Hadley Hacked: Warmist Conspiracy Exposed?
8.15 PM UPDATE: The Hadley CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine:
The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."…
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing "hiding the decline", and Jones explained what he was trying to say….
So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I've been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will "peer review" be used to shout down sceptics.
This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who's now blown the whistle.
Not surprising, then, that Steve McIntyre reports:
Earlier today, CRU cancelled all existing passwords. Actions speaking loudly.
But back to the original post - and the most astonishing of the emails so far…
Hackers have broken into the data base of the Hadley GRU unit - one of the world's leading alarmist centres - and put the files they stole on the Internet, on the grounds that the science is too important to be kept under wraps.
The ethics of this are dubious, to say the least. But the files suggest, on a very preliminary glance, some other very dubious practices, too, and a lot of collusion - sometimes called "peer review". Or even conspiracy.
A warning, of course. We can only say with a 90 per cent confidence interval that these emails are real.
Ethics alert! (my bolding - and I've update this post with the full alleged email, now):
From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
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.
Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX University of East Anglia Norwich
Nice. This could be fun.
Surely these emails can't be genuine. Surely the world's most prominent alarmist scientists aren't secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can't find the warming they've been so loudly predicting?:
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
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] (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.
Have I said "conspiracy" already?
From: Tom Wigley To: Phil Jones Subject: LAND vs OCEAN Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming - and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
See attached note.
Mopping up any awkward evidence about the IPCC's latest report before Climate Audit gets hold of it?
From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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!!
Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit
Destroying government data subject to an FOI request is a criminal offence. Is this data being deleted the stuff CA asked from Jones in repeated FOI requests? If true, Jones had better get himself a lawyer very fast, but I doubt very much he would have done anything remotely illegal.
This, if true (caution!), is especially sick. (Note; John Daly was a Tasmanian sceptic who did superb work, especially on sea level rises on the "Isle of the Dead"). I've added the boldening):
From: Phil Jones To: email@example.com 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
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.
"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@XXXX) "
Reported with great sadness
I said conspiracy, but Professor Overpeck (a contact of Robyn "100 metres" Williams) prefers they be called the "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?
(Thanks to various readers.)
The anonymous hackers offer this brief summary of their alleged finds so far:
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
Regarding that FOI request sent to Jones, referred to above. Here (if the email is genuine) he discusses in a file called "jones-foiathoughts.doc" his evident reluctance to hand over information, presumably to Climate Audit - and lists as one option sending back the information just as raw data, which would "annoy" those behind the FOI request:
Options appear to be:
Send them the data
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.
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.
The warmist scientists at RealClimate show how carefully they've screened and manipulated their site to muffle any scepticism:
From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa Subject: update Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500 Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go there personally, but so I'm informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.
You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…
I have mentioned "conspiracy", right? RealClimate is so far silent.
Reader Chemist finds more which - if true - make this proof of a conspiracy which is one of the largest, most extraordinary and most disgraceful in moderrn science, given the stakes:
Here are some gems. "I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails unless this was 'normal' deleting to keep emails manageable!""Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets (more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers yougave in your email!!""Ed to be really honest, I don't see how this was ever accepted for publication in Nature.""Mike,I'd rather you didn't. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie'semail that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.Cheers""we are having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions - being scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still getting the crux of the information across clearly."
How to minimise data to exaggerate a warming trend (bold added):
From: Tom Wigley [...] To: Phil Jones [...] Subject: 1940s Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600 Cc: Ben Santer [...]
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.
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. K and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Which way to the trough (1252672219.txt 11 Sep 09)?
> After asking Anjuli I can confirm that government employees cannot receive funding besides travel reimbursement. So for those of you that are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, the only thing that remains to do is to go through the document once again, make sure your work (past and future) is not misrepresented, and then send me a note with an "OK" or your new comments, specifying that you are a government employee (please don't let me guess it).
For those of you that are ACADEMICS WITH 12 MONTHS SALARY all that we can budget is a small amount of consulting fees, up to 2 weeks' worth.
If you belong to this category please respond saying that you are or you are not interested. If you are, then include in the document at the end in the place already arranged for it a statement of work referring to specific tasks as they stand in Section 3 of the narrative, and a bio-sketch (see end of this email for specific instructions).
For THOSE OF YOU THAT CAN GET FULL SUPPORT, please say if you want it or > not, and if you do, then do as I requested above: include in the document at the end in the place already rranged for it a statement of work referring to specific tasks as they stand in Section 3 of the narrative, and a bio-sketch (see end of this email for specific instructions).
This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isn't, we're about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.I mean, the media will follow this up, right? In the meantime, use with care.