Last week over one thousand emails were hacked from the world’s foremost climate data gathering institution, the University of East Anglia (UAE), Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain. The CRU admitted early on that the emails appear to be genuine, and in the subsequent eight days since, no one is claiming they were fabricated. The emails seem to indicate that climate change data has been manipulated to achieve the desire result of proving global warming. See ClimateGate – Who’s Who and Glenn Beck videos below.
To get the conversation started, you can find the following data many places, but I chose this TelegraphUK article because the hacked emails come from Britain:
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a
large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the
problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created
political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official
temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of
East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature
did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a
rate that differs significantly from zero)….
n response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and
say “how silly to judge climate change over such a short period”. Yet
in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the
28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998
constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will
also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar
warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest
phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between
1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were
increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon
dioxide is not the primary cause of earth’s recent decadal-scale
temperature changes doesn’t seem at all odd to many thousands of
independent scientists. They have long appreciated – ever since the
early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll
behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) – that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly
of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced
otherwise. How is this possible?
On to the hacked emails: Watts Up With That?
was the original blog to release the information about the CRU/UAE
hacking. They have put together a video: ClimateGate Who’s Who? You can
see that video below. I have the transcript below of the attached to
each of the climate bullies profiled, or you can watch the video.
This post is designed to put some of the information together in one place, so that I can find it when I need it, and I plan to continue updates as available. For further simplicification, Hadley Climate Research is known as CRU and the University of East Anglia is known as UEA. The problems surrounding global warming or climate change is known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) which is the acronym for “an effect or effects resulting from human activity.
Phil Jones is the director of the CRU. He has admitted that a hacker got into their system and copied “loads of data files and emails…” Andrew Bolt at Australia’s HeraldSun believes this is not a hacker, but an insider who is now a whistleblower.
In the video below, ClimateGate Who’s Who, provided courtesy of Watts Up With That? the hacked emails included 10 years of emails and data.
*) Professor Phil Jones is a prominent contributor to the UN’s Ingergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC).
*) He has published on the temperature record of the past 1,000 years with Michael Mann. He has received over $22 million in grants (13.7 million British pounds) since 1990.
*) [Modified data to hide unwanted results] “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
*) [Withholding of Data] “The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here!…The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil.”
*) [Withholding of Data] “PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU state temperature datea. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!“
*) [Withholding of Data] When the FOI [Freedom of Information Act] requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA [Climate Audit] was all about.
*) [Deleting data] “If he [Steve McIntyre] pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.
*) [Withholding of data] “If FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR [Intellectual Property Rights] to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.
*) [Destroying of emails/evidence] “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in a tthe moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
*) [Corrupting the peer-review process] “We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redifine what the peer-review literature is!”
*) [Outside influence on Climate Research Agenda] Told Paul Horsman of Greenpeace “The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalization agenda driven by organizations like the WTO [World Trade Organization].”
*) [Modifying data to hide cooling] “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.”
Michael E. Mann is an Associate Professor at Pennsylvania State University in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. Mann is the creator of the “hockey stick” graph reconstructions of millions of years of tree ring data. He is a lead author to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC).
*) [Withholding of information/data] “I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticism from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case the want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”
*) [Using a website to control the message, hide dissent] “Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org – A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein 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.”
*) [Using a website to control the message, hide dissent] “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.”
*) [Corrupting the peer-review process] “I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to or cite papers in, this journal.”
Wigley is a climate scientist at the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. He is a major contributor to
climate and carbon-cycle models. Wigley has said publicly he believes
IPCC reports are too optimistic.
*) [Wonders “where’s the global warming?] “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.“
*) [Outsting of a skeptic from a professional organization] “Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If
you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we
can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU
channels to get him outsted.“
*) [Discussing getting someone’s PhD “re-assessed] “You
may be interesting in this snippet of information about Pat Michaels.
Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment
period to decide whether Pat Michaels PhD needs re-assessing?”
*) [Acknowledging the urban effect] “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.”
*) [Data modification] “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.”
*) [Data modification] “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940’s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip.” Le me go further.”
From Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in New Zealand. He is a lead author to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report for 1995, 2201 and 2007. Trenberth has made significant contributions to research into El Nino-Southern Oscillation.
*) [Failure of climate models] “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brightr. We are not close to balancing the energy budget.”
*) [Impossibility of geoengineering] “The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
*) [Withholding data] “I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues.
James E. Hansen is the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He has contributed to models of the Atmospheres of Venus and Earth. He was arrested in West Virginia for blocking access to a coal mine.
*) His testimony to Congress in 1988 helped raise awareness of global warming.
*) Lawsuit filed against NASA by the Competitive Enterprise Institute
[CEI] requests all emails from him regarding Steve McIntyre calling his
attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data.
Gavin Schmidt is a climatologist and climate modeler at the NASA Goddar Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. He has contributed to ocean and climate models, and is a founding member and contributor to the RealClimate website.
*) Lawsuit filed against NASA by the Competitive Enterprise Institute [CEI] accuses him of working on the RealClimate website during NASA working hours.
*) Named by Michael E. Mann as someone who can censor and control posts made to RealClimate website.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
*) In January, 2009 it’s reported that the National Snow and Ice Data Center under-reported arctic ice by about 193,000 square miles, an area about the size of California.
*) As of January, 2009 the amount of arctic ice is about equal to the amount of arctic ice in 1979.
The transcript of a recent Glenn Beck show follows, thanks to Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters for it via Watt Up With That?
GLENN BECK, HOST: A potentially major scandal is unfolding after
someone released thousands of e-mails and documents sent between
prominent scientists of global warming debate. The New York Times has
verified that these e-mails are legitimate which wasn’t too hard
because some of them were written by and to one of their reporters.
More on that here in just a second. But first let’s start with the
science that has been so settled for all these years. What do these
guys say behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof
consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he’s a climatologist at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, “The fact is we can’t
account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that
we can’t.” Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty
good word for it.
How about Phil Jones, head of of the Climate Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia, “I have just completed Mike’s nature trick
of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to
hide the decline.” Yes, he is talking about a trick that another
scientist previously used in a peer reviewed journal to apparently hide
the decline in temperatures. Incredible. But it doesn’t stop there.
How about when scientific journals published material that Jones
didn’t like? Quote “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” end quote. Think
about that next time you hear about, oh, “the consensus,” and “the
science is settled,” and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed
Now what happens to a peer reviewed paper when they disagree with
what gets published? Quote “…our only choice is to ignore this paper.
They have already achieved what they wanted.” But at least they are not
intentionally deleting documents or hiding information, right? Oh, no,
they’re doing that, too. Here is Phil Jones writing Michael Mann, the
scientist that came up with that Hockey Stick graph, that one. He said,
“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 get Caspar to do likewise.” Count them.
There’s Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene, and Caspar, whoever they are,
potentially deleting e-mails supposedly about supposed science.
So why all the secrecy? Well, we find out from another e-mail from
Michael Mann about skeptic Steven McIntyre. “I’m sure you are aware
that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
published in legitimate journals [you know, the one’s they’re cycling!
] but all they have to do is put it up on their blog and the contrarian
noise machine kicks into gear. Pretty soon Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and
Glenn Beck and their ilk are parroting the claims.”
So you see, if McIntyre sees the data, he’ll find the tricks that
are in it to hide the decline, and then crazy people like me might just
let you know about it. Oh, the horror what will happen to cap and
trade? That e-mail was sent from one of the scientists to a New York
Times reporter. That same reporter, Andrew Revkin, thankfully did
report on the story for the New York Times, but he will not post the
documents because, quote “The documents appear to have been acquired
illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements
that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted
here.” Oh, well, I know, the New York Times would never post or print
anything that wasn’t intended for the public eye, like, maybe, the way
we monitor terrorists or specific strategies to protect our troops in
the field. No, no, the New York Times, they’re above that.
Deleting e-mails, hiding declines, incorrect data, inadequate
systems, redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses! This is
what appears to be going on behind the scenes and literally trillions
of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are
telling us. If your gut said, “Wait a minute, this global warming thing
sounds like a scam.” Well, I think you’re seeing it now. We told you
this was going on, without proof, because we listened to our gut. You’d
never believe me, but once again, here we are with yet another brand
new reality. Indeed.
From Pajama’s Media’s Iain Murray on ClimateGate:
…the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of
literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the
Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its
Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate
Papers. Links are provided so that the full context of every quote can
be seen by anyone interested.
Read them at Pajama’s Media.
Vincent Gray on ClimateGate: ‘There was Proof of Fraud all Along”
Nothing about the revelations surprises me. I have maintained email
correspondence with most of these scientists for many years, and I know
several personally. I long ago realized that they were faking the whole
When you enter into a debate with any of them, they always stop cold
when you ask an awkward question. This applies even when you write to a
government department or a member of Parliament. I and many of my
friends have grown accustomed to our failure to publish and to lecture,
and to the rejection of our comments submitted prior to every IPCC
But only recently did I realize that I had evidence of their fraud
in my possession almost from the birth of my interest in the subject.
Read Gray’s “evidence” here.
To search the entire CRU email database, go here.
First video courtesy Watts Up With That?
Related and Background:
Ocean Rise; Sea Levels Rise Never Began: Scientists Withdraw Claims of Sea Levels Rising