Friday, November 20, 2009 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files

Climategate is not a smoking gun;
it is a mushroom cloud.
[Pat Michaels]

Off-topic: the LHC beam at CERN is up and running again!
The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), usually working together with the Hadley center (recall HadCRUT3 global temperatures), has been hacked.

Speculations thrive that the data were actually obtained and posted by an insider - a whistleblower - rather than a generic Russian hacker (whose IP would be 82.208.87.170, Moscow, mts-nn.ru, Volga Telecom, if he were a Russian).

If you want to download an interesting 61.9-megabyte ZIP file, which unpacks to 156 megabytes or so, here are some links:
Junk Science (fast, direct: ZIP, RAR, unpacked)
File dropper (captcha only)
RapidShare (free user, wait)
A Swedish server (direct)
Warwick Hughes (instant download; web)
Get via torrents (Mininova)
Original URL (FTP in Russia, defunct)

Search through the 1073 e-mails
... (h/t: Shug, quotes don't work):

BBC story (confirms hacking, nothing about the content)
The Guardian (confirms; says skeptics think it proves a collusion)
Foxnews (similar)




The Telegraph (climate scientists accused)
Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry!!! (update, Monday, Telegraph: join his GWPF)
And so do Jim Inhofe & other GOP MPs...
George Monbiot (a top AGW champion): shaken by a "major blow"; Jones should resign
Hans von Storch: they should resign, science fixes itself (moderate climate boss, read the "News")
Zorita, Hans's close colleague: Why Mann, Jones, Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC
Boston Herald, CBS, Reuters, CNN, UPI, AP/ABC (similar)
Wall Street Journal, Russia Today (tougher, more details about the content: 1st most read and 2st most e-mailed WSJ article at least in Europe)
Additional newspapers (Climate Depot)
Real Climate (confirms hacking, suggests that the climate scientists are frustrated angels)
Don't worry. Those 4,556 files in various directories contain no viruses or malware; I have tested it. Bloggers' stories and discussions:
Anthony Watts (selected correspondence)
Steve McIntyre ( - || - )
Real Climate (interesting comments: glasnosť has arrived to RC for the first time)
SlashDot (a discussion of IT types)
Terry Hurlbut (Examiner)
Rush Limbaugh's take
Jeff Id (The Air Vent, the first story; original hacker's message)
Other blogs (Blog Search)
Google News (Hot Air, a WSJ blog, American Thinker...)
The files have been confirmed to be authentic.



Glenn Beck about ClimateGate.

Since the very beginning, no clear errors had been found and your humble correspondent would have bet that the files had been authentic. Why? Well, it's just pretty difficult to type 156 MB of stuff that looks so legitimate. (See the end of this article for Jones' confirmation of authenticity.) When you unpack the ZIP file, you create two directories, "documents" and "mail". For example, "documents" has these files and subfolders:



Click to zoom in.

So far, the most interesting file I found in the "documents" directory is
pdj_grant_since1990.xls (Google preview, click)
which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. The major amounts came from HEFCE (6.6 million pounds) and NERC (2.7 million pounds). Later, we will get some idea whether he has used the money to do proper science and whether the truth and objectivity was kept as the key principle, beating a possibility to double the amount. ;-)

What is my reaction to these financial amounts? These numbers are difficult for me to comprehend so I just borrow a reaction from Jeff Id: Big Oil My Ass. :-)



There are many other interesting files in the "documents" directory. So far, people only focus on the "mail" directory but once they get bored, the "documents" will become the next focus. As an example, "TheRulesOfTheGame.pdf" explains 20 recommendations for a good propagandist - use emotions, connect your alarm with "home" not with "faraway regions", and so on.

The file HARRY_READ_ME.txt and the funny programmer's comments in it show that the CRU programs/models are complete mess, with ignored error messages and hundreds of ad hoc fixes to improve the agreement with the reconstructions.



At any rate, the files were clearly real. You really don't want to type all these files by hand. Each subdirectory contains either numerous subfolders or dozens of DOC, PRO, TXT, no-suffix, ARS, CRN, CRNS, DAT, RAW, and other files. I don't know anyone who could create such an amount of authentic things in a finite affine time.

The only alternative explanation to veracity is that the bulk of the files is real and some "cherries" have been added or edited. But that would still require a collaboration of a good hacker with a good person who follows climate science (a well-informed skeptic), or the unification of these two roles in one person. Somewhat unlikely. In my opinion, the most likely story is that all these files are 100% legitimate. Also, Steve McIntyre has confirmed that all e-mails in the hacked file that were sent from/to him are 100% genuine.

Finding gems in the "mail" folder

The 7-MB "mail" subfolder contains 1073 TXT files with e-mails and it is the main focus of most people who want to look. ;-) There are lots of e-mails in between Briffa, Mann, Revkin, Singer, Peiser, and many other people you know. Before you read the e-mail messages, I recommend you to merge all the TXT files into one TXT file, e.g. by the DOS command "type *.* > ..\hademail.txt" launched in the "mail" directory.



An entertaining music video about the situation by Popular Technology.

There are many things to love about these e-mails. For example, the word "funded" appears roughly 66 times over there. Stepan Shiyatov instructs his colleagues about the optimal ways to commit tax evasion:
... That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money....


Russian journalists seem to be happy about the "huge conspiracy" and about the fact that it started on a Russian server. But they could be wrong that a Russian hacker was behind it. See also an RT interview with a British MP and an RT program with Benny Peiser and others about ClimateGate and RT's estimate who will resign and RT's Kokorin vs Corbyn battle.

But I liked the following description of Phil Jones' 1999 methodology, taken from Michael Mann. He is proudly telling the MBH authors:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxx.edu, mhughes@xxxxx.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uxxxxx.uk,t.osborn@uxxxx.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@uxxxxx.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK


"Hide the Decline" by Minnesotans for Global Warming (M4GW). Very funny!

When we talk about tricks, this message is even more entertaining by its honesty and chosen vocabulary:
From: Gary Funkhouser <gary@xxxxxxx.edu>
To: k.briffa@uxxxx.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700


Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (520) 621-2946
fax: (520) 621-8229
e-mail: gary@xxxxxx.edu
Gary Funkhouser has tried and done a lot but his stomach capacity for fraud is apparently smaller than in the case of Jones, Mann, and similar thugs, so you can't be surprised that Funkhouser is less famous a climate scientist and he has probably collected less than Jones' 13.7 million pounds in grants. The rules of this game are tough.

By the way, do you think that the CO2 projections by the IPCC synthesis team are supposed to be realistic, according to their own guidelines? Dave Schimel provides us with a resounding "No" answer (via Jeff Id):
From: Dave Schimel (schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
To: Shrikant Jagtap (sjagtap@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: franci (franci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx), Benjamin Felzer (felzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx), Mike Hulme (m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx), schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kittel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nanr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Mike MacCracken (mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)


I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines. You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios provided by the synthesis team.

If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and resources provide an upper bound).

'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.

Dave
You see, Dr Jagtap was out of line and in direct clash with the IPCC because he or she assumed that scientific predictions should be realistic rather than what-if storylines. ;-)

If I return to Phil Jones with all these grants: is the driver that motivates him politics? Well, money is not quite the same thing as politics. Jones wrote the following text to John Christy:
...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
It makes sense. Also, the treehuggers have been saying that the skeptics were paid by ExxonMobil for years. But who is actually being fed by ExxonMobil?
From: John Shepherd <j.g.shepherd@sxxxxxxxx.uk>
To: t.d.davies@uxxxxx.uk
Subject: Re: ESSO
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:43 +0100
Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uxxxxxx.uk>

Trevor

I gather you're going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike's analysis : i.e. there's room for some constructive dialogue...

See you on the 1014 from Ipswich (0940 from Norwich), for a kick-off at 12 noon ??

John
Imagine that the year is 2005 and you want to define the "normal temperature" from some data that begin in 1961 or so. Will you choose the normal temperature to be the average of 1961-1990 or 1961-2000? David Parker of the Met Office has an answer, including the right justification agreed upon by a whole IPCC atmospheric chapter:
Neil [Plummer, Australia],

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
Yes, the right choice is always such that the impression of global warming never seems muted. ;-) Also, for years, skeptics have been suggesting that Michael Mann's method to deal with the Medieval Warm Period starts with the 1) desire to get rid of it, followed by 2) tricks to justify the decision afterwards. Speculations are over; here's a proof:
From: "Michael E. Mann" (mann@vxxxxxx.edu)
To: Phil Jones (p.jones@uxxxxx.uk), rbradley@gxxxxxx.edu, Tom Wigley (wigley@uxxx.edu), Tom Crowley (tcrowley@dxxx.edu), Keith Briffa (k.briffa@uxxxx.uk), trenbert@cxxxxx.edu, Michael Oppenheimer (omichael@pxxxxxx.edu), Jonathan Overpeck (jto@uxxxxx.edu)
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
Cc: mann@vxxxxxx.edu, Scott Rutherford (srutherford@gxxxxx.edu)

Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories I'm waiting to hear back from. [...]

Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do this the way certain plots were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?) in which a spatial map was provided in the center (this would show the locations of the proxies), with "rays" radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges showing the different timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey both the spatial and temporal information at the same time.
Many even juicier things have been deleted but be sure that they were enough to make even e.g. Raymond Bradley "puke" or "vomit" (h/t: Willie and David).

By the way, "FOI" in the file name stands for "Freedom Of Information", a bill in the U.S. And "FOIA" is the Russian (?) hacker's nickname. The e-mails are full of Phil Jones' and other tricks how to circumvent the FOIA legislation: search for "FOIA". For example,
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 [McKitrick, McIntyre] 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it ! ...
Yes, this behavior actually looks not only immoral but illegal and if you know how to activate the U.K. police, you're kindly asked to act. By the way, if you still believed that Jones was just "planning" to delete the e-mails or joking (or if you were told this weird explanation by Gavin Schmidt), here's another e-mail:
From: Phil Jones (p.jones@uxxxx.uk)
To: "Michael E. Mann" (mann@mxxxxxx.edu)
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
The climate scientists also synchronize their efforts to block certain papers from being published, or even eliminate a journal (Climate Research) from a de facto list of peer-reviewed journals. How do Mann and Jones, the captains of the hockey team, make sure that they control the situation and that other reviewers - and even "2nd class hockey players" such as Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn, Jones' colleagues - don't influence the composition of published papers and the content of the reviews? It was easy for Jones (and Mann) to transform the peer-review process into a joke:
From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" (mann@vxxxxxx.edu)
Subject: Crap Papers
Date: Thu Feb 26 15:59:12 2004

Mike,
Just agreed to review a paper for GRL - it is absolute rubbish. It is having a go at the CRU temperature data - not the latest vesion, but the one you used in MBH98 !! We added lots of data in for the region this person says has Urban Warming ! So easy review to do.

Sent Ben the Soon et al. paper and he wonders who reviews these sorts of things. Says GRL hasn't a clue with editors or reviewers. By chance they seem to have got the right person with the one just received.

Can I ask you something in CONFIDENCE - don't email around, especially not to Keith and Tim here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say that MBH98 and MJ03 have underestimated variability in the millennial record - from models or from some low-freq proxy data. Just a yes or no will do. Tim is reviewing them - I want to make sure he takes my comments on board, but he wants to be squeaky clean with discussing them with others. So forget this email when you reply.
Cheers, Phil
This e-mail has surely been forgotten but it has also been copied roughly 1,000,000 times yesterday. ;-) By the way, in a 1999 e-mail called "CENSORED", Raymond Bradley defended Osborn and Briffa against Michael Mann and even mentioned that it was "arrogant" that Mann wanted to suppress all papers that were "unacceptable" to him (and Jones). "Science moves forward whether we agree with individiual articles or not...," Bradley added. Good. However, you shouldn't imagine that e.g. Keith Briffa has been a faithful angel on the side of science, despite the political pressures. Quite obviously, he wasn't:
From: Keith Briffa (k.briffa@uxxxxxx.uk)
To: mann@xxxxxx.edu
Subject: Re: quick note on TAR
Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007

Mike, your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties. Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan [Solomon]. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes
Keith
Keith Briffa is a grey zone figure who may have been under a huge pressure (which is why he is being mentioned as the top candidate for having done something that I can't even publicly speculate about). You see that even according to the IPCC members, the interests of science are different from the interests of the IPCC. And mentioning the uncertainties and the "issues" in general means not to support Michael Mann enough. ;-)

I am afraid that if any climate scientist in the group is a de facto ethical guy who posted the data in order to reveal the dirt and if the suspicion among the likes of Mann and Jones will grow, he or she will have to rely on Jones' and Mann's getting an electrical chair - otherwise his life will never be safe again because this would be no treason but high treason.

By the way, you may also find e-mails that they need to get rid of German mainstream climate scientist Hans von Storch:
From: Tom Wigley (wigley@uxxxxxxx.edu)
To: Timothy Carter (tim.carter@yxxxxxxxxxx.fi)
Subject: Re: Java climate model
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
Cc: Mike Hulme (m.hulme@uxxxxxxxxx), Phil Jones (p.jones@uxxxxxxx.uk)

Tim,
I know about what Matthews has done. [...]
Matthews is doing the community a considerable disservice.

Tom.

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter -- 50+ people.

Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.
While top scientist von Storch had to be gotten rid, letters by alarmists such as Mike Hulme et al. were authored or at least co-authored by friendly folks at Greenpeace:
From: "Wallace, Helen" (helen.wallace@uxxxxxxxxxxxace.org)
To: "'t.mcmichael@lshtm.ac.uk'" (t.mcmichael@lxxxxxxxx.uk), "'m.hulme@uxxxxx.uk'" (m.hulme@uxxxxxxxxxx.uk)
Subject: Letter
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:21:04 +0100

Dear Tony and Michael,

The final draft of the letter to the Times is attached, incorperating your changes (I hope I have combined them in a way that you are both happy with).

Brian Hoskins and Adrian Jenkins have both decided that they prefer not to sign the letter, although agreeing with its message. I haven't been able to contact anyone else in the short time available, so I leave it up to you to decide whether you are still both happy to go ahead.

If so, Mike could you please reply to both Tony and myself and let us know, and Tony could you then send it as agreed?

Thank you both very much for your time and trouble.

Best regards,
Helen

Dr Helen Wallace
Senior Scientist
Greenpeace UK

Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN

Tel: +44-171-865-8241
Fax: +44-171-865-8202
---------------------------
FINAL DRAFT

Letters Editor
The Times

Fax: 0171-782-5046
Email: letters@the-xxxxxxxxxx.uk

21 June 1997
Dear Sir,

Without wishing to comment on the dispute between BP and Greenpeace (Editorial, 20 August), we would like to remind your readers of the seriousness of the potential threat caused by our continued use of fossil fuels. This damage occurs both locally - as evidenced by the deterioration of air quality in UK cities in the past few weeks - and also globally.

As scientists studying the impacts of climate change, we consider the global threat from greenhouse gases to be serious and to need addressing. Adverse effects on human populations are likely to result from changes in weather patterns, shifts in storm frequencies, rises in sea level and the spread of certain pests and infectious diseases. A wide variety of ecosystems throughout the world will be at increasing risk.

We have little idea whether or not we can manage such adverse effects and therefore the prudent course of action is to limit the cause of the threat.

Major shifts in investment away from fossil fuels will therefore be required to make the necessary reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Large companies like British Petroleum seem to us to be well placed to take an active part in investing in these changes. There is no doubt the need for precautionary, preventative action is urgent.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. A.J. McMichael
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
University of London
Keppel Street
London
WC1E 7HT

Dr. M. Hulme
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ


Was Briffa a victim who decided that an offensive is the best defensive? Click here for the full screen of Alan Becker's cool animattion.

Don't try to look for a few e-mails containing the word "confidential": it actually appears 107 times in the e-mails. :-) But it may be more interesting to look at "highly confidential" things:
From: Phil Jones (p.jones@uxxxxx.uk)
To: "Michael E. Mann" (mann@vxxxxxx.edu)
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

[...] 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
Well, it's easy to keep peer-reviewed papers out of the IPCC report: you just redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is! As you have seen, Jones and Mann have redefined it in all conceivable ways.

And by the way, Pat Michaels should hire some bodyguards:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. [Ben Santer]
So far, Michaels survived. See him talking about ClimateGate at Foxnews.

What could they do with the recent "cold-ish years" during their talks? It was easy, too:
From: Mick Kelly (mick.tiempo@gxxxxxxxx.com)
To: (P.Jones@uxxxxx.uk)
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.

Mick
Read it. (The book on the left is the NIPCC report: recommended.) The conclusion looks pretty clear. These people should be put in jail as soon as possible. Lord Monckton and Alan Caruba agree that they're criminals. You know, these are not just small tricks in an academic discussion. These people have acquired millions if not billions of taxpayers' money by methods that seem to be provably fraudulent and threatened trillions of additional dollars indirectly.

You know, I was a bit skeptical in the morning - about the hints that this is a big story. But let me admit that right now I feel a little bit like at the beginning of the Velvet Revolution 20 years ago, after the students were beaten and a big change was in the air.

Update: legitimate

Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic. See Briefing Room.

He says that he "can't remember" what he meant by "hiding the decline." Well, let me teach him some English. First, dictionaries say that hide means
1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where did she hide her jewels?
2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one's feelings.
4. to conceal oneself; lie concealed: He hid in the closet.
5. British. a place of concealment for hunting or observing wildlife; hunting blind.
6. hide out, to go into or remain in hiding: After breaking out of jail, he hid out in a deserted farmhouse.
The definition (6) will only become relevant for Mr Jones once the e-mails are fully appreciated so Jones' original sentence meant that if he hadn't done the "trick", the actual data would show a decline (of the temperature, in various intervals, as described in the e-mail). The decline of the temperature is also known as the cooling. There was one cooling period according to the thermometers, between the 1940s and 1970s, but reconstructions of the temperatures via the same trees that are used in paleoclimatology also show cooling since the 1980s in many or most cases. But by doing the "trick" and adding some different data, the decline disappeared. In other words, it was "hidden" by the "trick".

This procedure is also known as "scientific fraud".

Immorality of hacking

Some fine souls among climate skeptics are disturbed by the very fact of hacking - and to a lesser extent, so am I - and by the promotion of the results of the hacker's work - I am not. Well, I fully understand the moral problems with breaking someone's privacy in this way. I have these emotional problems, too.



How many readers play Mafia Wars? Moscow? ;-)

On the other hand, this is just about the privacy of some business e-mails about the climate - which is really a public issue these days and it is paid by the taxpayers in the U.K., U.S., and elsewhere - while the proponents of the carbon regulation want to restrict the privacy and rights of billions of other people, and not only the privacy of their business correspondence.

So there are positive and negative factors on both sides when you consider whether the event has been a good one. In my case, the overall result is that the transparency that has been artificially brought to the extremely secretive Hadley Center is a good thing.


Bonus: Feynman on scientific integrity

Should scientists be honest? I will end up this article with a quote from Feynman's famous 1974 commencement speech at Caltech:
It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
Do you think the e-mails indicate that the climate scientists have followed the same principles?



Adolf Hitler understood that something was wrong with the AGW science even before the ClimateGate began. A pretty funny parody.

Mogo list

If you're a truly advanced reader, here's a list due to Mogo of RealClimate.ORG of roughly fifty of the most offensive and embarrassing e-mails in the collection:

* Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)

* Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!

* Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.

* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)

* Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

* Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

* Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

* Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)

* Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)

* Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

* Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)

* Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)

* Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)

* Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)

* Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)

* Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

* Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

* Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)

* Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)

* Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)

* Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

* Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)

* Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)

* Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)

* Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)

* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)

* Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

* Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

* Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

* Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

* Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)

* Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)

* Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

* Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

* Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

* Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)

* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

* Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

* Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

* Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

* Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

* Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

* David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

* Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)

* Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)

* Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

A bonus fun story

The French-Irish World Cup confronations have erupted long before the match because Nicolas Sarkozy wanted a VIP box. :-)

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (13) :


reader Oldrightie said...

We are all part of The European Dictatorship now and this is typical of how they behave.
I shall link to your site, shortly.


reader Regis said...

heck: http://vadlo.com/cartoons.php?id=71


reader Paul said...

Jones Mann Cartoon -http://tinyurl.com/y8qxtwc


reader George said...

Regarding the morality of using the data that was hacked (or perhaps leaked by a whistle-blower?):

If a child molester was discovered by a burglar, would you let the child molester off the hook just because of how he was discovered?


reader Mark said...

George, your example makes no sense. A better example would be a burglar was caught on video tape. Are we allowed to see the tape convicting the man, or should we rely on hearsay?

This hacker/thief will be convicted when found in International or British Court. But there are already hundreds of reports paraphrasing what is in the hacked files. The actual printing of the evidence is more important.

However this site needs to be careful about printing personal emails. MOST sites have replaced the addresses with "X's". For legal purposes, this author should do the same.


reader George said...

Mark, you fail to understand. The question at hand is about the way in which the evidence has been obtained. A standard security videotape is unquestioned. A burglary is illicit in and of itself. The concept is one of 'fruits of a poisoned tree'.

In other words, must the law - and society - turn a blind eye to the behavior of this group of AGW advocates because of the manner in which the evidence was obtained?

I say no. They do not get a free ride just because the evidence was revealed in at least an irregular, and perhaps illegal manner.

This issue is important because the argument will be made - and is already being made - that the real culprit is the hacker, not researchers involved in fraud and other wrongful acts to mislead and obfuscate.

BTW, the real possibility exists that the information was provided by a whistle-blower rather than a hacker.


reader papertiger said...

Mark

I turn on the TV, which is a small global warming friendly size due to state law, to watch the 49ers at Greenbay, and the announcer tells me the temperature on the field is 54 degrees. "Greenbay global warming we got here" he says.
The radio is clogged with PSA's and various charletans trying to profit off the global warming hoax, so many in fact that the issue is never discussed by nominally conservative local talk show hosts.

The paper has it's own environmental section. Doesn't sound so shocking at first, but then you have to understand the context.
Our local paper has layed off over half of their workforce. The content portion has shrunk in all dimensions, number of, height, and width, of pages.
Every single aspect of the paper is tiny, miniature, like a national enquirer, except for the environment section.
And that didn't even exist last year.
What can you do? Shrug it off, and go to your favorite internet sites.

Where you find google ads. Where I am urged to sign the petition to send president obama to make a climate treaty.

Basicly I am inundated by global warming hokum from all directions.

SO Gavin Schmidt and Phil Jones are getting their email spammed and I'm supposed to give a damn?

Way I see it Phil Mike and Gavin deserve all the blowback they can get.


reader mike45 said...

Great write-up.

Apart from the juicy examples of blatant delinquency and misdemeanor, there are also more subtle observations to be made here, such as several of these scientists groping with and arguing over advanced statistical concepts such as standard deviations, trying and failing to make sense of each other's papers or computer programs and models, and last but not least arguing about the actual science, long after it was supposedly "settled".


reader MSEslacker said...

Why are you so hung up on the idea of these files being typed by hand?

The UEA data files are automatically generated, just like the CO2 data from NOAA, solar radiative output data from ACRIM, etc.

Whereas it might take a lifetime of monastic devotion on the part of a faker to type in 156Mb of bogus data, a 12 yr old child could have created it in an hour, with QBasic on his family's IBM PC in 1996 (harddrive size would have been the limiting factor in '96). Today? It could be done on a smart phone on the drive home through rush hour traffic.
(UEA is pretty open about a lot of things; they actually give example code to read, and hence to generate, their data file formats: www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ .)

Anyway, the apparent textual integrity of the data files is no indicator of authenticity. I'll wait for a solid statistical analysis...and hope that there exists, somewhere, an untainted temperature dataset to use as a baseline for comparison.

But if the data prove authentic, I for one, am very excited to have the opportunity to see what's in there.

They make a lot of information available, including papers (many of which I haven't read) on how data from various weather stations (eg. dry land, high alititude, marine) are combined into the final dataset. But I'm not sure how transparent access to the raw data has been up until now.

Thanks for posting. I look forward to digging through this.


reader T. A. Speaker said...

Kudos for continuing to wade through all of this. Some interesting observations by von Storch regarding the CR affair, the hockey stick and the emails here (CR affair), here (hockey stick) and here (Wigley's letter). My own take on these matters here and here.


reader Thomas said...

Scientific Doomsday Mania
by
Amitakh Stanford
22nd November 2009

There is a doomsday message that is swiftly gaining global acceptance. The new wave is clothed in acceptable clichés and has won over the support of many of the respected scientific communities.

Unlike most other doomsday messages, this one is supposedly based upon scientific evidence. The scientific “doomsdayers” wear masks and pretend that they are predicting calamities based on hard evidence. This lulls the unsuspecting public into absolute belief and acceptance of the doomsdayers’ ravings.

If the same message were given in a spiritual setting, the adherents would probably be encouraged to turn to God in preparation for the final days. Generally, scientists have sneered at and mocked spiritual predictions regarding the end times, and the same scientists have convinced the general public to do likewise. Further, governments of the world use their police powers to suppress, restrict, or even eliminate these spiritual-based groups. Scientists have now one-upped the spiritual believers by supporting their dire predictions of calamity with supposed scientific evidence. Using their scientific clout, they have now convinced most of the world leaders to meet in Copenhagen. The stated agenda of the gathering is to halt global warming with a unified and urgent approach.

People may remember that there have been similar gatherings to solve the global economic crisis. In those meetings, every leader attending was told to boost their economies by stimulus spending. By and large, the world leaders have dutifully followed those dictates. One might ask: Is the global recession over due to this unified approach – or is it deepening? Many thinking economists have finally realized the latter to be the case.

[...]

Were the carbon traders truly concerned that global warming is a seriously urgent issue, they could perhaps justify following their untested carbon-trading notion. But if it were an urgent situation, why would they offer a solution that will take decades to take effect? If they have decades to work on the solution, by definition, it cannot be that urgent. And, if they have decades to implement their plan, could they not spend at least a few years or even a few months openly and transparently debating which course of action will save the planet from its imminent death?

To demonstrate the absurdity of the current “green” position, consider that they are proposing massive increases in nuclear power because it is supposed to be carbon friendly. The nuclear proponents do not seem to care about the disposal of nuclear waste from these sites. This means that they are presenting an extremely short-sighted solution, which is not really a solution at all. Besides, the proponents of expanding nuclear power want to tremendously restrict who can and who cannot use nuclear power. For instance, Iran and North Korea are presently being ostracized for, among other things, having nuclear-power programmes. This is a glaring instance where part of the real agenda of the ruling elite shows through; the nuclear proponents are not as concerned about global warming as they are with political dominance.

As indicated earlier, humans are only marginally responsible for global warming. The hotter sun is undeniable, and it is the main reason for global warming.

[...]

This would be all well and good if it could be believed that scientists are acting in the people’s best interests. But, since when have scientists been assumed to be altruistic? Why is it accepted that they will only act in the best interests of humans? And why should it be accepted that the scientists are correct about human causes of global warming?

[...]

The carbon-trading schemes, and other emissions-based solutions presented by the ruling elite’s scientific doomsdayers, will not solve global warming. But, if they get their way, they will change the lives of people for the worse.


reader HPatrickBoru said...

It appears the biggest rethinking in climate modeling will be the assumptions surrounding the climate sensitivity to CO2. I just hope the raw data from climate studies aren't corrupted. It would be a shame if these twits infected the whole discipline.

I recall Lubos had a few posts regarding climate sensitivity in the past few years. They might be interestine to revisit.

On a more important matter, will Jaromir Jagr be on the Czech Olympic team in Vancouver?


reader hANOVER fIST said...

This is a beautiful posting.

A lot of what I've previously read seemed to hem and haw around the core issue, that being "human-caused" climate change is a bloody lie; your posting throws it up against the wall and forcibly penetrates.

I applaud you.