Agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi
    retired and like Mike Wallace may not be responsive to requests from JGR.
    We have Ben Santer in common ! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion.
    I’d go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.
    To get a spread, I’d go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe.
    So Neville Nicholls and David Parker.
    All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and
    the awful original, without any prompting.

    Cheers
    Phil
    At 15:50 05/08/2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
    … see below
    Kevin
    Grant Foster wrote:

    Gentlemen,
    I’ve completed most of the submission to JGR, but there are three required entries I
    hope you can help me with.

    3) Suggested Reviewers to Include
    Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give
    an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates,
    collaborators, or family members.

    From mail/1249503274.txt

    • Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Punch My Ticket (#146),

      So that is how peer review is conducted in climate science. Recommend your “unbiased” buddies. This may have reprocussions beyond CRU …. and taint such “peer review” journals such as Nature and Science.

      The word that is one everyone’s lips is: CONSPIRACY.

  37. Gregory Heines
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From a file called Greenpeace.txt :

    X-NCUSER: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
    Received: from [139.222.230.4] (helo=mailgate4.uea.ac.uk)
    by mailserver1.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
    id 13izk7-0000fg-00
    for f030@smtp.uea.ac.uk; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:55 +0100
    Received: from [24.132.28.8] (helo=fw.greenpeace.org)
    by mailgate4.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
    id 13izk4-001GlN-00
    for m.kelly@uea.ac.uk; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:55 +0100
    Received: (from root@localhost) by fw.greenpeace.org (8.9.1a/8.6.12) id PAA07053 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:46:48 +0200 (MET DST)
    Received: by fw.greenpeace.org via smap (V1.3)
    id sma006373; Tue, 10 Oct 00 15:45:28 +0200
    Received: from mail3.uk.gl3 (mail.uk.gl3 [192.168.244.10])
    by bb.uk.gl3 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28271
    for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:44:44 +0100
    Message-Id:
    Received: from dial01.uk.gl3 by mail3.uk.gl3 with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1460.8)
    id T466PKG6; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:39:40 +0100
    From: “paul horsman”
    To: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
    Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:23 -0700
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: climate negotiations/wto etc.
    Priority: normal
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
    Status: O

    Hi Mick,

    It was good to see you again yesterday – if briefly. One particular
    thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and
    the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
    agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
    is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
    particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

    My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
    organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
    you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
    worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
    who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
    and/or to invite to speak?

    All the best,

    Paul

    —————
    Paul V. Horsman
    Oil Campaigner
    Greenpeace International Climate Campaign
    Greenpeace,
    Canonbury Villas
    London N1 2PN
    Tel: +44 171 865 8286
    Fax: +44 171 865 8201
    Mob: +44 7801 212990

    This is really fishy in its brazen and open questioning of globalization. Seems fake.

  38. Calvin Ball
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Because this involves people in many countries (but primarily the US and the UK), this may be something where jurisdiction shopping comes in to play. In the US, there are such whistleblower laws. There are probably similar laws in the UK, but which one is friendlier remains to be seen. Also, there’s a strong possibility that this could lead to hearings in both the US and the UK, but again, which one is friendlier I can’t say. Once subpoenas are issued, this could get very interesting. As if things in the world weren’t already interesting enough.

  39. Howard S.
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Might as well cancel Copenhagen.

  40. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I find this really quite shocking and distrubing. I mean it is one thing to think that such subversion is going on; it is quite another thing – if this is all undoctored – to read it. I don’t know whether to be elated (as a skeptic) or a little sad that this will reflect badly on science regardless.

  41. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I find this really quite shocking and disturbing. I mean it is one thing to think that such subversion is going on; it is quite another thing – if this is all undoctored – to read it. I don’t know whether to be elated (as a skeptic) or a little sad that this will reflect badly on science regardless.

  42. Jeff Id
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Way ot, snip it if you want

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/

  43. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    IANAL, but my previous career in journalism and understanding of media law has prepared me to tell you this:

    For those of you worried about legal ramifications for yourself if you download the file or for Steve or anyone else here — don’t worry. As long as you weren’t the one doing the hacking yourself or you didn’t pay someone to do the hacking, accessing the data and publishing is not illegal — at least in the U.S.

  44. Niphredil
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I second the feeling of sadness. I’m really confused at why I’m not sure if I want this to be true or not. If it is true, its sad that someone had to cheat to get it. But I guess ultimtely the truth is the goal, if this helps to expose the truth and stop the policy madness, energy prices rocketing and poor people having limited access the cheap fossil fuels then, ok

  45. John G. Bell
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Here is a good one.

    From:
    Phil Jones
    To:
    mann@virginia.edu
    CC:
    “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
    Date:
    Mon Feb 21 10:28:32 2005

    Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
    The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
    this to our advantage to get the series updated !
    Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
    rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the
    Jones and Moberg updated series !
    Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
    that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
    with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar
    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 !
    ———————-8<———————-

    I think the word got out :).

  46. Dom
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This one is huge :

    Compare what Trenberth says here : http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2009/10/10/dr-william-gray-and-dr-kevin-trenberth-debate-global-warming/

    …while exactly at the same moment he writing :

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    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. [1][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.

  47. Gregor L
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I posted an equivalent comment to this on another message board. But here’s the gist of it. If the very incriminating sounding quote below:

    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.”

    is in fact real, then it should be possible to obtain the data, the respective journal articles, the temperature data, and see if in fact this is what occurred. I do not know how hard that would be to do at this point, but it would certainly be a good check. I have concerns like others that this entire archive may be a “spiked” version of an otherwise legitimate (hacked) archive … but much of my concern is driven by the fact that I assume that things can’t be this blatant.

  48. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    GEO wrote: An ideological hacker smart enough to hack CRU is smart enough to manufacture a bombshell or two and seed it amongst the rest of the data. Treat “too good to be true” material with a lot of caution initially from such a source.

    I agree. It smells too much to be believable. I’ll continue to be skeptical, but will be opened minded. I expect to be entertained, regardless.

  49. HarryG
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    If it seems to good to be true – then there is a high probability that it is.

    Can we all take a lie down and wait for confirmation – please.

  50. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I can’t seem to be able to download the file, and I would like to see what the references are to me that are noted on Lucia’s site. Does anyone have them?

    Pat Michaels

  51. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    how right you seem to have been with “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?

  52. Eric
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dom @156Re: Dom (#156),

    At least Tenberth displays good old fashioned critical thinking in that excerpt. It is comforting that at least some of these guys are beginning to question things.

  53. Howard S.
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    IMO this is

    The Swindle Exposed

  54. agesilaus
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Since these emails contain the message headers it is possible to verify the messages.
    Steve and others can probably verify some since they have some email correspondance with these people to compare the headers with.

    It would take a huge amount for work to create this volume of material. The person or persons who did would still have to be closely involved with the warmist inner group in order to have access to all that header data, phone numbers and email addresses. Smells real to me at this time.

  55. Dave Thomson
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I retract my previous statement about the validity of the data files. Several of the data files have artificially changed dates, too. It’s best to have a file forensics expert look at this package before doing anything with it.

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Dave Thomson (#167),

      Agreed that a database person needs to say if any of this is suspicious. However, Steve M is already on record saying that all of the correspondence with him is 100% accurate. So this isn’t simply fabricated. The dangling question is has it been tweaked.

  56. Steve
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m not going to bother posting the entire email since this is still at the “too good to be true” stage, but for those of you already perusing the zip…

    Read “1047390562.txt”, an (alleged) email file from March 2003. I am disturbed by, “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor….It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.”

    • Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Steve (#169),

      Yes, I thought this was going to come up! There is no way this one is a fake. WAY too many details. Again, I am having some trouble with the file, but if someone will post any follow-ons on the strongarming of Climate Research because they published some papers of mine, I’d like to see!

      Pat Michaels

      • Greg F
        Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: pat michaels (#174),

        Pat,

        I would be happy to send a copy of the files to you. If you want send an email to:

        verynice at mail.com

    • Ryan O
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Steve (#169), Nah, that email is legit. It was in reference to that Soon paper, which was published in Climate Research where deFrietas was an editor. After that, deFrietas was pressured to leave (several of the editors resigned). More recently, deFrietas one of the coauthors of the McLean, Carter, deFrietas paper on ENSO earlier this year (a piece of crap, TBH).
      .
      deFrietas is well-known by the Team. That email about him is quite legit.

  57. Ryan O
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Guys, the reason for the dates may simply be due to whatever program was used to convert from the native email format to text. While not necessarily the case, the dates may indicate nothing amiss at all. ;)

    • Kevin
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Ryan O (#170),
      I agree. While it’s best to be skeptical at this point, the altered file dates aren’t necessarily indicative of changes to the content. Changing the file creation dates could simply be a means of preventing the hackers’ identities from being determined by checking the server logs.

    • Dave Thomson
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Ryan O (#170),
      Ryan, that was my first thought, too. But then why the Jan 1, 2009 date. After I noticed only selected folders and files in the document folder have the same date, whereas others appear to have their last creation date, I’m quite certain those files were at least opened by the mystery person. If the files were merely opened, and not altered, they should have been closed with a more recent date. It is easy to force a different date while zipping the file, which appears to be the case. The question is, why was the date changed to Jan 1, 2009?

      The files still may be genuine, but there is sufficient cause to exercise caution. It is one thing to trash someone’s career based on solid evidence, it is another thing entirely to trash it on questionable evidence. Whether we like the warmers’ ideas, or not, we must respect their basic rights of innocence until proven guilty. If they are found guilty by “peer review” :-), then feed them to the dogs, but not until then.

      • Ryan O
        Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Dave Thomson (#181), Oh, I agree . . . what needs to be done is to force UEA’s IT department to confirm the authenticity (or show that content has been altered). Not sure what the best way is to force that to happen.

  58. Gregor L
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Pat,

    I have them downloaded and did a search on you and have a whole bunch of them organized by that. No surprise, you are not mentioned positively in any of them that I have read so far. I can’t figure out how to get them to you, though, without public email exposure of my address. Do you have a public email I can send them to?

  59. John G. Bell
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t see how the emails could have been collected without the use of a national agency. So I see it as a great joke. The span of time is impressive also. 1996 to a week ago.

    If this is real it is a team effort of some sort.

  60. Gregor L
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Here is an exampled from 1051156418.txt:

    The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
    (vol. 23, pp. 1–9, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
    should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
    responded saying …..
    The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three
    referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
    published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
    to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
    referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
    publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.

    On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who
    advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
    the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.

    It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper –
    deFreitas has offered us this possibility.

    ______________________________

    This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
    deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
    skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
    How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
    individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
    an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get
    through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
    Soon, and so on).

    The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
    difficult.

    The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that
    does get through.

    _______________________________

    Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
    giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
    hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.

    If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
    to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.

    In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
    disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’
    PhD is at the same level).

    ______________________________

    Best wishes to all,
    Tom.

  61. theduke
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m thinking it’s authentic. I suppose someone associated with the Team could be playing an elaborate trick on skeptics and luke-warmers, but why invest all that effort and to what end? I suppose there could be a Merry Prankster among the dullards there, but I doubt it.

    If it is authentic, I doubt you will find manufactured bogus material. Seems to me that the person(s?) doing this has a clear purpose and would not compromise the full product by altering documents for affect.

  62. Jeff Id
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It seems silly but

    Yup… BOOM!

  63. crosspatch
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There would be no need to change the file modification date to cover tampering. If one can set the date to Jan 1, 2009, then they can set them to whatever date they want. They could have modified the file and reset the file modification time to whatever.

    On a unix system of most any flavor or a PC running cygwin: man touch

  64. Not worried about 2009-01-01
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The mail/NNNNN.txt file names appear to match the date stamps of the
    emails themselves, where NNNN measure by the UNIX time epoch numbers
    (seconds since 1970-01-01). So for example 1047390562.txt corresponds
    to
    % date -d @1047390562
    Tue Mar 11 08:49:22 EST 2003

    • Dave Thomson
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Not worried about 2009-01-01 (#188),
      I agree that the file names match the date stamps of the emails. The issue is that the archive date has been set to an artificial date. It does not reflect the actual date and time the files were placed in the archive. There could still be a valid reason for this, but it is enough to throw into question the accuracy of the emails. Even though the emails apparently originate from a genuine source, there is nothing to prevent someone from opening the file with a text editor, change the text in the body of the message, and close the file again before archiving it.
      However, if they had done so, the archive date should have shown the last date the file was changed. That is the case for nearly all the files in the document directory. The possibility of this happening on the original server is zero since many of the emails are dated well after the archive date. Therefore, the archive date (for whatever reason) has been artificially set to a time not representing the last change of the file. Since we don’t know the actual date of the last file change, and we don’t yet have the real files to compare to, there is no guarantee that the files have not been altered.
      As exciting and scandalous as this zip archive seems, it is not yet ready for prime-time. There must be verifications, first.
      Calvin Ball pointed out that Steve McIntyre already verified his emails. That’s good news as far as confirming some of the files. But it does not confirm the authenticity of all of the files. People can act as they want, but I’m going to be cautious and wait for an orderly investigation.

  65. Greg F
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think the most likely explanation is it is the same mole that released the CRU temperature data.

  66. Not worried about 2009-01-01
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    … and to restore the file time stamps, run this on unix/linux:

    % for f in *.txt; do touch -d @`basename $f .txt` $f; done

  67. vg
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This is huge (90% of comments) and not remotely associated with the subject of this posting WSJ etc..?

  68. Watcher
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I grep’ed the emails for McIntyre and got lots of hits. Thought it might help speed up the review process if folks could pick a few to investigate and mark off the list. If the post is too long please feel free to delete. Based on the sheer number of times he’s mentioned, I’d say he must be getting under their skin.

    Plain | File contents  | File names  | Line numbers  | Whole line  | Word wrap | Fixed Font | Match window: +/- 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 lines

    C:\FOIA\mail\1067522573.txt
    00012: The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771) claims to
    00015: in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick (“MM”) have done no such
    00024: entirely spurious results provided in the McIntyre and McKitrick article were ever allowed

    C:\FOIA\mail\1067596623.txt
    00165: The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; hereafter MM03) claims

    C:\FOIA\mail\1068239573.txt
    00003: Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
    00010: >To: Steve McIntyre
    00011: >Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
    00057: >Steve McIntyre wrote:

    C:\FOIA\mail\1068652882.txt
    00009: you will have seen Stephen McIntyre’s request to us. We need to talk about
    00015: McIntyre, requesting data and programs (and making other criticisms). I do
    00022: Anyway, because McIntyre has now asked Mann directly for his data and
    00023: programs, his request that *we* send McIntyre’s request to Mann has been
    00034: >From: “Steve McIntyre”
    00098: >data to the file pcproxy.txt emailed to one of us (McIntyre) in April
    00172: >Stephen McIntyre Ross McKitrick

    C:\FOIA\mail\1075750656.txt
    00003: Subject: Re[2]: Stephen McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1075768111.txt
    00003: Subject: Re[2]: Stephen McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1075836638.txt
    00003: Subject: Re[3]: Stephen McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1075931629.txt
    00003: Subject: Re[4]: Stephen McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1076083097.txt
    00018: McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1076336623.txt
    00008: Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about Law Dome
    00050: between Steve McIntyre and myself. He has been asking for LD data for a while (since
    00056: Anyway, I am aware of McIntyre’s controversial history and am trying to handle things in
    00082: To: ‘Steve McIntyre’
    00115: From: Steve McIntyre [[6]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
    00120: printed as a graphic. Is this one available? Regards, Steve McIntyre
    00124: To: [8]‘Steve McIntyre’
    00153: From: Steve McIntyre [[10]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
    00166: Stephen McIntyre
    00184: 6. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
    00186: 8. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
    00188: 10. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

    C:\FOIA\mail\1076359809.txt
    00044: From: “Steve McIntyre”
    00051: at Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:02:13 -0500
    00055: of the Lenca series used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1079108576.txt
    00167: >> McIntyre and Mckitrick doesn’t faze these people. They just shift

    C:\FOIA\mail\1083962092.txt
    00010: McIntyre asking me for paleo data series I don’t have (I’m not going to reply, by the way

    C:\FOIA\mail\1083962601.txt
    00014: Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything,

    C:\FOIA\mail\1090610951.txt
    00152: McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2003): Corrections to the Mann et al

    C:\FOIA\mail\1102956436.txt
    00017: and the specific discrediting of the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, based both on our
    00024: the McIntyre and Mckitrick matter, and the von Storch matter,

    C:\FOIA\mail\1102956446.txt
    00003: Subject: email #2: paper in review in J. Climate (as a letter), discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick
    00008: IPCC draft purposes. They basically show that the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is total

    C:\FOIA\mail\1104855751.txt
    00025: McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on
    00044: From: “Steve McIntyre”
    00063: Regards, Steve McIntyre
    00068: From: [1]Steve McIntyre
    00079: mischaracterizations regarding criticisms we (McIntyre and McKitrick) made of Mann et
    00084: First, Rutherford et al. states that McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] used an incorrect
    00098: After publication of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003], Mann said that dataset at his FTP
    00159: Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
    00195: 1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

    C:\FOIA\mail\1104893567.txt
    00076: The primary criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick, which has gotten a lot of play on the

    C:\FOIA\mail\1106322460.txt
    00003: Subject: Re: Fwd: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre
    00148: >> > 2004GL021750 McIntyre
    00156: >> > Thread-Topic: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre
    00183: >> > reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor

    C:\FOIA\mail\1107899057.txt
    00032: The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you’ll find this

    C:\FOIA\mail\1109018144.txt
    00026: I was surprised to see comments from you in WSJ saying that McIntyre and

    C:\FOIA\mail\1109021312.txt
    00052: But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre
    00118: Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and
    00205: But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre says
    00214: McIntyre’s, although they never state this. Mann and Schmidt go to great lengths in
    00307: Steve McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1114607213.txt
    00008: McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data – sent ages ago. I’ll
    00034: Regards, Steve McIntyre
    00063: However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run
    00066: For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Mann’s FTP
    00071: Not only has this been a problem has this been a problem for McIntyre with regards to

    C:\FOIA\mail\1122669035.txt
    00036: curve? I understand that studies by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
    00065: the AR4 in 2007. This includes the McIntyre and McKitrick papers as well as papers that
    00066: report results contrary to McIntyre/McKitrick, such as the paper in press by Wahl and

    C:\FOIA\mail\1123163394.txt
    00125: happens to discredit most of the McIntyre and McKitrick claims.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1123622471.txt
    00030: We can revisit this , and the issue of McIntyre and McKitrick (centering of PCs in Mann et

    C:\FOIA\mail\1127614205.txt
    00053: Steve McIntyre (a name that should ring a bell) regarding unpublished literature in
    00071: I am attaching the correspondence with McIntyre below for your information but the only
    00073: with McIntyre from here.
    00089: From: Steve McIntyre [1]
    00120: Thank you for your attention, Steve McIntyre
    00126: To: [6]Steve McIntyre
    00129: Dear Dr McIntyre,
    00137: Steve McIntyre wrote:
    00147: To: [8]Steve McIntyre
    00150: Dear Mr McIntyre,
    00166: Steve McIntyre wrote:
    00185: Stephen McIntyre
    00288: 1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
    00293: 6. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
    00295: 8. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

    C:\FOIA\mail\1128000000.txt
    00003: Subject: McIntyre and D’Arrigo et al (submitted)
    00011: and Peck’s benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre
    00016: I think this is an abuse of McIntyre’s position as an IPCC reviewer.
    00045: >others. McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper
    00053: >still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to
    00056: >The conditions which McIntyre (and all other IPCC reviewers) agreed
    00099: >>>From: “Steve McIntyre”
    00100: >>><stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca>
    00225: >>>Stephen McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1132094873.txt
    00039: a while back when McIntyre first raised it and were quite satisfied with the published
    00044: not sure if you guys are aware, McIntyre presented this poster at the CCSP meeting.
    00053: Stephen McIntyre, stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
    00117: 2. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

    C:\FOIA\mail\1133360497.txt
    00003: Subject: Re: IPCC ref. regarding McIntyre and McKitrick
    00015: >response from McIntyre and McKitrick, but that should now move
    00025: >principle components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and

    C:\FOIA\mail\1136918726.txt
    00054: > submitted Brief Communication By McIntyre and McKitric . I have been
    00062: > response to McIntyre and McKitric , but I would prefer if you would

    C:\FOIA\mail\1138042050.txt
    00014: matters are being followed closely by McIntyre (see:
    00066: McIntyre’s criticisms. Caspar thought, and I agree, that we need to bring this stuff

    C:\FOIA\mail\1139521913.txt
    00010: put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
    00025: forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our

    C:\FOIA\mail\1139835663.txt
    00019: McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the

    C:\FOIA\mail\1139923663.txt
    00014: Science. In my view the McIntyre criticisms are weak and disingenous.But
    00043: >> McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I
    00057: >> forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use

    C:\FOIA\mail\1141068509.txt
    00016: Rosanne is presenting at this NAS meeting on Thursday which McIntyre is obviously going to
    00043: We didn’t use Jaemtland and you did, that is why McIntyre suggested
    00069: >questions/requests from McIntyre about our paper that they’d like our

    C:\FOIA\mail\1141393414.txt
    00085: >>>McIntyre and McKittrick were there, and seem

    C:\FOIA\mail\1141737742.txt
    00020: Dr. McIntyre, which we forwarded to you: it was quite satisfactory, we
    00022: Dr. McIntyre. I hope that this will be the end of this episode, but if
    00057: system of Steve McIntyre’s email.
    00130: Because Steve McIntyre has explicitly stated that he is unable to
    00166: >We have just received an email from Steve McIntyre (pasted below),
    00189: >*******START OF EMAIL FROM S. MCINTYRE*********
    00417: >Stephen McIntyre
    00419: >********END OF EMAIL FROM S. MCINTYRE**********

    C:\FOIA\mail\1141930111.txt
    00025: McIntyre is determined and the blog does influence people, unfortuately
    00053: >lot by media and McIntyre has immediate access to the international media

    C:\FOIA\mail\1142314357.txt
    00029: and it plays unfairly into McIntyre’s hand. I almost admit to being very irritated that

    C:\FOIA\mail\1146062963.txt
    00013: respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you
    00033: > McIntyre. We should have got this organised a bit quicker but we will
    00044: >> To: “Steve McIntyre”
    00077: >> At 19:37 18/04/2006, Steve McIntyre wrote:
    00085: >>> Schweingruber network at WDCP. Regards, Steve McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1147435800.txt
    00024: >From: “Steve McIntyre”
    00057: >Steve McIntyre
    00066: >To: Steve McIntyre
    00098: >At 19:37 18/04/2006, Steve McIntyre wrote:
    00105: > >Schweingruber network at WDCP. Regards, Steve McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1151689605.txt
    00129: above. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,d) showed that the pre-1450 RE
    00137: portion) is -0.08 (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005c), and the RE
    00139: implementation of the Mann code (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005d). The

    C:\FOIA\mail\1153470204.txt
    00020: I did not get into suggesting how that paragraph might otherwise be rewritten. You can see more generally where Caspar and I have gone in the attached text, and how our work relates generally to the MM, von Storch, etc. “examinations” of MBH. Thinking further, the “Validation Thresholds and Measures of Merit” and “Amplitude Issues” sections might also be well worth a look. The former will help you see how over-strong and one-sided are the arguments Steven McIntyre puts forth in this area. (Cf. Wahl-Ammann Appendix 1 also on this topic — McIntyre strongly avoids, or simply chastizes as ad hoc, the false negative issues at lower frequencies that we raise concerning the use of r2.) He has done with the IPCC just what he did in reviewing the Wahl-Ammann paper–and indeed in all his efforts–write volumes of very strongly worded, one-sided critiques, which can take a lot of time to see through and then respond to. I hope what we have written can help you in this way. I note that Mike Mann, Richard Alley, and others have written response comments, which would be useful for getting perspective also.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1154697504.txt
    00003: Subject: McIntyre, McKitrick & MITRIE …
    00011: all of you to the section about McIntyre&McKitrick vs Mann et al. I am
    00200: > %%directed at them (mainly MBH1999) by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] and others.
    00260: > in more detail in the context of criticism by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003}
    00749: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003]
    00787: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} [MM2005] continue the criticism of the techniques
    00822: > They find the impact of the modifications suggested by McIntyre and McKitrick to
    00824: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005b} clarify their original claim, stating that the
    00829: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} [MM2005c] revisit the MM2003 work and correct
    01658: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} assert that the fact that omission of data
    01676: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} (hereafter MM2005).
    01848: Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\McIntyre2003.pdf”

    C:\FOIA\mail\1155402164.txt
    00220: > > >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical

    C:\FOIA\mail\1155832288.txt
    00010: Due to the ongoing debate, this has turned an even more difficult manuscript. In general, I think Martin did a very good job in the review of the literature. Concerning the new reconstructions and the evaluation of McIntyre work, I would not fully agree with some of the conclusions, which I thin do not follow from the material presented in the text. I have some remarks on this which you may consider useful. But I think that I am not the one that should give the manuscript the final shape, as Martin is the person in charge of the project. Please, consider the following comments as suggestions.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1163715685.txt
    00258: > > meant “don’t use bristlecones”, as he is quoted by McIntyre. I
    00295: > > McIntyre hasn’t come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more

    C:\FOIA\mail\1163771694.txt
    00252: > > meant “don’t use bristlecones”, as he is quoted by McIntyre. I
    00289: > > McIntyre hasn’t come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more

    C:\FOIA\mail\1164059987.txt
    00011: > I’m involved in a discussion with Stephen McIntyre about Bristlecone pines,

    C:\FOIA\mail\1164120712.txt
    00110: > meant “don’t use bristlecones”, as he is quoted by McIntyre. I believe
    00138: > McIntyre hasn’t come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more on

    C:\FOIA\mail\1171550268.txt
    00012: McIntyre´s blog.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1177158252.txt
    00019: How about “I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but

    C:\FOIA\mail\1177423054.txt
    00100: >>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn’t have

    C:\FOIA\mail\1177534709.txt
    00154: >>>>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn’t have

    C:\FOIA\mail\1182342470.txt
    00042: From: “Steve McIntyre” [1]
    00086: Regards, Steve McIntyre
    00091: To: “Steve McIntyre” [5]
    00162: 1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
    00166: 5. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

    C:\FOIA\mail\1182346299.txt
    00078: >> >>From: “Steve McIntyre”
    00130: >> >>Regards, Steve McIntyre
    00134: >> > To: “Steve McIntyre”

    C:\FOIA\mail\1182361058.txt
    00008: Glad I can help, even if quite indirectly. I know what you mean about the need for community when under duress. The individual quality of being a scientist works against us in this way. Attached are the original letter and the official UCAR response. I don’t know what the lawyers might have written, other than their input to the official response letter. I do know they sought information from Caspar (and myself, but less so). I don’t recall if we made available to them our correspondance with Steve Schneider about our responses to the review of WA that McIntyre did, which had a lot of information in it that debunked his claims about withholding contrary results, etc, etc.. In fact, we have never mentioned this to Steve, to make sure that he was in the situation to make editorial decisions as focused soley on the science as possible.
    00060: From: “Steve McIntyre”
    00083: Regards, Steve McIntyre
    00088: To: “Steve McIntyre”

    C:\FOIA\mail\1188412866.txt
    00037: [2][1] McIntyre S. (19 July 2006), Submission to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    00039: sworn statement by McIntyre. [It is available at
    00040: [3]http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pd
    00130: 3. http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pdf

    C:\FOIA\mail\1189722851.txt
    00069: You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it

    C:\FOIA\mail\1189797973.txt
    00028: McIntyre and McKitrick’s claims in no uncertain terms, referencing the Wahl and Ammann work
    00030: McIntyre and McKitrick only failed to reproduce the reconstruction because of multiple

    C:\FOIA\mail\1196872660.txt
    00036: Re, Loehle, McIntyre. Funny–w/ each awful paper E&E publishes, McIntyre realizes that
    00050: that McIntyre is trying to distance himself from some of these E&E articles by

    C:\FOIA\mail\1200493432.txt
    00025: mainly because of McIntyre). I told him all this as well when we met at a meeting of

    C:\FOIA\mail\1209474516.txt
    00011: McIntyre seems to be sending it everywhere. Dave Thompson is

    C:\FOIA\mail\1212088415.txt
    00013: Climate Audit are an odd crowd. McIntyre is claiming that he spotted the problem

    C:\FOIA\mail\1212587222.txt
    00023: From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
    00029: Steve McIntyre
    00091: 1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

    C:\FOIA\mail\1214228874.txt
    00024: I’m not even sure if you sent me or Keith anything, despite McIntyre’s conviction! But

    C:\FOIA\mail\1225140121.txt
    00013: on the paper is in touch with McIntyre.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1225462391.txt
    00008: Dear folks, While on travel in Hawaii, I received a request from Steven McIntyre for all of
    00010: my PCMDI colleagues, I have decided not to respond to McIntyre’s request. If McIntyre
    00014: climate model and radiosonde data). If Mr. McIntyre wishes to “audit” our analysis and
    00018: that McIntyre is the guy who “audited” the temperature reconstructions of Mike Mann and
    00019: colleagues. Now it appears as if McIntyre wants to audit us. McIntyre should have “audited”
    00034: stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca using -f Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov
    00048: -0400 From: “Steve McIntyre” To: Subject: Santer et al 2008 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:29:11
    00069: Steve McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1226337052.txt
    00002: To: Steve McIntyre
    00009: Dear Mr. McIntyre,
    00044: Steve McIntyre wrote:
    00045: > Could you please reply to the request below, Regards, Steve McIntyre
    00048: > *From:* Steve McIntyre [mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
    00063: > Steve McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1226451442.txt
    00011: Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre’s twin requests under
    00012: the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre’s request (1),
    00017: As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
    00020: are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
    00023: Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
    00034: McIntyre’s request (2) demands “any correspondence concerning these
    00042: have no idea why McIntyre’s request for email correspondence has a
    00046: and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
    00047: justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
    00057: frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
    00058: McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
    00064: Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
    00069: McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
    00072: In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
    00075: send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the
    00078: future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
    00084: from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
    00094: subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s
    00110: > From: Steve McIntyre
    00222: > Stephen McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1226456830.txt
    00032: > Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre’s twin requests under
    00033: > the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre’s request (1),
    00038: > As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
    00041: > are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
    00044: > Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
    00055: > McIntyre’s request (2) demands “any correspondence concerning these
    00063: > have no idea why McIntyre’s request for email correspondence has a
    00067: > and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
    00068: > justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
    00078: > frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
    00079: > McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
    00085: > Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
    00090: > McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
    00093: > In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
    00096: > send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the
    00099: > future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
    00105: > from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
    00115: > subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s
    00131: >> From: Steve McIntyre
    00243: >> Stephen McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1226500291.txt
    00025: Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre’s twin requests under the Freedom of
    00026: Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre’s request (1), no “monthly time series of
    00029: As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him yesterday, all of the
    00031: Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr.
    00032: McIntyre wishes to audit us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper
    00034: McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data (spatially-averaged
    00041: McIntyre’s request (2) demands “any correspondence concerning these monthly time series
    00047: publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I have no idea why McIntyre’s request for
    00051: unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or
    00052: explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy
    00059: time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme
    00060: irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
    00064: I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and
    00065: his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the
    00068: conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre;
    00071: In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I
    00073: As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since
    00076: McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about
    00080: LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. I assume that
    00088: McIntyre’s “ClimateAudit” website.
    00099: From: Steve McIntyre
    00161: Stephen McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1228249747.txt
    00013: one can appear to applaud McIntyre at first, but then go on to
    00060: > McIntyre’s discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading
    00061: > about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an
    00076: > regarding McIntyre’s data request, and would note that:
    00080: > freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us,
    00083: > Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data
    00092: > Since it was my decision not to provide McIntyre with derived quantities

    C:\FOIA\mail\1228258714.txt
    00036: specifically related to McIntyre.
    00053: > McIntyre’s discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading
    00054: > about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an
    00069: > regarding McIntyre’s data request, and would note that:
    00073: > freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us,
    00076: > Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data
    00085: > Since it was my decision not to provide McIntyre with derived quantities

    C:\FOIA\mail\1228330629.txt
    00056: damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he
    00057: requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m
    00061: McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for
    00062: further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: “You
    00070: with the likes of Steven McIntyre.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1228412429.txt
    00117: >>provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to
    00118: >>McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m convinced
    00122: >>has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies
    00124: >>further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully
    00135: >>Steven McIntyre.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1228922050.txt
    00012: this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t
    00021: McIntyre often gets others to do the requesting, but requests and responses
    00024: McIntyre. Others here came from Eschenbach and also Douglas Keenan.
    00029: The recent couple have come from McIntyre but there have been at least two
    00081: received from Steven McIntyre?

    C:\FOIA\mail\1229468467.txt
    00015: words, although prompted by McIntyre’s request, you will
    00032: Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to list
    00035: crucial for McIntyre to state specifically what he wants.
    00048: > I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made
    00050: > (FOIA). McIntyre asked for “Monthly average T2LT values for the 47
    00055: > McIntyre’s request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear
    00060: > McIntyre’s request is poorly-formulated and misleading. As noted in the
    00061: > Santer et al. paper cited by McIntyre, we examined “a set of 49
    00063: > different models”. McIntyre confuses the number of 20th century
    00066: > mistake does not inspire one with confidence about McIntyre’s
    00084: > Contact” that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly
    00088: > misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others.
    00092: > McIntyre’s FOIA request to DOE. This will make it difficult for McIntyre
    00096: > to Mr. McIntyre (as I informed him several months ago), as are the

    C:\FOIA\mail\1231257056.txt
    00007: “Thanks” Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had a similar experience–but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a private institution–with Stephen McIntyre demanding that I have the Mann et al cohort publish all their computer codes for papers published in Climatic Change. I put the question to the editorial board who debated it for weeks. The vast majority opinion was that scientists should give enough information on their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capable can do their own brand of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal computer codes with all their undocumented sub routines etc. It would be odious requirement to have scientists document every line of code so outsiders could then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not in the business of producing software products for general consumption and have no resources to do so. The NSF, which funded the studies I published, concurred–so that ended that issue with Climatic Change at the time a few years ago.
    00066: Neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. Stephen McIntyre (Mr. McIntyre is the
    00100: valid scientific discovery. Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests to DOE and NOAA
    00102: McIntyre has targeted scientists at Penn State University, the U.K.
    00105: denominator is that Mr. McIntyre’s attention is directed towards studies
    00113: McGregor (the Chief Editor of the IJoC) provided Mr. McIntyre with the
    00126: synthetic MSU temperatures that were the subject of Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA
    00128: not requested by Mr. McIntyre). These datasets have been through
    00137: resolve these problems. If Mr. McIntyre’s past performance is a guide to

    C:\FOIA\mail\1232064755.txt
    00014: McIntyre’s request to the U.S. Dept. of Energy/National Nuclear Security
    00017: by Mr. McIntyre. These synthetic MSU datasets are available on PCMDI’s
    00037: requests from Mr. McIntyre. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests

    C:\FOIA\mail\1233245601.txt
    00010: Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it
    00011: to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. He
    00019: It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre’s paper for review.
    00020: Also, I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the

    C:\FOIA\mail\1233326033.txt
    00011: McIntyre had access to all of the primary model and observational data
    00013: would have required Mr. McIntyre to invest time and effort. He was
    00023: employed. They did what Mr. McIntyre was unwilling to do – they
    00034: Mr. McIntyre could easily have examined the appropriateness of the
    00036: randomly-generated data (as we did in our paper). Mr. McIntyre chose not
    00042: provide data to Mr. McIntyre. You made your complaint on the basis of
    00043: the information available on Mr. McIntyre’s blog. You did not understand
    00056: post it on Mr. McIntyre’s blog.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1233586975.txt
    00040: > CA including McIntyre didn’t seem to accept or realise this.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1245943185.txt
    00060:

    C:\FOIA\mail\1250169233.txt
    00008: See the attached – odd quote by McIntyre in the middle of this

    C:\FOIA\mail\1252154659.txt
    00025: There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:
    00049: (5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
    00054: Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
    00067: The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1252164302.txt
    00050: There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:
    00070: (5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
    00075: to proceed? Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
    00084: The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1252233095.txt
    00011: In his e-mail to me, McIntyre requested the annual data that we say are not publicly
    00067: There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:
    00091: (5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
    00096: Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
    00109: The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1253631628.txt
    00028: is the paper of Caspar’s (with Doug Nychka) that shows > that McIntyre is wrong? Are there
    00077: that McIntyre is wrong? Are there other papers I should see/cite

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254175144.txt
    00008: context to the latest McIntyre meme.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254230232.txt
    00010: you’re fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre has done is going to be difficult.
    00020: standardized – corridor method. I also don’t think McIntyre understands the RCS method even
    00049: thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
    00063: McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254258663.txt
    00003: Subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest….
    00024: with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
    00027: if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question.
    00033: McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate
    00046: picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254259645.txt
    00003: Subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest….
    00017: scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
    00025: tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the
    00031: the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
    00057: with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
    00061: if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in
    00067: are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
    00086: picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254323180.txt
    00016: congress this summer. It isn’t coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E
    00099: thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
    00113: McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254345174.txt
    00024: McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S.
    00100: thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
    00114: McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254409004.txt
    00013: also picked up in the bit we’ll post that McIntyre has put in the caveats but lets others

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254501801.txt
    00033: >data file was a consequence of requests from McIntyre to get the data.

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254746802.txt
    00042: McIntyre that the data used by Mann to “prove” the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
    00051: “Please note: Steve McIntyre’s post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
    00101: I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254751382.txt
    00228: required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated
    00442: century,” wrote Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre on his blog on
    00447: McIntyre’s determination to reproduce the reconstructions has
    00473: McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and
    00492: Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a
    00588: Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated
    00687: those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who
    00758: McIntyre has
    00766: began to crumble when Mr. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of Guelph
    00769: As Ross McKitrick explains in his op-ed, Steve McIntyre has
    01066: last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to
    01072: Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking
    01079: used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
    01081: Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics
    01089: the methodology used – as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these
    01091: scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data.
    01093: were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they
    01109: scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
    01112: McIntyre is
    01114: [1] Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254754536.txt
    00029: McIntyre that the data used by Mann to “prove” the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
    00038: “Please note: Steve McIntyre’s post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
    00088: I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254756944.txt
    00041: explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And

    C:\FOIA\mail\1254832684.txt
    00014: Here is what Stephen McIntyre says on Climate Audit.
    00018: McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC

    C:\FOIA\mail\1256214796.txt
    00007: WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means – for the man-in-the street).
    00048: >McIntyre, has produced an alternative history of tree-growth
    00052: >analysed by Prof Briffa. While McIntyre’s selection produces

    C:\FOIA\mail\1256735067.txt
    00065: I’ll let you make up you own minds! It seems to me as though McIntyre cherry picked for
    00071: McIntyre knows that the millennial temperature record is pretty robust, otherwise he

    C:\FOIA\mail\1256747199.txt
    00012: Also McIntyre had the Yamal data in Feb 2004 – although he seems to have forgotten this.
    00013: Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was

    C:\FOIA\mail\1256760240.txt
    00008: person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.
    00052: more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre

    C:\FOIA\mail\1256765544.txt
    00093: >their lives and McIntyre has stated several times
    00121: > 2. McIntyre was sent the data for Yamal by our
    00167: >Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross McKitrick
    00204: >statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting
    00210: > Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data -
    00218: >used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
    00221: > Mr McIntyre has previously showed
    00228: >claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same
    00229: >scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all
    00231: >data available to Mr McIntyre after they
    00251: >scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
    00255: >UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.
    00258: >Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009
    00338: >researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested
    00340: >McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information
    00344: >temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t
    00352: >the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested

  69. Gregor L
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Pat … emailed a bunch of them to you. I hope that you have a strong stomach for the derision in them … but you are already all too experienced in having to put up with that kind of stuff I think.

  70. Steve Geiger
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Wow, Mr. McIntyre was certainly on their minds A BUNCH. Very hard to believe at this point that this is a hoax….who would have the time, knowledge, access AND intent to pull that off(?)

  71. Niphredil
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe Steve M. could match any record he has of his correspondence to these files to check what dates they should at least origniate from?

    • theduke
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Niphredil (#196),

      He has. He said they are 100% accurate. On Lucia’s site, I believe.

  72. crosspatch
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “The issue is that the archive date has been set to an artificial date.”

    We don’t know that.

    “I grep’ed the emails for McIntyre”

    Greping for “Tamino” is more fun.

  73. theduke
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I had to clean the spray (red wine) off my computer screen after reading this one:

    “In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science.”

  74. Robert E. Phelan
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    And Money? George Soros.

    I think we need a congressional investigation. Now.

  75. Bill Jamison
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As someone once said “You can’t make this stuff up!”. That certainly rings true here.

  76. crosspatch
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    And by “we don’t know that” I mean that it is possible that a restore utility for some kind of archive always creates restored files to that date or maybe the date was changed to hide the date the files were extracted from the archive in order to protect the extractor. It doesn’t mean the files were changed. And there is a lot of entertainment in those files, more than what someone might have done with a change here or there.

  77. Plainview
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    noticed that the initial heads-up was posted 11/17, 10th anniversary of Fight Club. Coincidence?!

  78. crosspatch
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    And it is interesting to see Seth Borenstein communicate with the Team and get their take on things. And it is interesting to see how the team describes MSU temperature data as “deeply flawed” and dismiss it simply because it is “consistently lower” than other data sets.

  79. ianl8888
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I repeat – WHERE is a link that actually works ?

    #119 Cold Lynx was truncated about 1/3rd through download and is no longer accessible

    #121 is dead

    #152 just leads to some self-congratulatory smart-assery

    Until the actual data is available, this is a HOAX

    WHY is this so difficult ??

  80. ianl8888
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I repeat: the few links (#119, #121) are DEAD

    So where are links that work, please ?

  81. crosspatch
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The link is now being reported as dead. The md5sum of the original file is da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 and I expect someone will have it on a torrent soon if it isn’t already. But if you get a different md5sum, then the file has been modified. That sum was independently generated by at least three different people downloading the file from the original link.

  82. John G. Bell
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I missed something obvious in the FOI emails and am no longer a skeptic :).

  83. D MacKenzie
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve just managed to download from the originally posted site (via NZ) and get the same md5sum value as crosspatch above and what was posted earlier at WUWT. Perhaps it’s just overloaded?

    It’s all pretty exciting, hopefully its not just some elaborate ruse where all the team members are sitting back and chuckling over their beers watching the ‘skeptics’ fall over themselves with it…

  84. Chris S
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 10:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    These look genuine. The file creation date is just the date the file was “copied” to it’s current location (All 20th Nov). Modified, is the last time it was “opened” and “saved” by the author.
    The important data is in the e-mails header, which looks authentic and would be a mammoth task to fake.
    Having said that, there could be a rogue file in there, but I doubt it.

    (Jones) Is that you Kieth?
    (Briffa)Yes.
    (Jones) It’s worse than we thought.

  85. John Norris
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The words redemption and congratulations come to mind.

    Most CA readers just knew all of this was going on behind the scenes; but somehow it is still shocking when you see it.

    I feel like I have viewed the hockey team movie here on CA over the last three years, but now the book is available, free online. And lo and behold the movie pretty much captured the essence of the characters, and was true to the facts in the book. Congratulations for sticking to your guns and believing that a reasoned, ethical approach would eventually disclose reality.

  86. Daryl M
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, if this turns out to be legitimate, you deserve the Order of Canada.

  87. M Yoxon
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 10:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Pretty extraordinary. Better than Grisham? You bet it is. Can’t wait to see the response at realclimate.

  88. OzzieAardvark
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Posted at WUWT and Lucia’s earlier.

    Folks,

    I really want to believe that what’s now in the wild is genuine and unedited. The reason I want to believe this is that so many of the partisans named in the e-mails I’ve seen posted in comments (haven’t looked at the .zip) have so brutally abused my BS detectors over the last few years. Making press releases ahead of journal publications, stonewalling on data and method transparency and giving nonsense answers to reasoned and valid criticism have, for quite some time, had the Scotsman in Engineering calling me saying “Captain, the BS detectors ‘r nah gonna take this much lunger!”.

    Unfortunately (for at least me I suppose), what I’ve seen of this event to date is setting off those same BS detectors in a big way. Call me naïve, but I simply can’t imagine that folks as smart and determined (if not principled on the face of the evidence prior to this event) as the named Team members would engage in e-mail discussions as presented.

    I can buy arrogance (just from a regular read of RC), but the utter stupidity instantiated in the e-mail samples I’ve seen so far makes me instantly skeptical.

    Tread cautiously on this.

    All of that said, I hope my BS detectors are malfunctioning as a consequence of previous abuse :-)

    OA

  89. Michael R
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As on WUWT I have posted another link to the file

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T

    There are also several other readers who have posted copies

    http://rapidshare.com/files/309496568/FOI2009.zip.html
    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY
    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

  90. jeez
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Alternate download locations:

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY

    A torrent file:

    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

  91. OzzieAardvark
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    BTW Steve, A 1u server at a COLO doesn’t seem to be up to dealing with your new found fame. Maybe you should have a chat with Anthony about that? :-)

  92. John A
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Like many others I am stunned by the content of the e-mails but very skeptical because I cannot verify its provenance. Has someone asked the people mentioned whether this archive is genuine?

    • davidc
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: John A (#118),

      If they are not you would think that the alleged authors would be quick to say so. They might say that comments on leaks on blogs are beneath them, but some at least are involved with RC.

  93. Geo
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    In my opinion, Her Majesty’s subjects need to be raising hades with their MPs to get an official investigation of this situation, and validate (or not) these emails.

    If they are validated by an official investigation, then IMO Phil Jones must go as head of CRU for sheer “contempt of science” and treating public data as his private property displayed in some of these things.

    And if the more despicable emails are doctored forgeries, then I certainly would hope that Dr. Jones would be the first to stand up and demand to be vindicated by an official investigation proving that to be the case.

  94. Bob H
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve looked at quite a number of the emails, and to my mind there is no doubt that they are authentic. Each individual has his own consistent style of expression, which is very hard to fabricate on such a scale. There’s also so much detail in the content that only an insider could know it all.

    That’s not to deny the possibility that individual documents might have been ‘tweaked’ to add controversy, ‘spice’ or verisimilitude.

    But however much the Team deny it, this material is surely mostly kosher.

    All I can say is, “Let their bowels gripe with terror, and may their underpants ride up and chafe them mightily all the days of their lives.”

  95. Calvin Ball
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Looks like a few comments showing up at RC after about a 6-hour dead period. Suppose they had server problems? :P

  96. Dave Thomson
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Another place to download the files is:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/jnytjtm0yd2/FOI2009.zip

    If you have a slow connection, you can get the file on CDROM at http://www.super-manuals.com.

  97. Denny
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    If this is true, I’m speechless!

  98. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

    OK. I agree we need to be very wary of this. But, for those who are doubting because it seems so bizarre that these smart people would write and have these e-mails saved, remember that most of the big corporations that have gotten into legal trouble, from Microsoft to Enron, have had a heck of a lot of evidence presented in court in the form of e-mail correspondence that, when read, you wouldn’t believe someone would not erase it, much less write it. They only purge the things when they think they might get caught, which no one ever does.

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:22 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Sonicfrog (#125),

      I agree. Particularly when you consider some of the dumb things some of these people have said on the record. Smart people say and do some awfully dumb things.

  99. Ed
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:14 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The IT department at the Univ of East Anglia can readily confirm or disprove the emails tomorrow. *They* have the originals in their archival storage. If necessary, certainly there will now be FOI requests for the specific emails.

  100. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:18 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, you actually linked to another Examiner’s story on this–you’d like his more than mine, anyways. I have emailed East Anglia for reaction on this. I have also posted a comment in moderation limbo at Real Climate, offering to present their views if they wish.

    There are protocols for dealing with whistleblower information. We’re moving pretty fast on this and ignoring some of them. I’m glad people are talking about authenticating these messages (although I’m pretty convinced they’re authentic). But people’s careers are on the line here–and not just the ones many of the commenters here would like to hang.

    For what it’s worth, there needs to be a metadata description of what is there. It needs to be tied to a timeline of relevant events at the time. People should remember words like ‘alleged’ and ‘purportedly,’ and phrases like ‘should this turn out to be true.’ I know–horse, barn door, etc.

    The one message I’d like to convey is we do not need to rush on this. This will be around to examine and feed our discussions for a long time to come. If we start right, it will go better for us. There seems to be some indications of possible unethical behaviour, if these are true representations of email communications. It isn’t right to tell people to delete emails that may be the subject of FOI requests, at the very least. But we don’t need to pile onto this right now.

    Softly, softly…

  101. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

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

    • Eric
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#129),

      In this case I don’t think much can be read unto that action. It is the classic “do something damnit!” response and would be the first item on the damage control checklist. Any CIO who did not reset all pwords after an event like this would lose their job for gross negligence.

    • Antonio San
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#129), I wonder if the Canadian Press will report about that one… LOL

  102. Joshua Corning
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Just a random pick from the pile of emails:

    Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
    research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
    need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
    sit on the editorial board…
    What do others think?
    mike
    At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

    It is hard to find one email that does have some form of damning evidence in it. I am making a guess that whoever posted these went through them and picked the juicy parts. From my count there are 1073 emails in the file. And considering that this appears to be emails only coming and going from CRU which would be two ppl Briffa and Jones (are there others who work there?) and how many e-mails an average individual makes every year that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the “hacker/leak” did a lot of work filtering through probably thousands of emails to compile the perfect list….i don’t know. Just trying to get my hands around it.

  103. Eric
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Tom Fuller’s Examiner story:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Global-warmings-hidden-files

    don’t be so modest Tom.

  104. KW
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CRU is peter and this file is the WOLF. You get what you deserve.

  105. Robert E. Phelan
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m hoping that the leaker is monitoring these sites and understands that provenance is important. I am confident that Steve, Anthony, Lucia, Jeff Id or Tom Fuller would respect your anonymity. Just contact them… get a throw-away e-mail address at hotmail, use it to post a comment and simply say, “please contact me”… there are lots of questions that need to be answered… many of the posters on these sites are easily found and would probably be honored to act as a cut-out if you felt you needed one. Please come forward.

  106. Gene Nemetz
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    If all of this is real and the general public finds out that scientists involved in the ‘science’ of global warming were doing these things then that will be the end of ‘manmade global warming’. There is no way of recovering from this kind of damage.

    And there will be no way of removing the shame for those who were involved.

    • deadwood
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Gene Nemetz (#136),

      There is no way of recovering from this kind of damage.

      We’ll see. I especially would like to read Andy Revkin’s take.

      • Gene Nemetz
        Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: deadwood (#145),

        I am mostly talking about the perception in the general population. I’m pretty sure that most people have never even heard of Andy Revkin and will never read his blog. I’m also pretty sure they won’t be paying attention to any attempt to patch over the damage. Most people will just know that deceptive things took place to create ‘manmade global warming’. That’s what will cause the permanent damage. The ‘consensus among scientists’ was fabricated. That will stick with people. Any damage control for that will fall on deaf ears—IMO.

  107. Joshua Corning
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m hoping that the leaker is monitoring these sites and understands that provenance is important. I am confident that Steve, Anthony, Lucia, Jeff Id or Tom Fuller would respect your anonymity

    Really bad idea. Pretty sure whoever did this broke the law. Steve et al would be compelled to go to the authorities. Probably not a position they want to be in.

  108. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This graphic bluntly explains file 0939154709.txt:

    http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg

  109. Kasmir
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This is horrendous if true. The “peer review” system will have proven to be an easily corrupted joke, and the ramifications won’t be limited to Climate “Science”, unfortunately.

  110. Mark T
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Something I have not seen mentioned, which I think is more important than anything, is that the science mags could take a huge hit on this revelation. Even if there are no legal repercussions, the damage done could ruin the ability of anybody participating in these emails to publish.

    Mark

  111. Robert E. Phelan
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Joshua Corning:
    November 20th, 2009 at 12:58 am

    I’m pretty sure that the leaker would qualify as a whistle-blower and the blog owners would qualify as journalists. Hell, I’ll act as the cut-out, as long as we get the truth. At some point, the leaker would probably have to come forward, say for a Congressional inquiry, but by that point there would be lots of safeguards and protections.

  112. ChrisinMB
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    here’s another link:

    http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

    It’s pretty quick and not a torrent site.

  113. stumpy
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From the emails:

    > For the D’Arrigo et al. 2006 paper, I did indeed consider using the
    Bristlecone pine data.
    > However, due to the issues raised by Macintyre and others, we felt that it
    would be unwise to use these data, especially as our data-set was biased more
    to higher latitudes.

    Good to see you put someone of bristlecones!

  114. Neil Hyde
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Links to this and other blogs and a functioning download , have been sent to a sympathetic British MP.

  115. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Fox News doesn’t seem to have a front page news story about this unfolding event, so I tried to telephone and e-mail their newsroom. Their telephone number doesn’t provide any human contacts for the newsroom. The e-mail failed with the error message:

    newsmanager@foxnews.com
    The recipient’s mailbox is full and can’t accept messages now.

    It appears the blogs will have to carry the news, and let the news organization carry the…???

  116. tensorized lurker
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Who is Joseph Alcamo? This guy has no shame.

    From: Joseph Alcamo
    To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl
    Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
    Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
    Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

    Mike, Rob,

    Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

    I would like to weigh in on two important questions –

    Distribution for Endorsements –
    I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
    possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
    numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
    signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
    without.
    They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
    different story.

    Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
    them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
    names!

    Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
    1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
    a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
    that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
    2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
    afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
    time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
    about it.
    3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
    it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
    the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
    bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
    diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
    very different directions.

    Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
    November at the latest.

    Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
    with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
    willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

    Best wishes,

    Joe Alcamo

    —————————————————-
    Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
    Center for Environmental Systems Research
    University of Kassel
    Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
    D-34109 Kassel
    Germany

    Phone: +49 561 804 3898
    Fax: +49 561 804 3176

    • Jeff C.
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: tensorized lurker (#148),

      Prof. Joseph Alcamo is Chief Scientist (Designate) of the United Nations Environment Programme. He is currently Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research at the University of Kassel, Germany and Professor of Environmental Systems Science and Engineering. Alcamo has worked for 14 years with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has been a lead author of many of its reports, including the most recent report on the impacts of climate change. He is well known for contributions to global modelling of the environment and development of global scenarios. Alcamo was winner of the international Max Planck Research Prize for achievements in global change research. He is an American citizen.

      from here as of April 2009:
      http://www.unep.org/pdf/JosephAlcamo_B4E.pdf

  117. Ian
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    These do read like a novel at times. I concur with the posters who urge caution. The strength of this blog lies in its focus on the data. To the extent that these documents aid that quest, they should be used; the personal & snide comments, and apparent chicanery, can be dealt with elsewhere.

    Now, that being said, I thought this was an interesting proposed approach to uncooperative data:

    #1254108338
    From: Tom Wigley [...]
    To: Phil Jones [...]
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer [...]
    Phil,
    Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
    Removing ENSO does not affect this.
    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
    Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
    The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough.
    So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
    This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
    Tom.

  118. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    See what passes for Hadley CRU Humor: marooned.jpg

    You can find it in the documents folder. Can you correctly identify each of the marooned?

    Also see RulesOfTheGame.pdf in the documents folder:

    “Evidence base for the Climate Change
    Communications Strategy
    The game is communicating climate change;
    the rules will help us win it.

  119. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The MRU data is not the only cooling worrying this AGW activists. They’re also not happy with the “coolness” of the proxy data?

    From: Jonathan Overpeck
    To: Keith Briffa
    Subject: Fwd: Re: the Arctic paper and IPCC
    Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:15:53 -0700
    Cc: Eystein Jansen

    Hi Keith – great (!) to hear from you – hope you had a good holiday.
    Your reward (ha) is the attached paper and comment below from Konrad.
    He can supply data if needed for a synthetic figure, but we can add
    this later once the Science paper he mentions (w/ us a co-authors
    among millions, I assume) gets vetted more. Your call.

    I’m still not convinced about the AO recon, and am worried about the
    late 20th century “coolness” in the proxy recon that’s not in the
    instrumental, but it’s a nice piece of work in any case.

    Now, for all the issues you raise on other stuff in your email, I’ll
    address to you and that crowd.

    thanks, Peck

  120. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Joshua Corning:
    November 20th, 2009 at 12:58 am

    Really bad idea. Pretty sure whoever did this broke the law. Steve et al would be compelled to go to the authorities. Probably not a position they want to be in.

    I have never heard of a duty to report a crime in the USA, except certain professionals (child abuse reporting etc.).

    Certainly no USA citizen living in the USA has a duty to report a maybe “crime” in another country.

    It is also possible this was an accident:

    Upgraded a hard drive and forget to wipe the old one, sold at used auction.
    Upgraded the computers and sold the old ones to the right person.
    Tossed out old backup tapes, ended up in surplus store.

    Happens all the time.

    Thanks
    JK

  121. Jeff Id
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s Terry Hurlbut rather than Tom Fuller.

  122. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Are readers of CA perhaps less “confused” since the MET Office defined “normal” because “anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted”…???

    At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

    Neil
    There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
    AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
    of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
    before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
    warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
    of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
    will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
    temperature.
    Regards
    David

  123. vdb
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From 1076359809.txt (removed email addresses and header info, added emphasis)

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: Fw: Law Dome O18
    Date: Mon Feb 9 15:50:09 2004

    Mike,
    These were two simple ones to provide. Also Tas told him I had one of them. I guess these are the ones that aren’t available on web sites.
    Anyway, it is done now. If he starts asking for them in dribs and drabs, I’ll baulk at that.
    Ben waded in with very positive comments re the CC issue. Steve’s going to find it very hard to ask you to send the code. Those that say on the CC board that you should send the code, have little idea what is involved. Most are on the social science side.
    Cheers
    Phil
    At 10:19 09/02/2004 -0500, you wrote:

    HI Phil,
    Personally, I wouldn’t send him anything. I have no idea what he’s up to, but you can be sure it falls into the “no good” category.
    There are a few series from our ’03 paper that he won’t have–these include the latest Jacoby and D’Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven’t made it publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they wouldn’t be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our ’99 GRL paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
    I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!
    talk to you later,
    mike
    At 02:46 PM 2/9/2004 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike,
    FYI. Sent him the two series – the as received versions. Wonder what he’s up to? Why these two series ? Used a lot more in the 1998 paper. Didn’t want the Alerce series.
    Must already have the Tassy series from Ed. I know Ed has a more recent series than we used in 1998. Got this for the 2003 work.
    Cheers
    Phil

    From: “Steve McIntyre”
    To: “Phil Jones”
    Subject: Fw: Law Dome O18
    Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:05:23 -0500

    Dear Phil,
    Tas van Ommen has refered me to you for the version of his dataset that you used in Jones et al Holocene 1998 and I would appreicate a copy. I would also appreciate a copy of the Lenca series used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre

  124. Kurt
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike,
    I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
    Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

  125. Alberto
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It is all very real: HadleyCRU says leaked data is real

  126. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “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”

    Is this about the MBH99 smooth ?

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1553#comment-340175

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1553#comment-340207

    • Jean S
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 5:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: UC (#162),
      yes I think you are right. That is, “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to a “trick” of padding a reconstruction series with instrumental values prior smoothing. Now that I think of it, there was no diskussion about end-point things before they started updating their series beyond 1980… now we know why.

  127. Cold Lynx
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I love it.
    From the back of their climate strategy document RulesOfTheGame.pdf

    “First they ignore you; then they laugh
    at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
    Mahatma Gandhi”

    I think Steve recognice their behaviour.
    Congratulation to Your win Steve.

  128. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This is very dangerous. I won’t mind benig proven wrong, but at this point I have to remain very sceptical of the most damning of this information.

    If found to be a hoax this is going to set back genuine sceptical enquiry in this field. The politics will have one. That is not in the interests of good science or good policy.

  129. Kurt
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From: Keith Briffa
    To: Edward Cook
    Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
    Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003

    I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
    Keith

  130. KimW
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 4:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    As with Steve, words simply fail me. I did not doubt the authenticity of the archive, the sheer banality rings true. What is being exposed is the answer to the question, “What is Climate Science” ?. I look forward to seeing a timeline of their actions and perhaps the revealing of the codes that were refused for public display. Expect an offensive from the Warmers to the effect – AGW, Fake but accurate.

  131. Pops
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 4:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hello, Steve, and all.

    A good link: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T

    From the zip file, e-mail #1233245601

    Nice people….

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

    From: Ben Santer
    To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Good news! Plus less good news
    Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:13:21 -0800
    Reply-to: santer1@llnl.gov

    Dear Phil,

    Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it
    to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. He
    doesn’t realize that, as the length of record increases and trend
    confidence intervals decrease, even trivially small differences between
    an individual observed trend and the multi-model average trend are
    judged to be highly significant. These model-versus-observed trend
    differences are, however, of no practical significance whatsoever – they
    are well within the structural uncertainties of the observed MSU trends.

    It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre’s paper for review.
    Also, I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the
    Supporting Information of his paper. What a jerk!

    I will write to Keith again. The Symposium wouldn’t be the same without
    him. I think Tom would be quite disappointed.

    Have fun in Switzerland!

    With best regards,

    Ben

    P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
    > Ben,
    > I’m at an extremes meeting in Riederalp – near Brig. I’m too
    > old to go skiing. I’ll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier
    > at some point – when the weather is good. Visibility is less than
    > 200m at the moment.
    >
    > It is good news that Rob can come. I’m still working on
    > Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email,
    > telling him what he’ll be missing if he doesn’t go. I think
    > Sarah will come, but I’ve not yet been in CRU when she has.
    >
    > With free wifi in my room, I’ve just seen that M+M have
    > submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic – using more
    > years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data -
    > laughing at the directory name – FOIA? Also they make up
    > statements saying you’ve done this following Obama’s
    > statement about openness in government! Anyway you’ll likely
    > get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both
    > Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I’ll
    > suggest this.
    >
    > Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood’s
    > work. He is a prat. He’s just had a response to a comment
    > piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper
    > they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn’t understand independence if it
    > hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you
    > reading them unless interested.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil
    >
    >
    >


    —————————————————————————-
    Benjamin D. Santer
    Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
    Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
    Tel: (925) 422-3840
    FAX: (925) 422-7675
    email: santer1@llnl.gov
    —————————————————————————-

  132. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 4:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Jones has verified:

    http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-verification-of-hadley-cru-files.html

  133. benpal
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 4:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    HadleyCRU says leaked data is real
    The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

    http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html

  134. ianl8888
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 4:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    OK, thanks to Michael R (#116) posting a MegaUpload link, I’ve had an opportunity to read about half the emails, so far. I started from the most recent and worked methodically backwards – headers, refs, dates etc are there. Most of it is quite mundane and typical of a working environment, although Mann’s contributions seem to be a bit edgier and anxious (almost impatient) compared with the normal tenor of the letters. Definitely a change in tone, anyway. There is so much mundane day-to-day detail that, combined with the detailed headers, refs, dates, cc’s etc, I feel most of the content is authentic. For those worried about “misleading forgeries maybe dotted around” in this leak, I just ignore the sillier stuff. The various nets of emails, letters and reports that I have been part of over my working life surely contain examples of this

    [I've had hard experience in two Commissions of Inquiry into multiple-death mining disasters wherein I was required to make an educated guess as to the provenance and year date of various unsigned maps - mostly I did it on map style, fonts, deep knowledge of evolving CAD programs, which geologists habitually used which combinations etc. This is a similar exercise, or at least so it seems to me]

    Not as much “shlock horror” as maybe some people had expected. The attitudes portrayed are exactly as we already knew them to be. What I find interesting, apart from the actual hard science discussions squeezed into these letters, is the obvious and deep conflict between Jones and the person who initially dumped this on the Russian ftp site. There is clearly a real animosity to motivate this, since most of it is such tediously mundane work-a-day stuff. It’s like dumping a YouTube clip of someone picking their nose at lunch. I find it difficult to believe that Jones cannot make an “inspired” guess, but the reason behind such animosity worries me – how could such an influential R&D centre develop such a rancour ? What is it we don’t yet know ?

    I’ll leave the hard science analyses for a (much) longer look and for people better versed in the nuances of this branch of applied science than I am

  135. J.Hansford
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 5:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s quite interesting reading the tone of their victimization in their posts!… An astounding insight into the insecurities of their personalities and scientific reasoning…. Very enlightening indeed. We thought them strong and resilient, but they are weak and deceitful.

    In some ways I feel embarrassed for them. But mainly I am angry that economic policies of whole countries and economies have been based on such small minded individuals…. For I suspect this behaviour is common among most AGW proponents.

    So where does it all go from here?

  136. Nimby
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    What about mainstream media? They’re all strangely silent.

    • A. Physicist
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Nimby (#173), Perhaps because people are all up in arms about a zip file with no attribution posted on an anonymous FTP in Russia? Whatever happened to due diligence? Mann could just as easily zip all the .R files posted on CA, spend a day or two writing realistic-looking “e-mails” between Steve and others on the site, and then add one from Exxon stating that “the check is in the mail.” Hold your horses, guys. The authorities will obviously check in on the archives at CRU (with Steve’s insistence helping, I’m sure), and may well find that a lot of this has been faked. The poster makes their motives very clear, and it’s hard for me to swallow the potential for misinformation here. I’m just surprised that nobody faked something like this sooner!

      • Michael R
        Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: A. Physicist (#176), http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html

        • RomanM
          Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

          Re: Michael R (#177),

          I don’t think that there is much doubt that the majority of the email text was indeed obtained from the CRU site. However, I must agree with A. Physicist that there is absolutely no guarantee that portions of the text have not been edited or had material added.

          IMHO, some of the text reads oddly to me and auditing is definitely in order.

        • A. Physicist
          Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:29 AM | Permalink

          Re: Michael R (#177), That alleged interview is almost the most suspicious piece of this puzzle. Look at the TGIF post linked to at the briefing room… Did you not notice that TGIF is a segment from “Investigate Magazine,” a Kiwi tabloid roughly equivalent to the National Enquirer? And Phil Jones talked to them first? Really? Color me skeptical.
          It looks like the BBC has now talked to CRU, which is probably the first actual interview that has taken place. It sounds as though someone broke in, stole what they could, and posted much of it to an FTP server with or without first modifying the contents. The modification is the important question, and I have to say that the wording of many of the e-mails is very strange. Almost as though re-written by a non-native english speaker…

      • Nimby
        Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: A. Physicist (#176), I totally agree.

  137. vg
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 6:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I have no doubts this will hit mainstream media either very soon or in
    weeks ahead…and heads will roll. I think that we should be gracious in
    our victory and not persecute or demean any of these people. After all
    they were probably well intentioned academics who simply lost the plot
    (and many scientist do, I am one of them..) and we should remember
    that the only contention here was that Anthropogenic CO2 is/was
    responsible for increased averaged global temperatures. Other issues
    are pending but not related to global temperatures such as
    overpopulation, waste, local land use and I’m sure and hopeful some of
    those brilliant minds will find employment in these areas such as
    environmental science etc STEVE, excuse editorializing but this is a special…

  138. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 6:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I quite like the respect offered to the proprietor of this blog (amongst others) in 1233249393.txt from someone called P Jones and another called B Santer

    ear Phil,

    Congratulations on the AGU Fellowship! That’s great news. I’m really
    delighted. I hope that Mr. Mc “I’m not entirely there in the head” isn’t
    there to spoil the occasion…

    With best regards,

    Ben

    P.Jxxxx@uea.ac.uk wrote:
    > Ben,
    > Meant to add – hope you’re better! You were missed at
    > IDAG. Meeting went well though.
    >
    > I heard during IDAG that I’ve been made an AGU Fellow.
    > Will likely have to go to Toronto to Spring AGU to collect it.
    > I hope I don’t see a certain person there!
    > Have to get out of a keynote talk I’m due to give in
    > Finland the same day!
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil

  139. A. Physicist
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I feel compelled to add that given the obvious questions about the origin of these documents, one should be aware of potential legal issues associated with their redistribution. See, e.g., absence of malice, particularly New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It’s probably worth coating this in countless grains of salt. For all we know, this could be a massive hoax designed to convince people that Big Russian Oil is trying to make their winters warmer.

  140. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    @Geo (#20)

    That caution seems well-advised. I had similar thoughts on first reading this story. While nothing so far seems to suggest anyone should assume these aren’t genuine, seems like a fairly dangerous thing to assume 100% of them are so. If claims of falsification arise, it’ll be interesting to see how things sort out….

  141. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Holy Cow!
    (0952106664.txt):

    2. As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some flak from the skeptics saying we’re wrong because everyone knows it was warmer in the Medieval period. We can show why we believe we are correct with independent data from glacial advances and even slower responding proxies, however, what are the chances of putting together a group of a very few borhole series that are deep enough to get the last 1000 years. Basically trying to head off criticisms of the IPCC chapter, but good science in that we will be rewriting people’s perceived wisdom about the course of temperature change over the past millennium. It is important as studies of the millennium will help to show that the levels of natural
    variability from models are reasonable. Tom has run his EBM with current best estimates of past forcing (Be-10 as a proxy for solar output and Alan Robock’s ice core volcanic index) and this produces a series similar to all series of the last 1000 years.

    The above is just ideas of how we, as a group, could/should try and reduce criticisms etc over the next year or so. Nothing is sacred. Your North American borehole series could be correct as it is annual and most of the high-freq proxy series respond mainly to summer variations. Is yours really annual when there is a marked seasonal snow cover season ?

  142. David Harrington
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The BBC have picked up the story:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm

    • J
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: David Harrington (#183), how irresponsible of the BBC. One can’t help but wonder that if the BBC had received the Pentagon Papers, they might have ran the story as “Domestic Spy Betrays Country”. Such vacuous stupidity.

  143. Steve Geiger
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    so, due to timing…its doubtful that much was changed in the supposed emails (per the BBC it was very recently hacked). Still doesn’t rule out a few edits here and there, I guess. What an interesting picture this *seems* to paint, though.

  144. Geo
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “I hope that Mr. Mc ‘I’m not entirely there in the head’ ” –Phil Jones.

    Nice schoolboy alliteration there, Phil. The arrogance and pettiness of these people is pretty astounding. I’m reminded of a question JFK got early in his presidency. He was asked what his biggest surprise was once he actually got into office. He answered with a smile something like “I was surprised to discover that things were actually as bad as we had been saying they were during the campaign.”

    These guys actually are as despicable “at home in their t-shirts and running shorts” as their worst critics have been saying they are.

    Jones must go as head of CRU. He is a disgrace.

  145. Robinson
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I read whole bunch of them and so far I haven’t found any “smoking gun”. That’s probably because there isn’t one. Yes, they generally come across as arrogant, stupid, dismissive of any criticism and generally the kind of people only a mother could love, but I don’t see any conspiracy here, at least nothing I could describe as organised. It’s more the gentle variety; similar to `institutional racism’. We can call it `Institutional Warmism”.

    • Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Robinson (#188),

      This seems to be true as far as the emails I have already read are concerned.

    • Robinson
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: J (#190),

      From reading the headlines elsewhere, I thought this was a mushroom cloud. I don’t see it, that’s all. Science hasn’t been some egalitarian, middle-class, country gent activity since the 18th/19th centuries, but recently thanks to blogging I think this way of getting to the fact of the matter is making a comeback. So far, so good.

      Anyway with respect to the emails, as I said it’s no mushroom cloud, but I do detect some considerable “group psychology” at work. These are no different to the kind of emails that fly around our office and they are entirely reasonable in that context. When you place them outside and embed them into the soci-political-economic context they obliquely refer to, then yes, they are bombshells.

      The system is broken, that much is obvious (as I’ve said before elsewhere, Eisenhower saw it coming). The overwhelming feeling I have is that it’s a shame. So many clever minds; so little integrity.

  146. theduke
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    If these emails and documents are authentic, I don’t think you can over-estimate the massive loss of scientific and public integrity here, both institutional (IPCC, HADCRU, NASA Goddard, etc) and individual (the Team.)

    As for the file being seeded with fake documents, I don’t see it. Whoever did this is on a mission. Why would he compromise the mission? Either it’s a major prank with many fake emails, or it’s all genuine. I would further bet that Jones was interviewed and made the statements attributed to him, even it was in an Australian rag mag. (If the interview disappears any time soon, I will admit I was wrong.) Hadley was hacked. If the BBC reported it, it’s likely true.

  147. Ed P.
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Whether the leaker is an insider or someone external, it is appropriate to refer to him or her as a “whistleblower.”

  148. Dean McAskil
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    All your base are belong to us?

  149. AKD
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dean,

    I am thinking more “Epic Win!!!”

  150. AKD
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Michael Mann seems to be confirming that the e-mails are genuine:

    He said: “I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”‘

  151. Cold Lynx
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I guess they finally realized that they where forced to release the files due to FOI.
    This may be the least damaging way. Some collateral damage but still least possible damage. By claiming that they have been hacked may take away media, as BBC, ability to check the files. Released but not discussed in mann-streamed :-) media.

    It is odd that Jones and RC is the one that confirm that the files are the real stuff.
    And so soon.

  152. MikeN
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Keith.
    …not checked at this time). I hope your desire to see low growth
    about 350 BC will be more or less satisfied. However for some
    reason there are no good correlation between number of samples
    and growth rate. For instance, about 700 BC provided by only one
    sample with very high growth during just this period. I don’t
    know why, may be number of trees depends on burial conditions as
    well.
    I have to note that 364 BC (not 360 BC as I wrote before) on
    sample No. 60 slightly looks like false. On sample 453 it is
    normal ring, on other sample it is very small. Therefore I can’t
    still say something definitely.
    Best wishes,
    Rashit Hantemirov

    sf2note

  153. MikeN
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CBS also uncovered documents labeled CYA that proved that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. In the end CBS and others thought Karl Rove was behind the docs.

  154. RomanM
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It looks like RC is answering some of our questions with regard to the veracity of the emails.

    So far, I haven’t seen any indication that any of them have been falsified.

  155. Dave Thomson
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Looks like Fox News is picking up the story:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

  156. Ian
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Interesting: it appears Mr. Briffa also was not a fan of MBH proxy reconstructions.

    #1058275977

    From: Edward Cook […]
    To: Keith Briffa […]
    Subject: Re: Fwd: revised NH comparison manuscript
    Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:32:57 -0400
    Hi Keith,
    Thanks for the paper and help in toning down Mike’s efforts to put a stake in the Esper heart. I quickly read the paragraph you mention. Undoubtedly part of what is said is true, but it doesn’t explain it all of the differences between the original MBH reconstruction and any of the other NH recons. Now that Mike has moved on to a totally new NH recon, I suppose all of this is a mute [sic] point. However, your Blowing Hot and Cold piece clearly showed that the MBH estimates were undoubtedly deficient in low-frequency variability compared to ANY other recon. Enough said. I need to enjoy myself.
    Cheers,
    Ed
    Ed
    Thought you should see this (in confidence) . Have succeeded in getting reasonable citation to your work and much toning down of criticism of Esper et al in first draft ( see last paragraph before Section C) . Cheers
    Keith
    P.S. Do not ask me why Ray, Malcolm and Phil are on this cause I don’t know – work cam [sic]vout of stuff Tim did with Scott when visiting there last year.

    Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:51:09 -0400
    Subject: revised NH comparison manuscript
    Cc: Mike Mann <mann@virginia.edu
    To: Malcolm Hughes […],Raymond Bradley […], Tim Osborn [...], Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, Phil Jones [...]
    From: Scott Rutherford […]
    […]

    Attached to this e-mail is a revision of the northern hemisphere comparison manuscript. First some general comments. I tried as best as possible to incorporate everyone’s suggestions. Typically this meant adding/deleting or clarifying text. There were cases where we disagreed with the suggested changes and tried to clarify in the text why.
    In this next round of changes I encourage everyone to make specific suggestions in terms of wording and references (e.g. Rutherford et al. GRL 1967 instead of “see my GRL paper”). I also encourage everyone to make suggestions directly in the file in coloured text or by using Microsquish Word’s “Track Changes” function (this will save me deciphering cryptic penmanship; although I confess, my writing is worse than anyone’s). If you would prefer to use the editing functions in Adobe Acrobat let me know and I will send a PDF file. If you still feel strongly that I have not adequately addressed an issue please say so.
    I will incorporate the suggestions from this upcoming round into a manuscript to be submitted. After review, everyone will get a crack at it again.
    I will not detail every change made (if anyone wants the file with the changes tracked I can send it). Here are the major changes:
    1) removal of mixed-hybrid approach and revised discussions/figures
    2) removal of CE scores from the verification tables
    3) downscaling of the Esper comparison to a single figure panel and
    one paragraph.
    4) revised discussion of spatial maps and revised figure (figure 8).
    5) seasonal comparisons have been revised
    Several suggestions have been made for where to submit. These are listed on page 1 of the manuscript. Please indicate your preference ASAP and I will tally the votes.
    I would like to submit by late July, so if you could please get me comments by say July 15 that would be great. I will send out a reminder in early July. If I don’t hear from you by July 15 I will assume that you are comfortable with the manuscript.
    Please let me know if you have difficulty with the file or would prefer a different format.
    Regards,

    Scott
    ______________________________________________
    Scott Rutherford
    Marine Research Scientist
    Graduate School of Oceanography
    […]

  157. Will C.
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Drudge has added a second link to the story:

    Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

  158. Scott Lurndal
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    What I found interesting was the email from Dr. Jones to Dr. Briffa viz the response to Dr. Donald Keiller of Anglia Ruskin. See 1256760240.txt.

    Keith,
    There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this
    person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.

    Dr. Keiller had requested details on the effect of both stripbark and yamal on the recons. He also doubted teleconnection and that tree-ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner; both not being accepted science.

    It’s also interesting that Steve’s name appears in 110 of the email messages.

  159. Vitautas
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    but I don’t see any conspiracy here, at least nothing I could describe as organised. It’s more the gentle variety; similar to `institutional racism’

    No one ever expected a conspiracy like the “conspiracy nuts” invent. Conspiracies like a fake moon landing or G.W.Bush plans fake terror attacks never existed and would never work. The thing is, that the Warmists are totally biased and not honest and not fair. This (and maybe many more things) are proofed now.

  160. Stacey
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The truth will out

  161. Magnus
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #1120593115
    Climate change for a a good cause!

    From: Phil Jones
    To: John Christy
    Subject: This and that
    Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

    …..
    …..
    in subsequent drafts. Someone is going to check the final version and the Aug 12 draft. This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this mail. IPCC, me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

    Cheers

    Phil

    IPCC stuff —- just for interest !!!

  162. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Yeah, the conspiracy here is mainly observer bias getting out of hand to the point where they really believe skepticism must absolutely be wrong and obviously so and thus mustn’t be honest. However, the BIGGER conspiracy is how climatologists ignore the one piece of temperature data that is most important of all: the few VERY LONG thermometer records in Europe the go back almost 400 years.

    Here I confirm that this record is good by comparing it to HadCRUT3. Sorry about the propoganda graphic style but I made it for a general audience.

    • D. Patterson
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: NikFromNYC (#206),

      See the temperature charts in tdutch.pdf located in the HADCRU documents folder. It’s not like they were not aware of a Dutch temperature record showing many equivalent warmth events over the centuries.

  163. David
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 5:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From: T
    To: xxxxxx
    Subject: My turn
    Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:38 -0600

    Dear friends,

    [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
    exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]

    I think [BP] has the right idea — although there are some
    unique things about this situation. [BP] says ….

    (1) There are lots of bad papers out there
    (2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’

    to which I add ….

    (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.

    ____________________

    Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
    and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more
    than a direct
    and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me — yet neither of us
    was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
    poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
    we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was
    more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
    detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
    original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
    bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).

    Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
    paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did
    in the above example — then this is an advantage.

    _____________________________

    There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
    Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
    personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
    the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
    basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
    with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
    Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
    this?

    _______________________________

    There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
    involved in writing a response.

    The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
    10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
    J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
    rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow it must have
    been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
    reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
    my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.

    The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
    (vol. 23, pp. 1–9, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
    should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
    responded saying …..

    The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three
    referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
    published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
    to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
    referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
    publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.

    On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who
    advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
    the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.

    It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper –
    deFreitas has offered us this possibility.

    ______________________________

    This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
    deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
    skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
    How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
    individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
    an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get
    through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
    Soon, and so on).

    The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
    difficult.

    The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that
    does get through.

    _______________________________

    Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
    giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
    hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.

    If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
    to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.

    In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
    disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’
    PhD is at the same level).

    ______________________________

    Best wishes to all,
    T.

  164. David
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From: KB
    To: xxxxx
    Subject: Re: heads up…
    Date: Tue Nov 15 17:47:53 2005
    Cc: xxxxx

    M
    thanks for this. When time allows we will do a response to this poster and simply post it
    on our web page. As others have said , the dating of the chronology in the Urals is not
    wrong – but the magnitude of the extreme years in the early Urals reconstruction were not
    adjusted to account for inflated variance related to low chronology replication – so they
    are sort of right that the emphasis on 1032 is probably overdone.
    Anyway thanks again
    K
    At 15:29 15/11/2005, MM wrote:

    Thanks XX, YY
    yes, I never had any doubt he’s wrong. In fact he’s been wrong about just about every
    claim he’s ever made. He almost had a point w/ the PCA centering, but as we all know,
    that doesn’t matter at all in the end. The issue isn’t whether or not he’s right, as we
    all well know by now, but whether his false assertions have enough superficial
    plausability to get traction. In this case, they might, so probably good to at least be
    prepared.
    I was told by a journalist Paul Thacker that his poster got prominent placement,
    probably not an accident (see forwarded email). I believe that Mike Schlesinger and
    David Karoly were there in the same session, so might be worth checking w/ them. I think
    Connie Woodhouse and Tom Wigley were also at the meeting, but not sure…
    I suspect that this is the first in a line of attacks (I’m sure Tom C is next in line)
    that will ultimately get “published” one way or another. The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have “Climate Research” and “Energy and Environment”, and will go there if necessary. They are telegraphing quite clearly where they are going w/ all of this…
    M
    TOwrote:

    Thanks for this M. We’d spotted an earlier draft of his poster and were a bit
    concerned about this receiving prominence at the meeting.
    Did it arouse much discussion, do you know? K and TM looked into the dating
    a while back when McIntyre first raised it and were quite satisfied with the published
    dating I think. Not sure what should be done – unless he submits something for
    peer-review. Cheers, T

  165. Steve Geiger
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Once again, more on scabbing instrumental data onto proxy data:

    From Jones to Mann and Folland (966015630.txt)

    “It is possible to add the instrumental series on from about 1980 (Mike

    sought of did this in his Nature article to say 1998 was the warmest of

    the millennium – and I did something similar in Rev. Geophys.) but there

    is no way Singer can say the proxy data doesn’t record the last 20 years

    of warming, as we don’t have enough of the proxy series after about 1980″

  166. David
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    04:14 AM 8/24/00 -0700
    Dear K,
    It was good to talk with you this morning. This is a reminder about
    sending your Western North America banded record as you
    suggested. I suspect that you are right to think that it would eventually
    be best to use a customized banded set, but as a start, I think it would
    be good to compare the WNW record with the mean series Graybill
    and Idso used in their 1993 paper, and with the single site Campito
    Mountain record. I’ll start with a simple graphical comparison and
    then move to comparing waveforms extracted by, for example, SSA.
    My hope is that we can fairly rapidly generate a note to something like
    GRL or JoC’s new short format, putting a believable version of these
    records out there for general use.

    Please reply to the xxx@xxxx.edu address. I’m sending it
    from my other address as well as a ‘belt-and-braces’ approach
    because of recent e-mail problems. Looking forward to working on
    this with you, Cheers, M

  167. Stacey
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Trick or cheat

  168. Magnus
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 6:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #0927042520.txt

    How climate sensitivity is established scientifically:

    From: David Viner
    To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, s.raper@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate Sensitivity
    Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:48:40 +0100

    Mike

    The climate sensitivity of HadCM2…..pick a value between 2.5 and 4.1K

    D

  169. 1170724434.txt
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 8:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    When in doubt, do not tell anybody. Else you will get the Mad Mann after you.

    XXXX writes amo to Mann Mockton and Singer:
    Fred,
    Now that the latest IPCC WG1 SPM is published, I can venture more opinions on the
    above-referenced subjects.
    It is indeed striking that IPCC’s estimate of maximum plausible 21st century sea-level rise
    has decreased over time. The latest estimate is 0.5 meters for the A2 emissions scenario
    (not much higher from the 0.4 meter estimate for the A1B emissions scenario, which the Wall
    Street Journal editorial page has made much of). On the other hand, the IPCC seems to have
    taken a pass on Hansen’s argument. The IPCC says their estimates are “excluding future
    rapid dynamical changes in ice flow . . . because a basis in published literature is
    lacking.” … …. … …Summarizing all this, the latest IPCC does back off a bit from the previous one. It says
    on Page 8, “Some recent studies indicate greater variability [than Mann] in
    [pre-industrial] Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR . . .” The
    wording is perhaps insufficiently apologetic, but I find it hard to object strenuously to
    it in light of the main point noted in the last paragraph.
    If you want to discuss any of this further, let me know. I attach my latest presentation
    — and would appreciate seeing both Christopher’s report mentioned in the Journal editorial
    and Fred’s comment on Rahmstorf’s article published in Science last week.
    Best regards,
    XXXX

    Mann lectures back:
    XXXX, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
    you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
    ib earth are you thinking? You’re not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
    first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
    conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
    just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
    Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
    statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
    al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
    to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
    do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
    terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
    are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
    to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
    you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
    out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on
    you for such irresponsible behavior!
    Mike Mann — Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
    Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

  170. 1170724434.txt
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 8:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    When in doubt, do not tell anybody. Else you will get the Mad Mann after you.

    XXXX writes amo to Mann, Mockton and Singer:
    Fred,
    Now that the latest IPCC WG1 SPM is published, I can venture more opinions on the
    above-referenced subjects.
    It is indeed striking that IPCC’s estimate of maximum plausible 21st century sea-level rise
    has decreased over time. The latest estimate is 0.5 meters for the A2 emissions scenario
    (not much higher from the 0.4 meter estimate for the A1B emissions scenario, which the Wall
    Street Journal editorial page has made much of). On the other hand, the IPCC seems to have
    taken a pass on Hansen’s argument. The IPCC says their estimates are “excluding future
    rapid dynamical changes in ice flow . . . because a basis in published literature is
    lacking.” … …. … …Summarizing all this, the latest IPCC does back off a bit from the previous one. It says
    on Page 8, “Some recent studies indicate greater variability [than Mann] in
    [pre-industrial] Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR . . .” The
    wording is perhaps insufficiently apologetic, but I find it hard to object strenuously to
    it in light of the main point noted in the last paragraph.
    If you want to discuss any of this further, let me know. I attach my latest presentation
    — and would appreciate seeing both Christopher’s report mentioned in the Journal editorial
    and Fred’s comment on Rahmstorf’s article published in Science last week.
    Best regards,
    XXXX

    Mann lectures back:
    XXXX, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
    you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
    ib earth are you thinking? You’re not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
    first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
    conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
    just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
    Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
    statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
    al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
    to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
    do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
    terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
    are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
    to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
    you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
    out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on
    you for such irresponsible behavior!
    Mike Mann — Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
    Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

  171. Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is time. If CRU was recently hacked, I mean just a couple days ago, there’s no way anyone would have time to go through tens of thousands of emails and other files and edit them appropriately.

  172. Richard Sycamore
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Posted to RC:

    Richard Sycamore says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    20 November 2009
    With this disclosure of corrupt hockey stick climate reconstruction science, will you be correcting the flawed hockey stick graphs on your Hey Ya!(mal) thread? Thanks.

  173. MattN
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, I cannot imagine how you’re feeling right now. Likely the feeling of joy/relief that comes from complete 100% vindication. From what I’ve read, you were right about everything. And they knew it.

    Well done. Well. Done….

  174. theduke
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I found the following interesting from an historical point of view:

    Dear Phil,

    Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that in the least.

    Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly thing in the world.

    In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you need from me (cv, etc.).

    cheers,

    mike __

    ______________________________________

    • steven mosher
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 3:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: theduke (#221), yes. and then came steveMc and why share your data with somebody who is going to find mistakes

    • Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 7:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: theduke (#221),

      >Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority.<

      Per this e-mail reproduced from the files, could someone please interpret what the phrase “synthetic datasets with manufactured biases” means?

      • DaveJR
        Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Dave L (#277),

        Per this e-mail reproduced from the files, could someone please interpret what the phrase “synthetic datasets with manufactured biases” means?

        Highly possible it’s referring to the use of synthetic datasets containing manufactured bias for use as a “control” to test the ability of analytical/statistical methods to test for/helping to correct bias in real datasets.

      • Dave Dardinger
        Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Dave L (#277),

        could someone please interpret what the phrase “synthetic datasets with manufactured biases” means?

        I suspect it’s actually fairly innocent. It sounds similar to what Steve as done on several occasions creating white noise or red noise datasets. This gives you the ability to compare such sets (with known properties) with tree ring series or other datasets, to get some idea of what sorts of statistical properties the real data has. I suppose it could be used for nefarious purposes, but it would be hard to do that if actual data has been archived.

  175. theduke
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Forgot to mention that the above was from June of 1998.

  176. Chris
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Here’s a good one, about changing data, from 1257874826.txt

    One final thing – don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be
    changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also
    a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may
    be down to SST issues

  177. theduke
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Mann to Jones, May, 1999:

    Trust that I’m certainly on board w/ you that we’re all working towards a common goal. That is what is distressing about commentarys (yours from last year, and potentially, without us having had approprimate input, Keith and Tim’s now) that appear to “divide and conquer”. The skeptics happily took your commentary last year as reason to doubt our results! In fact, your piece was references in several commentaries (mostly on the WEB, not published) attacking our work. So THAT is what this is all about. It is in the NAME of the common effort we’re all engaged in, that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest commentary–so as to avoid precisely that scenario.

    Please understand the above to be a complete and honest statement about the source of my concerns. It really doesn’t have anything to do about who did what first, etc. I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.

    It was never science as is commonly understood. It was always activism mining science.

  178. Kathryn U
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 10:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Looks like he turned off the “Comments” section over at RC. Hope he sleeps well.

    I am a teacher of media literacy. As such I am fully aware that the “Mainstream Media” was doing a number on our citizens, especially in these past few weeks ahead of “Copenhagen.” I was extremely uneasy about the intense level of headlines. The Associated Press, in its entirety, has to be extremely uncomfortable about these revelations.

    Someone over at RC put up the idea that Sen. Inhofe might be behind the “hacking.”

    Please, America, keep reading and thinking and checking facts. If the UN did not have such wide-reaching hopes for redistributing the globe’s wealth this would almost be humorous.

    Please support a boycott of Google, Coke, Pepsi, Nike and a long list of others who have fed this frenzy.

  179. Clark
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I suspect (hope?) much of this will be required reading in science classes for many years to come.

  180. MikeN
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Briffa in one e-mail(last decade) says that he believes it was warmer 1000 years ago.

    • Philip Lloyd
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: MikeN (#227), Email 0938031546 From Keith Briffa to Michael Mann et al
      “For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was
      probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that
      there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate”

      • bender
        Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Philip Lloyd (#319),
        And that, folks, is what this is ALL about. Nothing more, nothing less. One loud man’s beliefs stacked against the quiet consensus. There never was a “Team”. Just one bully of a captain and his faithful assistant, always trying to recruit a team, looking to play pick-up against “the contrarians”.

  181. mackinacnick
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I would like to ask a couple of questions and see what you all think….Not being a particularily good math guy either…(but this is not math)

    Who could have done this ?

    1)does it look like an “inside” job from the collection of items and
    coding ?
    2) does it look like a “hack” ? is there a way to tell ?

    (note: an inside job would mean one thing,a hack means something else entirely)

    3) is there a way to tell if the “hack” was foreign based or domestic based ?
    4) a gigantic, really mean-sprited hoax ? what would give that away ?

    both questions would turn to the second question – why ?

    disaffected employee ? blackmail (note – the poster said a “random selection” – that infers that there are more?)? international intrigue of some type ?

    I’ll point out that the “hacker” knew what they wanted, knew where to get it.

    When ?
    its friday – most news agencies know that for minimum effect, you dump stuff on Fridays (it has the whole weekend to die…)
    When was this uploaded ?

    How ?
    it has been mentioned several times that code was part of this. Would/could this code be part of an email attachment ? or must be too big and stored separately ? How (any IT guys out there?) would it be possible to reach the servers (or would it be one big server) with all this info on it ?)

    I am properly gleeful that this global warming hogwash is starting to be seen for what it is… have any of the principles mentioned resigned ?

    As for the propriety of putting this down on email – do academics view email differently than the rest of the world (it is my suspicion they do)? Is it possible that the people involved would put such damning info on email ?
    Would that be common practice (especially for academics ?)

    my highest regards

    • steven mosher
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 3:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: mackinacnick (#228), maybe the hacker has more.

      maybe the hacker wants us to FOI again…, maybe smart hacker is releasing mails in drips and drabs.. to prolong the news cycle.

  182. theduke
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve read the first ten pages and portions of the rest. I intend to read it all. Based on what I’ve read so far, if I had to give it a title it would be:

    Notes from a Political Movement Intent on Mis-using Science.

    I sympathize with them. They are/were all hard-working, smart people who bought into a theory that was a trap set by ideologues in the 60s and 70s. It’s agenda-driven science plain and simple and it was thought to be necessary.

    I’m saddened more than anything. Their confusion and panic as evidenced in emails in the past few months over the failure of actual conditions in the past decade to confirm their theories and projections is tragedy worthy of Shakespeare.

    Re: mackinacnick (#227),

    It doesn’t matter.

  183. Maman Ouest
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Macinacnick,

    4) A Hoax. Because it pushes all the right buttons for those who have been querying the Science of Climate Change.
    A Hoax. Because the “voices” in the emails do not sound like the “voices” as named and used on their blogs
    A Hoax. Because RC is accepting negative commentary (!!!!!!!) and challenging very few of these comments.
    A Hoax. Because if nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars can be raised and spent to achieve the political aim of President of the USA then how much would people be prepared to spend to achieve the political aim of the first global tax. How many people on keyboards would it take? Isn’t this what “Communication Companies” could do?
    A Hoax. Because, just because they can. :)

  184. Z
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Are there a few more CENSORED directories here, than previously ‘found’ (MBH-osborn.zip)?

    Does Mann uncertainty.doc clarify any old mysteries?

  185. Jim
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From 1252154659.txt

    Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series
    has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the
    calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the
    density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of
    the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have
    used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact
    that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that
    directly with temperature.

    This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I
    suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected composite
    (Nick’s graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree?

    There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:

    (1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but do
    we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals? Apparently, there’s
    also a record from the Indigirka River region, which might not have been published and
    doesn’t seem to be included in Keith’s recent summary. If we overlooked any record that met
    our criteria, I suggest that we explain why. Keith: are you back? Can Ray or Mike provide
    some advise?

    (2) The correction for Dye-3 was criticized because the approach/rationale had not been
    reviewed independently on its own. Bo: has this procedure now been published anywhere?

    (3) We didn’t publish any error analysis (e.g., leave-one-out ), but I recall that we did
    do some of that prior to publication. Would it be worthwhile including this in our update?
    The threshold-exceedence difference (O&B-style) does include a boot-strapped estimate of
    errors. That might suffice, but is not the record we use for the temperature calibration.

    (4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. The only records that I know of
    that go back 1000 years that we left out were from the Gulf of Alaska that are known to be
    related strongly to precipitation, not temperature, and we stated this upfront. Do we want
    to clarify that it would be inappropriate to use a record of precip to reconstruct
    temperature? Or do we want to assume that precip should increase with temperature and add
    those records in and show that the primary signals remain?

    (5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
    10-year mean values (10-year means were up on the NOAA site the same AM as the paper was
    published). The only “non-published” data are the annual series from the ice cores
    (Agassiz, Dye-3, NGRIP, and Renland). We stated this in the footnote, but it does stretch
    our assertion that all of the data are available publicly. Bo: How do you want to proceed?
    Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?

    Please let me — better yet, the entire group — know whether you think we should post a
    revision on RealScience, and whether we should include a reply to other criticism (1
    through 5 above). I’m also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly to
    apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.

    Other thoughts or advise?

    Darrell

  186. Leonard Herchen
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    A couple of ones that I haven’t seen mentioned completely yet:

    1256747199.txt: “McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.”

    and on the upside down data:

    1252154659.txt “Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data.”

  187. Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s not a conspiracy — it’s a bandwagon. A clique. Fellow travelers. The Fellowship of the Rain in Maine.

    It was always activism mining science.

    There ya go.

    • theduke
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: dicentra (#234),

      As our host was a mining engineer, I thought he might appreciate that metaphor. :>{)

  188. MikeN
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    So Briffa was a coauthor of the corridor version of Yamal by Hantemirov & Shiyatov, but took himself off the authorship list for some reason.

    Was he already being pushed for data in 2002?
    He received an e-mail in 2000 complaining about low sample depth in some other paper.

  189. Jim
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From 1098492400

    At 20:46 21/10/2004, you wrote:

    Phil,
    I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me.
    At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held
    for some time.
    Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? — or is it?
    I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too
    deep into this to be helpful.
    Tom.

  190. Malcolm Roberts
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I recently posted the following to the Real Climate web site http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-5/#comment-142510

    People can check the UN IPCC’s methods for themselves using the links below. Note that articles 1 through 5 (below) cannot be sensibly refuted since McLean simply uses UN IPCC data on UN IPCC processes for producing UN IPCC reports. The data was obtained from the UN IPCC itself.

    Apparently the UN IPCC released the data because it feared FOIA action. To my knowledge the UN IPCC has not released data on the production of its earlier reports prior to 2007. Rather, it has sought to prevent release of data on its reporting processes.

    A. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_corrupted.pdf
    and
    1. http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
    2. http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
    3. http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/23573.pdf
    4. http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/McLean_ipcc_review.pdf
    5. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean-disband_the_ipcc.pdf

    Given the culture created for the UN IPCC by UNEP and given the political and limited purpose of the UN IPCC, e-mails such as those uncovered by the CRU hack are to be expected. Such e-mails, if true, seem completely in keeping with the UN IPCC’s culture, purpose and methods. That tends to support the credibility of the CRU hack, as does the opening comment on this thread entitled The CRU hack.

    It’s clear from McLean’s latest paper (A above) that the UN IPCC uses a diverse bag of dishonest and unscientific tricks to produce its reports and to ‘justify’ its unfounded and false core claim that humans were responsible for Nature’s latest modest natural global warming that ended around 1998 (or 2002, if you prefer).

    The con appears to have started in Villach, 1985 when the UNEP fabricated a consensus and Bert Bolin apparently wrote the 1985 report. Bolin’s report subsequently became the foundation for the UN IPCC’s first report after the UN IPCC’s foundation in 1989. It’s all there in black and white including well-researched quotes and data.

    After writing the Villach 1985 UNEP report Bert Bolin went on to become the UN IPCC’s first chairman. It seems clear that the UN IPCC adopted and refined the UNEP’s own methods of falsely promoting unfounded climate alarm.

    It will now need much strength and courage from advocates of ‘human warming’ to challenge their own beliefs and admit they’ve been misled by the UN IPCC. It will need much true forgiveness from climate realists sceptical of the UN IPCC. Instead of blame, climate realists (sceptics) need to truly forgive advocates of ‘human warming’ because many were duped by a very clever scam that hijacked their inherent care for the environment.

    I suggest we all need to focus our energy on restoring scientific credibility and understanding all aspects of climate. And on appreciating Nature’s immensity, power, beauty, grandeur and majesty.

    I hope that now, instead of continuing to be diverted onto a fabricated non-problem (‘global warming’), we focus our attention, creativity, energy and resources on addressing real environmental and humanitarian challenges.

    Malcolm

    • MrPete
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Malcolm Roberts (#239),
      Malcolm, I’ve skimmed some of these papers. There’s a lot of good work there. Sadly, it is not surprising. Happily, it seems well-written!

  191. Jim
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From 1200493432

    I have had a couple of exchanges with Courtillot. This is the last of them from
    March 26, 2007. I sent him a number of papers to read. He seems incapable of
    grasping the concept of spatial degrees of freedom, and how this number can
    change according to timescale. I also told him where he can get station data at
    NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our station data,
    mainly because of McIntyre
    ). I told him all this as well when we met at a meeting of
    the French Academy in early March.
    What he understands below is my refusal to write a paper for the proceedings of
    the French Academy for the meeting in early March. He only mentioned this requirement
    afterwards and I said I didn’t have the time to rewrite was already in the literature.
    It took me several more months of emails to get my expenses for going to Paris!
    Cheers
    Phil

    • Kathryn U
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Jim (#240),

      Thank you, Malcolm. I share your sense of wonder regarding Nature.

      Could you, for people like me, rewrite your post in easier language, leaving in all the history, and links, but clarifying it for publishing at a future date?

  192. mondo
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    By their fruits ye shall know them!

  193. Richard Sycamore
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    My comment above did not survive the censorship process at RC.
    I have asked the following:

    Richard Sycamore says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    21 November 2009
    What is your censorship policy for this thread?

    • Peter
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 6:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Richard Sycamore (#242),

      Richard, read the e-mails. The censorship policy is whatever they want it to be that day. Comments are held “in queue”, until the team can decide what gets in or out. The visual I get is Roman, thumbs up or down.

  194. Richard Sycamore
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    My comment above did not survive the censorship process at RC.
    I have asked the following:

    Richard Sycamore says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    21 November 2009
    What is your censorship policy for this thread?

    • MikeN
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Richard Sycamore (#243), Richard Sycamore, you may have been banned outright for asking too any inconvenient questions. Try using a different name.

      Takes a lot of skill to get censored on the thread that hasn’t had much censoring so far.
      I got through with 2 statements about the Nature trick.

  195. Jim
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From 1241415427.ttx

    Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations
    that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if
    some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above
    selection method could not have been applied (but see below) — unless
    there are other “hard copy” station history data not in the DOE report
    (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says
    is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.

    What is the answer here?

    The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn’t make the hard copy information
    available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much
    trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist — if it
    did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems
    that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data
    do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?

    Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy
    scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But
    ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers — so where does it
    come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?

    (2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To
    accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint
    and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.

    (3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.
    ITEM X really should have been …

  196. Michael
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Several download links are provided here:

    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

    Anyway, does anyone think this will end up having more comments than some of the more popular arctic sea ice threads? Just curious.

  197. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Imagine what it must be like for the members of the Team as they wonder day to day and night to night in the future whether or not anymore of their remaining e-mail and documents will drop like a heavy boot into the glare of public scrutiny. You don’t suppose a whistleblower managed to undelete and archive any of those deleted files, eh?

    The Teams’ comments about deleting the FOIA related files makes a person wonder why the Team waited so long, perhaps days, before alerting law enforcement about the breach of security on the servers?

    • DaveJR
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 4:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: D. Patterson (#246),

      You don’t suppose a whistleblower managed to undelete and archive any of those deleted files, eh?

      Chances are it doesn’t matter whether the scientists deleted their emails or not (they probably already had done). They are most likely to have been archived by the IT department for legal reasons and it is the archive the whistleblower took. Rather than pick out messages of interest in situ (possibly mixed in with thousands of others), I would have thought they’d just copy everything and sort it out later. There may well be more to come.

  198. KRM
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IPCC ONE GETS SOME ATTENTION:

    Neil

    There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC

    AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change

    of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than

    before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global

    warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years

    of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which

    will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface

    temperature.

    Regards

    David

  199. MikeN
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Prior to that, the networks failed the test. So we decomposed the calibration residuals
    into a “low-frequency” band (all timescales longer than 40 years which are not
    distinguishable from secular timescales, since I had a roughly 80 years series and was
    evaluating the spectrum using a multiple-taper estimate with a spectral bandwidth of +/-2
    Rayleigh frequencies). We then estimated the enhancement of unresolved variance in the
    low-frequency band relative to the nominal white noise level. The enhancement was about a
    factor of 5-6 or so for the earlier networks, as I recall. To get the component of
    uncertainty for the low-frequency band alone (timescales longer than 40 years), I simply
    took that enhancement factor x the nominal unresolved calibration variance x the bandwidth
    of the “low-frequency” band (0.025 cycle/year). This yields a reduction in variance that is
    far less than the nominal “sqrt N” reduction applied to the individual annual

    MM

  200. Craig
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    DRILL BABY DRILL!

  201. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 2:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    1018647333.txt
    Mann slashed by ECS author

  202. Geoff
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 2:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From 1231190304.txt

    From: Phil Jones To: Tim Johns , “Folland, Chris” Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:24 2009 Cc: “Smith, Doug” , Tim Johns

    Tim, Chris,

    I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
    till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
    press release with Doug’s paper that said something like -
    half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!

    Still a way to go before 2014.

    I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
    where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
    scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away….

    Phil

  203. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 2:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    As I understand what Ed, Keith and Hal Fritts have
    written at various times about RCS, and from my own
    limited experience with the method, it is extremely
    important to have strong replication, and I don’t see 50-70
    samples probably from 25-35 trees as a big sample. For
    reference, most chronologies used in dendroclimatology
    are based on 10-40 trees, that is 20-80 samples at 2 cores
    per tree for a single “site”, usually a few hectares.

    Malcolm

  204. cassander
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 2:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Even though RealClimate has now acknowledged the material as “apparently genuine” I would still be a bit careful about how it is being used. The e-mails, embarrassing and pathetic as they are, do not contain anything we didn’t already suspect.

    So just suppose that somebody wanted to entrap Steve in some way, either by feeding him lots of actually quite worthless data to tie him up in auditing that, while the real issue of the day slips past untouched; or by providing slightly false data, on which Steve then builds a thesis, which they can then turn round and say – “elementary mistake! How wrong can you be! Serves you right for working with hacked data.” Wouldn’t it be a good idea to feed the fake data along with some real e-mails, especially mildly embarrassing, but not devastating ones?

    So don’t accept any of the data as genuine unless each file has been specifically acknowledged by its purported author.

  205. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 2:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Anyone want to count the number of files that use the phrase “MWP” vs. those that use the phrase “MCA”? What does the ratio tell you?

    • Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: bender (#255) asks,
      ‘Anyone want to count the number of files that use the phrase “MWP” vs. those that use the phrase “MCA”?’

      Sure. Number of lines on which each term was mentioned in the email directory:

      MWP: 287
      MCA: 16
      MWE: 24 (Medieval Warm Epoc)

  206. Lindsey
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 2:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Is there a Database Programmer in the house?

    I’ve been reading through HARRY_READ_ME, a Notepad file in the FOI2009 zip file. The first sentence identifies it as “READ ME for Harry’s work on the CRU TS2.1/3.0 datasets, 2006-2009!”

    This appears to leave a pretty good “bread crumb trail” for those with the database programming background to understand it.

    Here was one quote that seemed to cast doubt on the integrity of the data:
    “This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect
    nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -
    to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other
    words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to
    become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the
    project is nearly a year late.”

    To me, this seems like a case of GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out)…. as in, if the database info is corrupted, then the conclusions derived from analysis of the database info would also be corrupted.

    If there’s a database programmer around, I’d like to hear their thoughts on HARRY_READ_ME. Thanks!

    • Nick Moon
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 5:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Lindsey (#256),

      I had a brief look at the cru-code directory and also read a bit of the HARRY memo. Although they talk about databases, I don’t think this is database as most software people would think of it. It looks like the files are fairly standard fortran output. Basically flat files containing a number of fixed length records.

      My brief read suggests that ‘Harry’ is a young man, and slightly geeky. There are moments in that memo when he expresses his frustration at having to work with this mess. I kind of recogniesd myself when younger. Harry might be a postgrad student. Anyway seeing that he seems to know a bit about computers, he has been dumped on. My advice to Harry – never admit you know anything about computers – you’ll get sidelined into fixing everyone else’s problems, never get invited to the big international conferences and never get to meet girls.

      It looks like someone higher up has realised they don’t know how to reproduce their own results. (Probably asa result of prodding from the likes of Steve Mc.) I assume this means that ‘Tim’ who seems to have written all the fortran and IDL code is not available. So poor Harry has been told to grab a copy of all the code and presumably the raw data and try and re-create.

      Harry doesn’t understand why the code is the way it is. He doesn’t understand why half is written in Fortran and half in IDL. (Good point Harry. Harry then lets himself down rather by thinking it would be an improvement to do everything in Fortran). But for our amusement Harry does know to keep a lab notebook while he is working.

      But to be honest, I think Harry is right – this should all be redone from scratch. And personally I don’t think it should be done by postgrad students each only really interested in getting their thesis out. An organisation should concentrate on either producing good quality data or good quality PhDs. probably a mistake to do both.

      what strikes me as weird is how laughably small the data is. The monthly CRU temperature data is based on waht – a few thousand stations, none of which have been running for more than a couple of hundred years. The station temperature data probably comes in at well under 30Mb. You could stick 20 copies of it on a CD-ROM without using compression. And I can’t see that there is that much data processing to do. You have to work through all the stations and use those values to interpolate values for places on the globe where you don’t have data. It’s not hugely difficult. And yet they are wasting time porting the code back and forwards between their alpha workstations and their linux cluster. I really astruggle to understand why they need a cluster of linux boxes for this.

      • V
        Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Nick Moon (#270),

        OH FUCK 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.

        I think this also describes the state of affairs quite well.

  207. Theis
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 3:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From: Phil Jones To: Raymond P.

    I have had a couple of exchanges with Courtillot….blah blah..

    ..I also told him where he can get station data at NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our station data, mainly because of McIntyre).

    I found that funny.

  208. Dominic
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 5:14 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I started to feel a bit sorry for what has happened to the team and then I recalled the quotes used in the article in last week’s WSJ piece

    James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute, has dismissed him as a “court jester.” Mr. Mann replied to an emailed query about Mr. McIntyre by decrying “every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself.”

    Others are more thick-skinned: “You mention his name in my community, people just smile. It’s a one-liner to get a laugh out of a group of climate scientists,” affirms Stanford University’s Stephen Schneider.

    and I thought they deserve it for their sheer hubris which just rings out from all of these emails. And all the time, they knew they had made mistakes and that the science debate was not closed but they pretended differently.

    It is an interesting psychological situation which I am sure has been well studied – a small team of people with a common agenda develop a paranoid siege-like mentality in which any questioning of their work is seen as an attack which must be defended at all costs, regardless of the truth. I am sure that most of these guys did not start like this. I used to be a physics academic. This is not how we scientists normally behave. It would be interesting some day to do an analysis of how they got into this mindset since I doubt they were always like this. I suspect that when politicians mix with mild mannered scientists, the scientists see the politicians as master (they have the key to funding) and change their behaviour accordingly to emulate the master.

    It is certainly not how science should operate.

  209. Geoff
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 5:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From – (not metadata but some comments on tree rings and early encouragement for Steve from Phil!)

    From: Phil Jones To: dwlarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Date: Fri Jul 23 15:29:11 2004

    Doug,

    Maybe Steve sent you the two emails I’ve resent. Ignore my ramblings at the end of one,but I was getting a little fed up. The Legates email is at the end, in case you’re interested.

    The pdf is worth a read. Odd that he writes a press release, then starts working on apaper.

    We’ve very occasionally written a press release, but only after the paper has come out.

    I tried to explain the ‘missing’ rings. They aren’t missing, but due to the samples not being right for density measurements. All Schweingruber’s chronologies are constructed this way – traditional ring width measurements aren’t made. Some of the Russian groups he’s worked with have added extra ring width cores and sometime get longer series, but all the data Keith and I work with is from Fritz, so if density is missing, then RW is also.

    Fritz did almost all the coring – 99% of the sites. We only help coring on a couple of occasions.

    This comes from alignment tracking as you say, but Fritz also says it is partly due to the need to extract the lignin and to avoid resin. When we cored together, he was always saying we weren’t doing it properly getting twisted cores. I’m not a proper dendro person, as I only got into this because of Keith – it may not be lignin, but something has to be extracted with solvents.

    The Polar Urals site was collected by Fritz and Stepan Shiyatov. There are living trees back to the 1500s and then stumps at a slightly higher elevation. Stepan has been backmore recently and regeneration is occurring at higher levels, but it is taking time. Tree lines take a while to respond to the recent warmth in some regions. Once the trees are established and not killed by frosts/snow in winter they survive even if it gets cooler. I discussed this in a review paper in RoG attached. The section on the issue is brief.

    All the cores were collected over a couple of days. Fritz made a mistake with the labelling for one core and that explains the 400 years of missing values. Someone at WDCP must have combined the cores with the same ids. Dendro people are always looking for the oldest trees and we kept the earliest series in. Steve seems to have a thing about these and the 10th and 11th centuries, but they are correctly dated. Fritz uses loads of plots and pointer years and doesn’t make mistakes normally. There is a very distinct year at AD 1032. Fritz is also cross dating with LWW and EWW and other features and not just on RW. I say not just, he normally does with density. At the coring stage Fritz had no idea of the ages of the stumps (well just the number of years). There may have been samples off the front that couldn’t be dated at all, for all I know. I suspect though they are roughly the same calendar age, as the site has distinct dates for the start of trees, which represent regeneration periods. Maybe you can try and explain the tree-line argument to Steve.

    When he had to omit parts of cores, he was always able to know where the two parts sat in the sequence. We need to keep them together to do things like RCS.

    Anyway, I have to go home – it’s been very wet lately and the grass has grown. The lawn must be mowed when the sun shines.

    Keep pushing that he should write up what he does (and Ross) in proper journals. E&E and Climate Research are not read by many now. I only look at them when I get alerted and I remain exasperated.

    Cheers

    Phil

  210. Mr Purple
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 5:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CONFIDENTIALITY ALERT!!!!

    (ok, it’s from 1999 – but still!)

    From: Wolfgang Cramer
    To: Mike Hulme
    Subject: Re: apologies
    Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:57:48 +0200
    Reply-to: Wolfgang Cramer

    Dear Mike,

    I can understand you very well. I would have been more nervous about
    this, hadn’t the preparations AND registrations been going as well as
    they have done: just now, I feel pretty comfortable about the meeting.
    Sure, it’s a pity not having you around, but I guess you are taking
    the appropriate decision under your particular circumstances.

    Perhaps I shouldn’t be doing this, but let me add a VERY CONFIDENTIAL
    piece of information for you. It won’t make your life less stressful
    during the next few days, and I really MUST ask you to keep this
    confidential at your end (since I am effectively breaking a
    confidentiality here, and I wouldn’t want Edinburgh to know that), but
    I received the following e-mail on October 6:

    Dear Dr Cramer,

    I am contacting you on behalf of Prof Paul Jarvis to check whether you
    are willing to have your name mentioned in association with a project
    he is hoping to undertake. The project is part of a much larger package
    of projects which forms the nucleus of a bid being made by the
    University of Edinburgh and other partners to host a new Climate Change
    Centre, to be funded by the UK Research Councils at 10 million GBP over
    5 years (for further details of this opportunity see:
    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/aooclim.html). I work in a small unit of
    the University of Edinburgh that has responsibility for co-ordinating
    multi-disciplinary environmental research bids. Currently we are
    preparing the Outline Bid (deadline 15 October), so nothing should be
    regarded as firm, and details will be open to modification in the Full
    Bid, which we will prepare if the Outline Bid is successful.

    Below I reproduce the text we are proposing to include in the Outline
    Bid. Please confirm whether or not you are willing to have your name
    included.

    Please treat this email as confidential.

    Best regards,

    Simon Allen.
    ========================================================================
    Dr S J Allen, Research Co-ordinator
    Centre for the study of Environmental Change and Sustainability (CECS)
    University of Edinburgh
    John Muir Building, King’s Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JK

    Tel: 0131 650 7215 Email: simon.allen@ed.ac.uk
    Fax: 0131 650 7214 http://www.cecs.ed.ac.uk
    ========================================================================

    Issue: Will terrestrial carbon sinks saturate?

    It has been proposed that the assimilation of CO2 by vegetation will
    reach saturation within the foreseeable future as atmospheric CO2
    concentrations continue to rise and that, conversely, increase in
    temperature will lead to open-ended increase in respiration by soil
    heterotrophs, so that at some point in the not too distant future, CO2
    efflux will come to exceed CO2 influx.

    This far-reaching assumption derives from global models that lack a
    consideration of acclimation, feed backs and biological constraints
    acting on these processes. This proposition will be critically
    evaluated using Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVM’s) that include
    appropriate feed backs derived from new data that are becoming
    available from on-going experiments in the UK and elsewhere. This core
    project will be executed over two years by a research fellow at the
    University of Edinburgh, under the supervision of Professor Paul
    Jarvis, FRS. The project will involve close collaboration with: the Max
    Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie (Prof I Colin Prentice) and the
    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (Dr Wolfgang Cramer)
    where fully operational DGVMs are in use; the Dept of Production
    Ecology, University of Uppsala (Prof Sune Linder), currently conducting
    soil warming experiments in northern Sweden.

    Costs (GBP): Yr 1 Yr 2

    Research fellow 50 k 52 k
    Travel/interaction 4 k 4 k

    Total project cost: 54 k 56 k

    —–end of Edinburgh mail—–

    To me, this comes at a very strange moment, since I am, with Bert
    Bolin, in a very strange situation with the completion of our second
    draft of the IPCC Special Report on Sinks due Land Use and Forestry.
    The very issue they propose to collaborate with Colin and myself about
    was the most contentious one of all, and Paul on one side, and several
    others including myself on the other side, had diametrically opposing
    opinions. In fact, I simply believe Jarvis either wasn’t able or not
    wasn’t willing to understand what the real issue was.

    Anyway, I don’t know whether, and if, in which way, this may or may
    not affect your completion of the UEA bid, but I thought I’d better
    let you know. Obviously I discussed this with Colin, and his response
    is that he a) would place his bet on your rather than the Edinburgh
    bid in terms of potential success, and b) that he nevertheless thinks
    Edinburgh is proposing the appropriate thing to do here, and that he
    therefore will reply positive to their request for collaboration.
    Unless you see a strong reason for recommending me to NOT do the same
    (we can talk about this in Brussels of course), I shall probably reply
    in the same positive way.

    Take care,

    Wolfgang

    PS: I am really uncertain whether I do something terribly bad in
    sending this to you, after the explicit request for confidentiality -
    so please keep this among the two of us…

    On Freitag, 8. Oktober 1999, you wrote:

    > Wolfgang,

    > I shall have to apologise, but I will not be able to make the ECLAT meeting
    > at all. The pressures of getting our UK National Climate Change Centre
    > outline bid together for the 15th October are now such that I have to be
    > here on the 13th and 14th (being in Brussels in the 12th is not very
    > helpful either, but I can at least get back to UEA for Wednesday/Thursday
    > to wrap up the bid). I have the lead responsibility now at UEA for
    > co-ordinating our proposal – 8 institutions, 24-co-applicants, so you can
    > imagine the headaches involved. But we want to make sure Hans-Joachim has
    > a good proposal tabled from UEA when he meets with the Assessment Panel
    > later in November!

    > I really regret not being there – you have done a great job in pulling the
    > programme and people together amidst IPCC activities. I have asked Tim
    > Carter to present the IPCC/ACACIA speech and I am sure he will!

    > Tim Carter and David Viner will co-ordinate over what needs doing for the
    > proceedings which I insist will be a Cramer et al. (ed) (1999/2000)
    > publication. David and Ruth will bring several dozen copies of the
    > Helsinki book for distribution. It is important to get the breakout groups
    > to get text together on their deliberations while at the meeting. You will
    > see what we have done to the Helsinki material. For the Green Workshop we
    > should not exceed 100pp. (cf. 128pp. for Helsink) and colour should be
    > avoided where possible. CRU will take over the sub-editing and desk-top
    > publishing role again.

    > I guess I will see you in Brussels anyway.

    > Gabi ……… please cancel my hotel reservation and travel pick-up.
    > Thank you for your efficiency in organising all this.

    > Best regards,

    > Mike

    mailto:Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de

  211. Mr Purple
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 5:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    So, STEVE MCINTYRE

    Is this Phil Jones and Michael Mann encouraging Keith Briffa to ‘manipulate’ his data?

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Keith Briffa , “Folland, Chris” , ‘Phil Jones’
    Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
    Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:35:24 -0400
    Cc: tkarl@ncdc.noaa.gov, mann@virginia.edu

    Thanks for your response Keith,

    For all:

    Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both
    raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris, through no
    fault of his own, but probably through ME not conveying my thoughts very
    clearly to the
    others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own
    (Mann et al) series. I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion
    will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are
    robust among a number of quasi-independent and truly independent estimates,
    each
    of which is not without its own limitations and potential biases. And I
    certainly don’t want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.

    I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the plot, and can ask
    Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody
    liked my own color/plotting conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself).
    The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
    way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s,
    we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
    values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.

    So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s
    series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate
    (through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere
    patterns with Phil’s more extratropical series) that the major
    discrepancies between Phil’s and our series can be explained in terms of
    spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary
    here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that
    explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s series, which has similar
    seasonality
    *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil’s series, differs in large part in
    exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the
    problem we
    all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
    was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
    concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
    series.

    So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that
    “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
    Keith can
    help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
    and the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones
    et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
    regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting
    doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates
    and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that
    doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have
    to give it fodder!

    The recent Crowley and Lowery multiproxy estimate is an important
    additional piece of information which I have indeed incorporated into the
    revised draft.
    Tom actually estimates the same mean warming since the 17th century in his
    reconstruction, that we estimate in ours, so it is an added piece of
    information that Phil and I are probably in the ballpark (Tom has used
    a somewhat independent set of high and low-resolution proxy data and a very
    basic compositing methodology, similar to Bradley and Jones, so there is
    some independent new information in this estimate.

    One other key result with respect to our own work is from a paper in the
    press in “Earth Interactions”. An unofficial version is available here:

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_cover.html

    THe key point we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency
    variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the
    same if we don’t use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we
    certainly resolve less variance, can’t get a skillful reconstruction as far
    back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual
    timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion
    on this point,
    since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency
    variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.

    We have shown that this is not the case: (see here:
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html
    and specifically, the plot and discussion here:
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html
    Ironically, you’ll note that there is more low-frequency variability when
    the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and
    historical/instrumental data are used!

    SO I think we’re in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
    than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
    And the issues I’ve spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.

    One last point: We will (like it or not) have SUBSTANTIAL
    opportunity/requirement to revise much of this discussion after review, so
    we don’t have to resolve everything now. Just the big picture and the
    important details…

    I’m sure we can can up with an arrangement that is amenable to all, and I’m
    looking forward to hearing back from Keith, Phil, and Chris in particular
    about the above, so we can quickly move towards finalizing a first draft.

    Looking forward to hearing back w/ comments,

    mike

    At 04:19 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
    >
    >Hi everyone
    > Let me say that I don’t mind what you put in the policy makers
    >summary if there is a general concensus. However some general discussion
    >would be valuable . First , like Phil , I think that the supposed
    >separation of the tree-ring reconstruction from the others on the grounds
    >that it is not a true “multi-proxy” series is hard to justify. What is true
    >is that these particular tree-ring data best represent SUMMER temperatures
    >mostly at the northern boreal forest regions. By virtue of this , they also
    >definately share significant variance with Northern Hemisphere land and
    >land and marine ANNUAL temperatures – but at decadal and multidecadal
    >timescales – simply by virtue of the fact that these series correlated with
    >the former at these timescales. The multi proxy series (Mann et al . Jones
    >et al) supposedly represent annual and summer seasons respectively, and
    >both contain large proportions of tree-ring input. The latest tree-ring
    >density curve ( i.e. our data that have been processed to retain low
    >frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do
    >a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and
    >new Crowley series – see our recent Science piece) whether this represents
    >’TRUTH’ however is a difficult problem. I know Mike thinks his series is
    >the ‘best’ and he might be right – but he may also be too dismissive of
    >other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of
    >other’s). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less
    >reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern
    >calibrations that include them and when we don’t know the precise role of
    >particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains
    >problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer
    >timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent
    >very trendy global mean series is potentially dangerous. You could
    >calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true
    >optimum response . Not for a moment am I saying that the tree-ring , or any
    >other proxy data, are better than Mike’s series – indeed I am saying that
    >the various reconstructions are not independent but that they likely
    >contribute more information about reality together than they do alone. I do
    >believe , that it should not be taken as read that Mike’s series (or
    >Jone’s et al. for that matter) is THE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that
    >shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science
    >piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better
    >on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed.
    >Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter
    >accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to
    >give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the
    >precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into
    >absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past. Similarly, I
    >don’t see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different
    >temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories
    >without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific )
    >long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and the
    >contribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming .
    > There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the
    >very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation
    >through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a
    >nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
    >years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
    >so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
    >those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
    >unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
    >not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
    > For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
    >warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
    >is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
    >was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
    >mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
    >years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
    >for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
    >require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
    >background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
    >a good place to air these isssues.
    > Finally I appologise for this rather self-indulgent ramble, but I
    >thought I may as well voice these points to you . I too would be happy to
    >go through the recent draft of the chapter when it becomes available.
    >
    > cheers to all
    > Keith
    >
    >At 01:07 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Folland, Chris wrote:
    >>Dear All
    >>
    >>A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy
    >>Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data
    >>somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather
    >>significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result
    >>(which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
    >>and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results
    >>may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is
    >>probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.
    >>
    >>Chris
    >>
    >>> —–Original Message—–
    >>> From: Phil Jones [SMTP:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
    >>> Sent: 22 September 1999 12:58
    >>> To: Michael E. Mann; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
    >>> Cc: ckfolland@meto.gov.uk; tkarl@ncdc.noaa.gov
    >>> Subject: Re: IPCC revisions
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Mike,
    >>> Been away in Japan the last week or so. Malcolm was there in a
    >>> wheelchair
    >>> because of his ruptured achilles. We both mentioned the lack of evidence
    >>> for global scale change related to the MWE and LIA, but all the later
    >>> Japanese speakers kept saying the same old things.
    >>>
    >>> As for the TAR Chap 2 it seems somewhat arbitrary divison to exclude
    >>> the
    >>> tree-ring only reconstructions. Keith’s reconstruction is of a different
    >>> character to other tree-ring work as it is as ‘hemispheric in scale’ as
    >>> possible so is unlike any other tree-ring related work that is reported
    >>> upon.
    >>> If we go as is suggested then there would be two diagrams – one simpler
    >>> one with just Mann et al and Jones et al and in another section Briffa et
    >>> al. This might make it somewhat awkward for the reader trying to put them
    >>> into context.
    >>> The most important bit of the proxy section is the general discussion
    >>> of
    >>> ‘Was there an MWE and a LIA’ drawing all the strands together. Keith and
    >>> I
    >>> would be happy to look through any revisions of the section if there is
    >>> time.
    >>>
    >>> One other thing, did you bring up the possibility of having a
    >>> proxy-only
    >>> chapter ( albeit short) for the next assessment ?
    >>>
    >>> On Venice I suggested to Peck that you and Keith give talks on the
    >>> reconstructions – frank and honest etc emphasising issues and I lead a
    >>> discussion with you both and the rest of those there where the issues
    >>> can be addressed ( ie I would like to get the views of other proxy types
    >>> and
    >>> the modellers/detectors there). I suggested to Peck that this was early
    >>> in the week as I have to leave on the Thursday to go to the last day of
    >>> a Working Group meeting of the Climate Change Detection group in Geneva
    >>> ( a joint WMO Commission for Climatology/CLIVAR). I hope to report on the
    >>> main findings of the Venice meeting.
    >>>
    >>> Another issue I would like to raise is availability of all the series
    >>> you use in your reconstructions. That old chestnut again !
    >>>
    >>> How is life in Charlottesville ? Do you ever bump into Michaels or is
    >>> always off giving skeptical talks ?
    >>>
    >>> Tim Osborn is making great progress with his NERC grant and will be
    >>> looking
    >>> into dates soon for coming to see you.
    >>>
    >>> Cheers
    >>> Phil
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Prof. Phil Jones
    >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    >>> University of East Anglia
    >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    >>> NR4 7TJ
    >>> UK
    >>>
    >>> ————————————————————————–
    >>> –
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >–
    >Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
    >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
    >Phone: +44-1603-592090 Fax: +44-1603-507784
    >
    >
    >
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Professor Michael E. Mann
    Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
    University of Virginia
    Charlottesville, VA 22903
    _______________________________________________________________________
    e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (804) 924-7770 FAX: (804) 982-2137
    http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

    …and then is this Mann and Jones lamenting over the fact that you busted poor Keith on his manipulated data?

    From: Phil Jones
    To: Tim Osborn , Michael Mann ,Gavin Schmidt
    Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
    Date: Tue Sep 29 09:17:12 2009

    Mike, Gavin,
    As Tim has said Keith is making a good recovery and hopes to be back in soon, gradually
    during October and hopefully full time from November.
    I talked to him by phone yesterday and sent him and Tom Melvin the threads on CA. As
    you’re fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre has done is going to be difficult.
    It would be so much easier if they followed normal procedure and wrote up a comment and
    submitted it to a journal. I looked through the threads yesterday trying to make sense of
    what he’s done. My suspicion is that he’s brought in other tree ring series from more
    distant sites, some of which may not even be larch. There are two chronologies that have
    been used – one called the Polar Urals and one called Yamal. PU is a Schweingruber site
    with density as well as ring width. The PU reconstruction is therefore not a chronology,
    but a regression based reconstruction from both MXD and TRW. Yamal is just a ring width
    series (with lots of sub-fossil material, so much older) from an area some distance (at
    least 500km) north of PU. It was developed by Hantemirov and Shiyatov and was poorly
    standardized – corridor method. I also don’t think McIntyre understands the RCS method even
    though he claims to have a program. The ends and the age structure of the samples are
    crucial in all this, but I think he just throws series in.
    I totally agree that these attacks (for want of a better word) are getting worse.
    Comments on the thread are snide in the extreme, with many saying they see no need to
    submit the results to a journal. They have proved Keith has manipulated the data, so job
    done.
    Hadn’t thought of Senate debates. I’d put this down to the build up to Copenhagen,
    which is sort of the same.

    [1]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle-
    matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
    is a complete reworking of Dave Thompson’s paper which is in press in J. Climate
    (online). Looked at this, but they have made some wrong assumptions, but someone has put a
    lot of work into it.

    [2]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/ooops-dutch-meteorological-institute-caught-in-wea
    ther-station-siting-failure-moved-station-and-told-nobody/
    This one is a complete red herring – nothing wrong with De Bilt measurements. This is what
    it is about according to someone at KNMI
    The issue you refer to is causing a lot of noise in the Netherlands (even MP’s asking
    questions to the minister). It seems this is not at all about the observational series
    (nothing strange is going on), but more related to the “Law on KNMI” and the division of
    tasks between commercial providers and KNMI to be discussed by parliament soon.
    Cheers
    Phil
    At 08:46 29/09/2009, Tim Osborn wrote:

    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 (barring a couple
    of lectures that he’s keen to do in October as part of a gradual return). Hopefully
    he’ll be properly back in November.
    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
    (as I’m sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
    attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I
    think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to
    look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell
    had asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
    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 (also he wasn’t involved in the Yamal chronology being
    discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we’ve recently
    been working towards that uses these — and more — data).
    Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
    response.
    Off to lecture for a couple of hours now…
    Cheers
    Tim
    Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
    Climatic Research Unit
    School of Environmental Sciences
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
    e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
    phone: +44 1603 592089
    fax: +44 1603 507784
    web: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
    sunclock: [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJ
    UK
    —————————————————————————-

    References

    1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a … variables/
    2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/o … ld-nobody/
    3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
    4. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

    Well that sounds like you have the start to finish discussion of the data manipulation – and you have the data as well.

    A ‘random’ drop of files? I don’t think sooooooooooo!

  212. dearieme
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 5:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Am I the only one to wonder what role in this may have been played by the Russian spy agency, whatever it is now called?

  213. pjm
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 5:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    All the snippets I have seen (without reading the email file myself) at least indicate that Jones, Mann etc believe the theory they are pushing. I have seen nothing to suggest they are pushing AGW for personal or political reasons. Unfortunately they, like many people, seem to think the end (showing the truth of their theory) justifies the means (pressuring people who are supposed to be independent, concealing data, publishing analysis which are not fully justifiable, etc).

    Since the emails were (presumably) not written with a view to their publication, we can also be sure that they truly believe Steve is a pest who is usually wrong, not a pest who is usually right. I wish they, or somebody else, would explain why climate science lets them be so sure.

    Peter

  214. jcspe
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve,

    I have been impressed with your dedication in trying to keep comments from going a bridge too far over the years. I have also appreciated your willingness to spend your time snipping and zamboni-ing those of us who have overstepped the line in reaching conclusions before the evidence was in. However, it appears to me now that a great number of surmises that were over the line were also absolutely right. And, I am guessing (and I am not asking you to tip your hand one way or the other) that you had many of the same intuitions as your commentors, but knew you had to maintain a solid footing at all times.

    So, now I am insanely curious. Do you have at least a little feeling that your time was robbed in some way? I know intellectually there was no other choice (and there probably is still no other choice) regarding the bridge too far, but isn’t there at least some nagging feelings about the enormous waste represented by so much of what we can now all see?

  215. Mr Purple
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 6:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    pjm:
    November 21st, 2009 at 5:51 am

    It doesn’t matter what they ‘believe’. They NEED to go into their analysis as NEUTRAL OBSERVERS. That is CLEARLY not the case here. There is active discussion encouraging Keith Briffa to manipulate his tree-ring data to fit Mann’s manipulated data (and maybe Jones’ manipulated data) to reach a common conclusion that all 3 egomaniacs have agreed upon.

    That is NOT science. Neither are their efforts to block critics from the review process.

    This is political BS – and it has been ever since the beginning IMO. There are allegations former (deceased) IPCC chair Burt (Bert) Bolin edited the IPCC’s 2nd annual report and the entire movement started in earnest from there. I don’t know how much legitimacy I give them but it is part of the debate IMO.

    I am suspicious of the previous (and current) IPCC chairs and vice chairs and their agendas. They are wealth redistribution activists, Yuri Izrael (lied to USSR people about Chernobyl dangers), Richard Odingo, a few others among them. (I checked – found little in these e-mails about those folks)

    The whole AGW thing has been a sham. Scientists as a whole need to stand up to keep politics out of science. This NEEDS to be a rallying call to science and academia as a whole (which is HIGHLY skewed towards a liberal agenda).

    I nominate Steve McIntyre to put an end to it all! ;-)

    • pjm
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Mr Purple (#273), Mr Purple (#276), I agree with you 100%. My main point was that there is no comfort for any of the more extreme conspiracy theorists who may think that Mann etc do not even believe in AGW themselves.

      And I still wish they would debate with Steve the science of why they think he is wrong. I find it almost impossible to trust their science until they do.

      Peter

  216. Mr Purple
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 6:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The e-mails are a bit salacious at times, but the real treasure here is the tree ring data that is supplied IMO.

    Actually, STEVE MCINTYRE, you should probably address this soon (my opinion).

    I considered an e-mail to you – but I’m an ex-lab rat grunt from a dozen years ago. I didn’t feel worthy of interrupting your valuable time with an e-mail (and please, others don’t!). A comment, however is a different story.

    I believe this document drop is intended specifically for you. It is not ‘random’ as ‘FOIA’ alluded to. Maybe the e-mails to some extent – but the data? No. Targeted. You are the target.

    More specifically, it is probably targeted towards your concerns over Keith Briffa’s data – which I believe he is encouraged by Mann and Jones to ‘manipulate’ (a TRICK!).

    In fact, I think that is all a very big part of this document drop.

    I am largely just a curios layperson who may have only stumbled across a minor part of a much larger issue and drawn wildly offbase conclusions. (and I realize there is a history and many players at work here).

    In any event – if I am even close…..please comment. :-)

  217. Mr Purple
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    pjm:
    November 21st, 2009 at 5:51 am

    All the snippets I have seen (without reading the email file myself) at least indicate that Jones, Mann etc believe the theory they are pushing. I have seen nothing to suggest they are pushing AGW for personal or political reasons. Unfortunately they, like many people, seem to think the end (showing the truth of their theory) justifies the means (pressuring people who are supposed to be independent, concealing data, publishing analysis which are not fully justifiable, etc).

    Since the emails were (presumably) not written with a view to their publication, we can also be sure that they truly believe Steve is a pest who is usually wrong, not a pest who is usually right. I wish they, or somebody else, would explain why climate science lets them be so sure.

    Peter

    Peter, you may have a PhD for all I know and if so I apologize in advance – sort of.

    Like I stated before it doesn’t matter what they believe, they have to be neutral observers.

    Let me put that into context if you are a layperson – or play devli’s advocate if you are learned.

    Let’s take the case of T.D. Lysenko.

    Lysenko was a Russian scientist who was an early disbeliever in Mendellian genetics (basically the concept you inherit genes from your parents). He was politically connected though, and rose to the position of Director of Soviet Biology – even amidst questions about his unreproducable breakthrough work.

    Anyways, as other nations were discovering the benefits of Mendellian genetics and making substantial gains in crop yield, use of hybrids, etc. – Lysenko presided over an anti-Mendellian regime where your science must match Lysenko’s science lest you be thrown in a Gulag.

    Now, maybe that horror story from an old HS biology teacher isn’t 100% accurate – but I think there are some valid points there that occurred at some level that need to be considered.

    It doesn’t matter if you fear the Soviet Gulag system for disagreeing with Lysenko or if you fear a cut in funding if your data fails to meet the criteria of your funder. Science needs to be non-political and performed by people with open minds – not by people focused on proving a particular precoceived or agreed upon conclusion.

    You can have a theory that something is correct – but you damn well better be your own worst critic before presenting it for peer review.

  218. Brian Rookard
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 7:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    In 1256735067.txt … and this is one of a chain of emails in that file …

    At 16:54 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

    thanks Phil,

    Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t?

    As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,

    m

    p.s. any word on HadCRU Sep numbers yet???

  219. Malcolm Roberts
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 7:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Alas, my post about McLean’s papers did not survive moderation on Real Climate. They seem afraid of people learning the truth.

    Malcolm

  220. Mr Purple
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 7:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dave L:
    November 21st, 2009 at 7:20 am

    Re: theduke (#221),

    >Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority.<

    Per this e-mail reproduced from the files, could someone please interpret what the phrase “synthetic datasets with manufactured biases” means?

    I am just a layman with 10 years as a Research Assisatna. NOT a scientist. Don’t even have a BS (took all the math and science I needed to get by as a RA – didn’t take a lick of english or anything else really and haven’t worked in a lab in a dozen years)

    To me that is a completely manufactured data set obviously applied to a preconceived outcome.

    Do you have more to that e-mail? I could search it since I have them saved. It does sound interesting so post more if you have it. Full monte here, I think. Are there replies? Search around that file name for more (usually later for the e-mails – the last ones are the most recent?).

  221. Mr Purple
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

    theduke:
    November 20th, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    I found the following interesting from an historical point of view:

    Dear Phil,

    Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that in the least.

    Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly thing in the world.

    In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you need from me (cv, etc.).

    cheers,

    mike __

    Forgive me since I am new here – where does this comment come from?

    I search the files and see nothing of it. The original post almost suggests is is NOT from the document drop.

    Lot’s of noobs here like me who are trying to figure out all the angles still.

    Thx for all comments.

  222. pk
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    So much for the pier review process!!

    1089318616.txt

    Mike,
    Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
    2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
    for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
    to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
    I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
    that you have the pdf.
    The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
    to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
    for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
    obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
    out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
    The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
    losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
    it.
    I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
    them
    out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    Cheers
    Phil
    Mike,
    For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
    shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
    is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
    It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
    because
    the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t
    happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing
    this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40′s trends in the lower atmosphere
    are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not – over eastern US.

    I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
    Cheers
    Phil

  223. Magnus
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This task needs some structure in order to meaningful!
    I suggest we set up a distributed classification and indexing project as follow.
    1) One new thread is opened in order to discuss method
    2) One thread is opended in order to collect classifications and index.
    3) One thread is opened in order to discuss disagreements on classifications.

    I would already now suggest a simple indexing and classification system:
    Data is delivered as flat text with follwing columns

    Classes:
    A=Manipulation of Peer-review process
    B=Avoidance FOI disclosure
    C=Manipulation of data/method
    D=Severly rude assult
    E=Other

    There can be more than one row if several mails in one file.

    Comments!?
    Doable? Division of load? Compiling at CA? Somewhere else? Some one at CA should take a stron hand in any case.

  224. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I like the exchanges surrounding Wallace Broecker and his 2001 essay in Science. mike was indeed the hardliner all along: keep the MWP out of the literature; it was just an asynchronous anomaly.

  225. Magnus
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry columns fell out due to use of brakcets. COmming soon.

  226. Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

    To Steve McIntyre: as I recall, one of the CRU emails says that its writer will only give you data in a raw and inconvenient form, to annoy you (!) I also recall you complaining some time back about this very thing in Climate Audit.

    Is it worth checking to see if the author’s name and the date for this CRU email match those for your CA post on the raw data practice?

    If they don’t, it may be ambiguous. The same raw-data prank might have been played on Steve more than once. Or the date on the CRU item may have been altered by the hacking procedure (according to the computer expert commentators earlier in the thread – I don’t understand that stuff).

    But if the CRU email on raw data and Steve’s CA mention of the practice are in accord for time and name, then it would seem to corroborate the hacker’s documents rather well.

    • bender
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: david elder (#290),
      There are so many references to papers in the publication process and the dates of these discussions are well-synched to the dates of submission and publication. The chronology appears to be robust beyond a shadow of doubt.

  227. Magnus
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Columns:
    [Id] ,[Date] ,[Class],[Sender],[Reciever(S)] ,[Key text sample]
    [1089318616],[08/07/2004] ,[A] ,[ Phil Jones] ,[Michael E. Mann] ,[ Kevin and I will keep
    them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is]

  228. dearieme
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

    A commenter at the Volokh Conspiracy used a phrase I liked – he referred to the Climate Hoax Denialists.

  229. pk
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

    1188557698.txt

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
    Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:54:58 -0600

    Phil,

    Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers
    that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW
    at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.

    Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.

    Tom.

  230. Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This material is so entertaining. It is like one of those movies where you get two side of a story revealed. Steve blogged on the “Jesus” paper the Wahl and Amman 2006 paper that magically met IPCC AR4 deadlines. Now we see the amusement the the Coordinating Lead Author (Phil Jones) appeared to get out of the episode.

    It is indeed amusing. Phil Jones commenting in September 2007 about the final changes to the paper supposedly “accepted” for publication by July 2006. The best bit, he comments that the WG1 report had just arrived on his desk in hard copy!!!!!

    http://geckkosworld.blogspot.com/2009/11/here-is-nice-little-vignette-of-some-of.html

  231. EW
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Just reading more about The Team reaction to that ENSO/warming paper this year.
    Trenberth even went to check at JGR site to check, how many times the “offending” article was downloaded and because it was 129x in one week, he stressed the necessity for a comment with rebuttal.
    Then Jones wrote about the suggested “unbiased” reviewers:”All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.”

  232. Adam Gallon
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    You’ll love this one Steve!
    1256765544.txt
    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt
    The search engine’s excellent.

  233. Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    One sadder thing about this is the aid and comfort it will give to the postmodern critics of science. I’m thinking of the S.T.S. Edinburgh school people (Barnes and Bloor), along with Latour and Woolger and so on. These kinds of science historians will have a field day with this material. For years to come, they will used it to paint all of science as a highly sociological, subjective, power-ridden game with little or no firm footing in any prescriptively compelling theory of knowledge.

  234. Dominic
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think Steve has earned himself a large beer ! So I have just dropped $10 into the tip jar at the top.

  235. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    What bugs me is the sort of statement which appears in several of Manns email’s here, and has also appeared at RC and other places “practically everything McIntyre says is wrong.” (or words to that effect). The trouble is that there’s no truth behind the statement. Yes, Steve got some things wrong when he was sent wrong data, and it took him a while to notice that the problem in MBH98 wasn’t just the mannomatic, but also that the data fed in contained the strip-bark BCPs and similar material. Likewise, we see Mann using the excuse that Steve is supposedly to have intuited that the data he’d gotten from the Russians back in 2004 was the Yamal data. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether Yamal is usable or not. It would be nice if Mann would actually compile a partial or better exhaustive list of what he thinks at this point in time that Steve got wrong and why. I looked at his complaints in the early RC posts long ago and there’s nothing which stands up to even a cursory examination. I’ve never understood why Mann wouldn’t engage Steve in open battle, and these e-mails don’t answer that question except in a psychological sense.

    • bender
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Dave Dardinger (#303),

      I’ve never understood why Mann wouldn’t engage Steve in open battle

      Because mike, early on, took a hardline on an untenable position. The only question remaining is “why” – ie whether it was Overpeck that built this frankenstein.

  236. Steve S.
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This could be the wosrt attack on McIntyre

    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=936&filename=1226500291.txt

  237. StuartR
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As someone who couldn’t believe the “decline” quote at first flush – therefore thinking that this was all unreal, I was sure that this leak was tainted. I think that Ian Wishart should get some major kudos for having the C.O.Jones for being the first to journalistically directly ask the major protagonists for confirmations and getting the answers that we now see. I.E

    “That was an email from ten years ago. Can you
    remember the exact context of what you wrote ten
    years ago?”

    The other emails, I personally think they will sometime later be iconic.

    I think Mr McIntyre has here major affirmation for virtually everything he has said. Which is I find almost kninda scary, but not surprising.

  238. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Andrew Revkin,
    Will you now retract your absurd challenge to Steve to try get something past iron mike into the “peer” “reviewed” liturgy? You know how dumb you look now?

  239. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The hockey stick is gospel truth. Let it go forth and multiply.

  240. Calvin Ball
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    If this isn’t just dripping irony by the bucket:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: Tim Osborn , Michael Mann ,Gavin Schmidt
    Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
    Date: Tue Sep 29 09:17:12 2009

    Mike, Gavin,
    As Tim has said Keith is making a good recovery and hopes to be back in soon, gradually during October and hopefully full time from November.
    I talked to him by phone yesterday and sent him and Tom Melvin the threads on CA. As you’re fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre has done is going to be difficult.

  241. Barclay E MacDonald
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve M’s equipment needs updating. This fascinating disclosure or whatever it is is becoming painfully slow. Steve’s legal defense/offense fund may also require some help. I just made a donation, but I used my wife’s money, so I hope this comment doesn’t get hacked :)

    Big thanks also to Jeff Id and James Watt. And Bender the restraint you have displayed is admirable. Steve M. for now I agree with your silence. Let this play out at least through the weekend. Play some squash! Snip a little.

  242. G. Borba
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    First of all, kudos to Steve for his untiring work on CA! I have been going to this blog daily for nearly a year and have appreciated your careful analysis. Thank you!

    I am so disappointed at reading (and reading about) these e-mails and other documents. Has science become such that it is no longer capable of policing itself, unable (or unwilling) to set up and enforce expected standards of openness, honesty and integrity? Do scientific breaches of ethics (which do appear to have happened) have to be uncovered by illegal hacking rather than through scientific bodies who are supposed to police and uphold high standards of conduct within the scientific community? When has character assassination of fellow scientists you disagree with become a sport?

    Although I am deeply skeptical about the level of human contribution to global climate change (I can’t imagine it is zero, but don’t think it is nearly the level of importance that is hysterically presented) but I do believe that there are scientists of integrity that are studying climate science and we should support their work.
    What I would suggest is there should be an ethical code adhered to by the climate science community, or any other scientific community, such as:

    1. Open access to the data to all. Obviously, there will be some valid exceptions such as national security, terrorism and so forth where open access should not happen.

    2. Open scientific debate and healthy skepticism. Science is never settled and open, skeptical inquiry should be a hallmark of good science, not something to suppress.

    3. The greater the potential for scientific research to impact public policy the more open should be the debate. Uncertainties should be made explicit. This marriage of science and politics can make for a poisonous brew, as history has demonstrated before.

    4. Scientists should be their greatest critics: too much hubris over what we know and too little humility on what we don’t know. For example, why have the population surface stations used in the climate research so dramatically decreased; today it looks similar to what it did in 1905. Why has there been little real evaluation of individual surface station locations in the United States and whether these stations locations are adequate to provide reliable temperature data for climate research?

    I invite others to add to the list.

    Gary Borba

  243. bender
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 12:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Science is not corrupt. These emails are not typical of how things are usually done. You must realize that what you have here is a very few rotten apples. Two, really: Mann and Jones. So this storyline being spun at RC – that these emails are typical of how science is done – this is just nonsense. Do you really think people like Judith Curry or Isaac Held or Rob Wilson would ever act that way? I don’t.

    • theduke
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: bender (#315),

      I dunno, bender. I think if there was a similar leak of emails from a certain earth science center in New York, you might find a couple more bad apples. What I’m seeing is a group of activists at the top whose philosophy is “by whatever means necessary.” If you can convince yourself that you are saving the world, then you are freed from moral restraints that bind others.

      • bender
        Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: theduke (#324),
        I disagree. This is the core of the rot. Excise it and the corpus will heal.

        • Raven
          Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#326)
          Mann did not succeed because in bullying people because of his winning personality or good science. He succeeded because promoting climate alarmism brings research grants. There can be no healing until that ugly reality is faced.

    • Kenneth Fritsch
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: bender (#315),

      Science is not corrupt. These emails are not typical of how things are usually done. You must realize that what you have here is a very few rotten apples. Two, really: Mann and Jones. So this storyline being spun at RC – that these emails are typical of how science is done – this is just nonsense. Do you really think people like Judith Curry or Isaac Held or Rob Wilson would ever act that way? I don’t

      .
      That does not mean that “nice” people cannot get the science wrong or that not so “nice” people cannot get it right. Not does it mean that “nice” people cannot fail to make public value judgments about their fellow scientists because of their similar advocacy positions.

      .
      I would judge the emails more by their overall tone than their specific content and certainly avoid interpreting them a bridge too far and further I would criticize those that do. I do, however, also judge those who would go a bridge too far in defending some of these emails.

  244. Combat Wombat
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 3:17 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Australian Media is very quiet on this, Newspapers are almost hiding the story with it being hard to find even when you are aware of it’s existence and the TV networks have not mentioned this in any way. One reason for this might be, is how does any of these outlets admit they are wrong or may be wrong.

  245. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 4:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Russian news have come up quite unambiguous about the event and do not bother about peculiarities, revealing to what degree Russian people are informed or misinformed about the whole thing of climate change — “The hacked documents reveal that in the last years Earth’s temperature has been decreasing and not increasing. Global warming is a myth. here Jones’ and Mann’s words about tricks are quoted with a proper artistic intonation which would be good for criminal characters.
    I would disagree with Bender regarding a few rotten apples. The problem is much deeper. Science is not corrupt, but it is the overall system “publish and be paid or die” that encourages the appearance of such ugly distortions in the very top circle, which will affect lots of scientists in various ways and to various degrees, both in terms of financial and career obstruction of the dissent and in terms of moral degradation of those who succumbed.

  246. MrPete
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Team vs Non-Team comparison — I *really* like this idea (H/T to a commenter on WUWT.)

    This would be a C. Loehle level of effort :) … but what a great way to highlight what, if any, difference there is between reality as promoted by the Team, and reality as seen by the rest of the scientific world. Along the way (and this seems to be the hard part), we’d find out just how much usable data has been colored or influenced by the Team.

    If they’ve been keeping all other perspectives out of the journals, is there any “respectable” non-Team-influenced material available?

  247. Philip Lloyd
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Many of the mails sneer at McIntyre for not publishing. Yet among the documents in the .doc folder is a copy of the reviewer’s comments on the second draft of AR4 (AR4SOR_BatchAB_Ch06_KRB_1stAug)
    “As a matter of prudence, it seems risky to me for IPCC to permit section lead authors to publicize and rely heavily on their own work, especially when the ink is barely dry on the work. In particular, Osborn and Briffa 2006, which is by one of the section lead authors, was published only in February 2006 and is presented in the Second Order Draft without even being presented in the First Order Draft. Nonetheless, it has been relied on to construct the important Box 6.4 Figure 1. This is risky. Osborn and Briffa 2006 uses some very questionable proxies, including the infamous Mann PC1. I have also been unable to verify some of the claimed correlations to gridcell temperature. One of the authors’ excuses is that they incorrectly cited the HadCRU2 temperature data set, while they actually used the CRUTEM2 data set and that the some of the HadCRU2 data was spurious. This hardly gives grounds for comfort. The point made in Box 6.4 Figure 1 is also argumentative. If the relative warmth of MWP and modern periods is inessential to any conclusions reached by IPCC, I would urge you to delete this Figure and related commentary.
    [Stephen McIntyre (Reviewer's comment ID #: 309-11)]”
    I cannot find any evidence that the authors of Chap6 took any cognisance of this note at all. Surely this goes to the heart of the problem? These emails merely confirm what has long been known, but confirm it in a dramatic way. All those IPCC claims about reviewers is so much BS because a) the authors knew who the reviewers were and b)they could ignore reviewer’s comments even when they were totally valid.

  248. Old Dad
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Bender,

    “Do you really think people like Judith Curry or Isaac Held or Rob Wilson would ever act that way? I don’t.” Nor do I, but what mystifies is that professionals would publish this sort of tripe even in supposedly casual and personal emails. It suggests a surprising naivete, parochialism, and, perhaps, arrogance.

  249. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    All Your Emails Are Belong To Us

  250. theduke
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

    There never was a “Team”. Just one bully of a captain and his faithful assistant, always trying to recruit a team, looking to play pick-up against “the contrarians”.

    Yes, and they get to make up the rules and referee at the same time.

  251. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Does anyone know what happened to the paper “submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
    Environmental Sciences” mentioned in http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=321&filename=1054756929.txt ? It seems to be something similar I’ve written about here ( http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2445 etc ). Ugly paper to
    review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it :) :) Poor climate scientist.

  252. MIke
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The code …
    module check_results{
    if results not equal “it’s getting hot” then call ignore-routine;
    if results equal “it’s getting hot” then call publish_routine;
    }

  253. Judith Curry
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 2:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Bender, you are correct, this is not how climate science is typically done, there is just no way to spin some of these emails. I am trying to figure out how to respond to all this, will post something soon at CA.

    • Jean S
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Judith Curry (#330),
      Atte Korhola has IMO rather nice piece here (Google translation).

    • bender
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 4:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Judith Curry (#330),
      Looking forward to your commentary, as always, Judith. One of the things I am hoping for is a re-balancing on both sides of this argument. Although a public relations disaster, this event does not affect my view of the science one iota. I’ve always maintained – contra to Mann – that there is substantial uncertainty on these reconstructions, such that a medieval-modern comparison reveals little if any difference. The notion that the medieval warmth was a non-global “climate anomaly” is nothing more than a rhetorical device – a hypothesis. Any warmista talking points to the contrary have no basis in fact.
      .
      This is strictly about paleoclimatology and the integrity of the land surface record. i.e. “Where are we on the warming trend?” This dump does nothing to refute or discredit the GCMs – which are now (and IMO always have been) the strongest under on the table.
      .
      With the RealCimate brand now, arguably, in tatters, it is time for Gavin Schmidt to dump the warmistas, and re-brand and re-focus on the models. His defense of the warmistas and (RC censorship) is absurd. He should cut his losses and spend more time debating people like lucia. There is an appetite for learning. Fill the need, Gavin.

  254. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think much of the contents of these emails is the equivalent of boys’ locker room bluster that really doesn’t amount to much. It’s unseemly but nothing more. “What a tool…I mean, what a shame that a few bad apples can spoil things for everybody.” That’s Otter in Animal House. It is also from a certain email between two scholars I know, about a third scholar. It’s just rant and bluster. I am shocked, yes shocked, to read academics dumping on each other and Steve in emails. Round up the usual suspects.
    .
    But there is an important exception: The evidence of attempts to manipulate the journal publication process, the IPCC process, and so forth against perceived scientific foes and their considered scientific views.
    .
    My feeling is that this needs to be taken up by the professional societies that these people belong to. Self-policing needs to be done here. If Professor Curry (#330) is correct that the great majority of climate scientists are not part of this nonsense, I would think that her professional organizations can impose sanctions on people who appear to be manipulating (or attempting to manipulate) referee selection, editorial boards, IPCC reviewing and content, and so on. And, I would think these professional organizations really need to do something like this, so that the climate sciences can maintain credibility. Barring certain people from editorial and reviewing roles for several years would seem warranted.

  255. tensorized lurker
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Thomas Fuller of the Examiner is on the 6th part of his excellent summary about ClimateGate

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d22-Global-warming-truths-were-based-on-political-need

  256. theduke
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    NW:

    . . .IPCC reviewing and content, . . .

    I’m wondering how the leaking of this file will affect the IPCC process and its output, particularly in light of Steve’s recent disclosures about Briffa’s work. Could be significant.

  257. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I sent the following to Phil Jones.

    Phil,

    One of the leaked texts contains what is allegedly an e-mail from you, concerning a message that I sent to Steve McIntyre, Cc you, on 19 June 2007. The e-mail is contained here:
    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=805&filename=1182361058.txt

    I have two questions about this. First, will you confirm that the e-mail from you is genuine? I understand that most of the leaked texts are genuine, but there is apparently some chance that individual texts have been altered.

    My message (included via the above link) accused you of serious research misconduct, i.e. purposeful manipulation of the scientific record such that it no longer reflects observed truth–including in your work on the IPCC (2007) report. Yet your e-mail interprets my message as “an attempt to be nice” to you. Hence my other question: what reasoning was behind your interpretation?

    Sincerely, Doug

  258. Cold Lynx
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Some at CRU seems to tell the truth.
    At CRU Staff page does the programmer Ian (Harry) Harris stating that he is working with
    ” Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming”

    Yes it stated on their website: data manipulation.

    He is probably responsible for the file HARRY_READ_ME in the zip archive.

  259. Judith Curry
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    On the credibility of climate research

    Having been riveted for the last few days by posts in the blogosphere on the HADCRU hack and the increasing attention being given to this by the mainstream media, I would like to provide an “external but insider” assessment and perspective. My perspective is as a climate researcher that is not involved directly in any of the controversies and issues in the purloined HADCRU emails, but as one that is familiar with this research, the surrounding controversies, and many of the individuals who sent these emails. While the blogosphere has identified many emails that allegedly indicate malfeasance, clarifications especially from Gavin Schmidt have been very helpful in providing explanations and the appropriate context for these emails. However, even if the hacked emails from HADCRU end up to be much ado about nothing in the context of any actual misfeasance that impacts the climate data records, the damage to the public credibility of climate research is likely to be significant. In my opinion, there are two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and “tribalism” in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process.

    1. Transparency. Climate data needs to be publicly available and well documented. This includes metadata that explains how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data was omitted and why. This would seem to be an obvious and simple requirement, but the need for such transparency has only been voiced recently as the policy relevance of climate data has increased. The HADCRU surface climate dataset and the paleoclimate dataset that has gone into the various “hockeystick” analyses stand out as lacking such transparency. Much of the paleoclimate data and metadata has become available only because of continued public pressure from Steve McIntyre. Datasets that were processed and developed decades ago and that are now regarded as essential elements of the climate data record often contain elements whose raw data or metadata were not preserved (this appears to be the case with HADCRUT). The HADCRU surface climate dataset needs public documentation that details the time period and location of individual station measurements used in the data set, statistical adjustments to the data, how the data were analyzed to produce the climatology, and what measurements were omitted and why. If these data and metadata are unavailable, I would argue that the data set needs to be reprocessed (presumably the original raw data is available from the original sources). Climate data sets should be regularly reprocessed as new data becomes available and analysis methods improve. There are a number of aspects of the surface climate record that need to be understood better. For example, the surface temperature bump ca. 1940 needs to be sorted out, and I am personally lacking confidence in how this period is being treated in the HADCRUT analysis. In summary, given the growing policy relevance of climate data, increasingly higher standards must be applied to the transparency and availability of climate data and metadata. These standards should be clarified, applied and enforced by the relevant national funding agencies and professional societies that publish scientific journals.

    2. Climate tribalism. Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe’s defining characteristics as inferior. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups. The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I’m sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception). I became adopted into a “tribe” during Autumn 2005 after publication of the Webster et al. hurricane and global warming paper. I and my colleagues were totally bewildered and overwhelmed by the assault we found ourselves under, and associating with a tribe where others were more experienced and savvy about how to deal with this was a relief and very helpful at the time.

    After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change (both the external politics and the internal politics within the climate field), I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests. I even started spending time at climateaudit, and my public congratulations to Steve McIntyre when climateaudit won the “best science blog award” was greeted with a rather unpleasant email from one of the tribal members. While the “hurricane wars” fizzled out in less than a year as the scientists recovered from the external assault and got back to business as usual in terms of arguing science with their colleagues, the “hockey wars” have continued apparently unabated. With the publication of the IPCC 4th Assessment report, the Nobel Peace Prize, and energy legislation near the top of the national legislative agenda, the “denialists” were becoming increasingly irrelevant (the Heartland Conference and NIPCC are not exactly household words). Hence it is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports. Scientists are of course human, and short-term emotional responses to attacks and adversity are to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by this apparent systematic and continuing behavior from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in the major assessment reports. It is these issues revealed in the HADCRU emails that concern me the most, and it seems difficult to spin many of the emails related to FOIA, peer review, and the assessment process. I sincerely hope that these emails do not in actuality reflect what they appear to, and I encourage Gavin Schmidt et al. to continue explaining the individual emails and the broader issues of concern.

    In summary, the problem seems to be that the circling of the wagons strategy developed by small groups of climate researchers in response to the politically motivated attacks against climate science are now being used against other climate researchers and the more technical blogs (e.g. Climateaudit, Lucia, etc). Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the skeptical researcher or blogger is not an ethical strategy and one that will backfire in the long run. I have some sympathy for Phil Jones’ concern of not wanting to lose control of his personal research agenda by having to take the time to respond to all the queries and requests regarding his dataset, but the receipt of large amounts of public funding pretty much obligates CRU to respond to these requests. The number of such requests would be drastically diminished if all relevant and available data and metadata were made publicly accessible, and if requests from Steve McIntyre were honored (I assume that many spurious requests have been made to support Steve McIntyre’s request, and these would all disappear).

    The HADCRU hack has substantially increased the relevance of Climateaudit, WUWT, etc. The quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly run out of steam and become irrelevant ☺. Gavin Schmidt’s current efforts at realclimate are a good step in the right direction of increasing transparency.

    But the broader issue is the need to increase the public credibility of climate science. This requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and responding to arguments raised by skeptics. The integrity of individual scientists that are in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public credibility of climate science. The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategize to respond to this need.

  260. Tom C
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #337 Judith Curry

    One of the more interesting E-mails was from dendro Rob Wilson who expressed unwillingness to say anything that would contradict Mann. Gosh, I wonder why?

    Mann’s behavior is appalling: the refusal to correct glaring errors in his papers, the tantrums, the gangster tactics (finally laid bare). Why can none of his peers screw up the courage to denounce him?

    Only when this finally happens will climate science be on the way to restoring some credibility. Until then, it’s merely cowardly academics unwilling to tell the truth for fear of losing their funding and publication venues.

  261. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Mainstream media picks up the story: “Hackers expose climate brawl”; Monday 23 Nov 09 AEST

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/hackers-expose-climate-brawl/story-e6frg6nf-1225801879912

    The cat is out of the bag, and running…

  262. doug
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Bender, Dr Curry,

    I am very pleased that you have come out and said this is not business as usual. I have made two posts at realclimate, pointing out that peer review in fields in which I have participated does not engage in the behavior demonstrated in this sad pile of emails. The reply has been that the system is working fine. Obviously it is not.

    For the sake of the dignity of science, please do not be shy about speaking out. Pressuring editors and collusion should not be part of peer review.

  263. Geoff
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From the front page of the International Herald Tribune (the global edition of the NY Times) Monday morning the 23rd of November in Singapore:

    Climate scientists’ e-mail stolen
    Researchers’ hacked messages show that scientists conspired to overstate the case for human influence on climate change, skeptics argue.

    Who are these “skeptics” one wonders? Could they include “real” scientists?

  264. Geoff
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Salute to John Daly – wish you were here to see it.

    From: “John L. Daly”
    To: Chick Keller
    Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks again
    Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:47:57 +1100
    Reply-to: daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Cc: “P. Dietze” , mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael E Mann , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas Crowley , Phil Jones , sfbtett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, onar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jarl.ahlbeck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, McKitrick , Bjarnason , Harry Priem , vinmary.gray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, balberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Martin Manning , Albert Arking , Sallie Baliunas , Jack Barrett , Sonja Boehmer-Cristianse , Nigel Calder , John Christy , cpaynter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, driessen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dwojick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Myron Ebell , Ellsaesser , John Emsley , Jim Goodridge , gsharp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Peter Holle , Douglas V Hoyt , “W. S. Hughes” , Wibjörn Karlén , kidso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, KIrill Kondratyev , “Dr. Theodor Landscheidt” , Ross McKitrick , omcshane , Pat Michaels , pbrekke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, “David M. Ritson” , robert.balling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Segalstad , Fred Singer , Roy Spencer , Hartwig Volz , Gerd-Rainer Weber , tlowery@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rosanne D’Arrigo , k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    Dear Chick & all

    the first is Keith Briffa’s rather comprehensive treatment of getting climate variations from tree rings: Annual climate variability in the Holocene: “interpreting the message of ancient trees”, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19 (2000) 87-105. It should deal with many of the questions people raise about using them to determine temperatures.

    Take this from first principles.

    A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra

    We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests
    grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or even hemispheric.

    The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following
    variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other.

    sunlight – if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of
    course.
    cloudiness – more clouds, less sun, less ring.
    pests/disease – a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce photosynthesis access to sunlight – competition within a forest can disadvantage or advantage some trees.
    moisture/rainfall – a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a drought even if there’s a heat wave.
    snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth temperature – finally!

    The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of
    temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from the other environmental variables.

    In my article on Greening Earth Society on the Hockey Stick, I point to other evidence which contradicts Mann’s theory. The Idso’s have produced more of that evidence, and a new article on Greening Earth has `unearthed’ even more.

    Mann’s theory simply does not stack up. But that was not the key issue.
    Anyone can put up a dud theory from time to time. What is at issue is
    the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go, they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings – a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above.

    The worst thing I can say about any paper such as his is that it is `bad science’. Legal restraint prevents me going further. But in his case, only those restraints prevent me going *much* further.

    Cheers

    John Daly


    John L. Daly
    `Still Waiting For Greenhouse’
    http://www.microtech.com.au/daly

  265. Bruce Martin
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It should come as no surprise that there has been a corruption in the scientific review process (IPCC, peer reviewed journals etc) in regard to climate change. It was with good reason that the founders of most modern western democracies built a strict separation of powers into their constitutions, after the example of the ancient romans. Any system will become corrupt if the people who make the laws also put them into practice and enforce them. It also helps to have a fourth estate (the press) which is independent again from the others.
    This has not been the case with climate science. The people who do the science have also done the reviews, with many of them also strong advocates for one particular viewpoint. You can be a scientist and an advocate, in which case the science needs to be viewed accordingly (drug company research for example). But you cannot be a scientist and a reviewer. And you definitely cannot be an advocate and a reviewer.
    The viewpoint they espouse may well prove to be correct. But until the science is exposed to truly independent review we will not know. Until then, some sections of the IPCC reviews should be treated with great caution.

  266. theduke
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just posted the follwoing at RC:

    theduke says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    22 November 2009 at 11:37 PM

    As one who had too many posts spiked on this blog, and will be surprised if this one gets through, I find compelled to state that there is a gorilla missing from the room that no one is talking about.

    Where is Michael Mann and why is Gavin the only one responding to posts that question the veracity and integrity of this website, Phil Jones, CRU, IPCC and AGW in general?

  267. theduke
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 11:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My post has disappeared, which seems to confirm that censorship is alive and well at RC.

  268. Sharks
    Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I saw a comment further up that said this isn’t the normal process of things. But I found this quote from a another climate scientist who is the head of large Climate research facility.

    “scientists talking about science.” In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that “if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists.”

    If he thinks that these scientist have any integrity, he’s just as bad as they are. After reading the e-mails for that matter.

  269. romanm
    Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Part of an update on CRU (nothing earth-shattering) on the UEA website posted quite recently:

    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 engage with this issue in a responsible way.

    We appear to have been “mischievous” when all they wanted to do was to “engage fully in reasoned debate” with us. ;)

  270. Sharks
    Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I like this line of their status update

    In addition to supporting the police in their inquiries, we will ourselves be conducting a review, with external support, into the circumstances surrounding the theft and publication of this information and any issues emerging from it.

    So does that mean they’ll be firing most of their current staff and get some really scientist?

  271. David
    Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Based on what is contained in these emails, it is fair to say that the scientific careers of these individuals may well be at an end. After so many years of attemtping to point to the facts and being scorned by others publically, privately, or just in general for not believing in AGW, perhaps I should feel a tinge of joy. However, much more so, I am saddened by all this.

    How many people’s lives and careers were destroyed by their manipulations and cover-up? How many people and institutions were dragged down by this? What about Science magazine, Nature, and GRL? What about public faith in science and the imparitiality of scientists in general? How many polticians fell for all this, or went along with it rather than be ridiculed? How many editors were removed as a result of their joint targetted efforts?

    And by all means, they could not have got this far alone, who else is complicit in all this? At Science, at Nature, at any other number of once(?) venerated science publications? How were they able to get their own people into these publications and why did no one question this? Where was the National Academy of Sciences? Why did they not question all this, and to the extent they had a few tepid remarks of rebuke (“cannot be supported”) and trying to go along with the political zeitgeist rather than stick up for the scientific facts?

    What about the poltical careers of dupes(?), fellow travelers(?), or opportunists like Sir David King, Al Gore, and however many countless other polticians that will forever be associated with this mess.

    And now that we are at the climate change Waterloo, why in the world did it take a whistleblower’s effort to release these emails to finally get the scientific community to stand-up and say this is wrong? Was it realy that difficult to see what was happening without the emails?

    Finally, couldn’t ALL of our time, effort, and money have been better spent solving actual problems in the world rather than trying to debunk what any reasonably intelligent person could have seen was if not a total fabrication of facts a deeply manipulated set of facts.

  272. David
    Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    And if I might just add, how is it possible that this group of what I might call climate charlatans was able to nearly convince the entire world to sign up to reduce their economic growth in the name of … what exactly? Have they now shame? Should Kyoto or Copenhagen have ever been fully implemented (with the U.S., India, and China) how many BILLIONS of poeple would see their fortuens turn for the worse over this travesty. The developing world would have seen its development slowed or halted and the developed world the same.

    It is with cold comfort that I must recall the adage, “never underestimate the power of human stupidity”.

  273. Posted Nov 24, 2009 at 1:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “Hot and bothered”, The Australian, 24 Nov 09

    “CLIMATE change sceptics have pounced on the mass release by hackers of emails between climate scientists that appear to portray the scientists as fudgers and obfuscators of data and as plotters who would undermine their opponents’ work.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/hot-and-bothered/story-e6frg6z6-1225802504484

  274. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Dec 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The culture of an organisation derives from its top leadership. Prof.Jones is not the only scientist involved in this attempt to disguise activism as science.

    The Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri, has issued a statement in response to the current scandal emphasising the objectivity of IPCC processes. But this statement is completely at odds with several public revelations of unprofessional manipulation of IPCC Assessment Reports.

    Dr. Pachauri should also resign immediately and the IPCC should elect a respected meteorologist as Chairman.

  275. ianl8888
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: Robinson (#115),

    Because, directly contrary to the respectable policy of this website, we have no evidence

    Mosher’s link (#101) is a deadend … several posts have pointed this out and have been ignored. Very disappointing babble ensues instead

  276. Geo
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: RickA (#94),

    That was really my point, RickA (and PhilH at 90). The Paleoclimatologists are basically playing “you can’t win” with Steve. I guess I relied too heavily on assuming everyone knew a perpetual motion machine isn’t possible. If a perpetual motion machine isn’t possible, but only inventors of pepertual motion machines have the credibility to debunk them. . . well, catch 22.

18 Trackbacks

  1. [...] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments [...]

  2. [...] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7806 [...]

  3. [...] Watts (selected correspondence) Steve McIntyre ( – || – ) Real Climate (interesting comments: glasnosť has arrived to RC for the [...]

  4. [...] Climate Audit (run by Steve McIntyre, a prominent global warming critic mentioned in the emails) [...]

  5. [...] and reader-analysis at Climate Audit [...]

  6. [...] where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science [...]

  7. By Restore The Republic on Jan 8, 2010 at 8:57 PM

    [...] where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science [...]

  8. By The Mosher Timeline « Climate Audit on Jan 12, 2010 at 11:36 PM

    [...] Schmidt’s email, Mosh moved on to Climate Audit. At 3.58 pm Eastern (1.58 pm blog), Mosher posted Found this on the airVent. Posted on Lucia. This is [...]

  9. [...] pikte het commentaar van Mosher op en publiceerde het eerste bericht over de CRU e-mails. Daarna begon hij op Climate Audit berichten achter te laten verwijzend naar een link op The Air [...]

  10. [...] Date: 20 Nov 2009, UC [...]

  11. [...] least one person that was included in some of the correspondence, Steve McIntyre of the website Climate Audit, verified the authenticity of at least some of the messa…. McIntyre said, “Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of [...]

  12. By The Trick Timeline « Uc00's Blog on May 8, 2010 at 1:40 PM

    [...] Date: 20 Nov 2009, UC [...]

  13. By The Trick Timeline « Climate Audit on May 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM

    [...] Date: 20 Nov 2009, UC [...]

  14. [...] original posts here: Anthony Watts (Watts UpWith That), Jeff Id (the Air Vent), Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Lucia Lindgren (The Blackboard). Whereas the BBC’s weatherman Paul Hudson hid the [...]

  15. [...] course, the other main denialist/contrarian blogs chimed in to use the cherry-picked emails to discredit and smear [...]

  16. [...] 1. Angela Merkel reiste Ende 1997 zur Weltklimakonferenz nach Kyoto und unterzeichnete als Umweltministerin Deutschlands das vom IPCC via UNEP, via UNO massiv gefälschte Kyto-Protokoll: climateaudit.org/2009/11/19/cru-correspondence/#comment-202421 [...]

  17. [...] Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17. November at the latest. Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still willing to send you what I have, if you wish. Best wishes, Joe Alcamo —————————————————- Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director Center for Environmental Systems Research University of Kassel Kurt Wolters Strasse 3 D-34109 Kassel Germany Phone: +49 561 804 3898 Fax: +49 561 804 3176 climateaudit.org/2009/11/19/cru-correspondence/#comment-202421 [...]

  18. [...] Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17. November at the latest. Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still willing to send you what I have, if you wish. Best wishes, Joe Alcamo —————————————————- Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director Center for Environmental Systems Research University of Kassel Kurt Wolters Strasse 3 D-34109 Kassel Germany Phone: +49 561 804 3898 Fax: +49 561 804 3176 climateaudit.org/2009/11/19/cru-correspondence/#comment-202421 [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,874 other followers

%d bloggers like this: