ClimateGate

Some of the most prominent scientists pushing the theory of man-made warming hail from or have ties to the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich,England. CRU scientists have played a major role in the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (aka IPCC). CRU has been described as the gatekeeper of the UN’s global warming assessments. Their research is featured prominently in the UN’s Assessment Reports (AR1, AR2, AR3 – and AR4 is the latest) issued by the IPCC that are being used as justification for carbon trading schemes, higher energy taxes, tremendous new government regulation trillions of dollars in public investment and even plans for a new world government entity with the authority to supersede the sovereignty of the United States.

On November 17, 2009 reports of an information leak from CRU computers began to surface. Over 60 megabytes of emails and data files were anonymously posted on a Russian file server. It’s not currently known who is responsible for the leak. CRU blames computer hackers, but many have suggested an internal whistleblower may be responsible. Dr. Phil Jones, director of the CRU has confirmed that the emails and data are genuine. The emails and documents appear to reveal that some of the world’s foremost climate researchers have engaged in a pattern of data manipulation, suppression of dissenting views, undermining of the peer review process, destruction of documents requested under Freedom of Information laws and outright fraud. If true, this may represent the most compelling evidence to date of conspiracy to defraud the public and advance an agenda driven by politics, not necessarily science.

Here are several of the published emails:

From Michael E. Mann (withholding of information / data):

“Dear Phil and Gabi,

I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they 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.”

From Nick McKay (modifying data):

“The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?”

Note: McIntyre is a climatologist who has been skeptical of the notion that man-made global warming is a serious concern. He has been a thorn in the side of CRU researchers by demanding accuracy and auditing the research of his peers and pointing out errors.

From Dr. Phil Jones (modification of 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 (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

“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.”

From Phil Jones (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 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.”

Note: This email was a reaction to a freedom of information request (FOI) for data.

From Tom Wigley (data modification):

“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 the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, hen 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.”

From Michael Mann (“containing” the MPW – Medieval Warm Period)

“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].”

From Thomas R Karl (withholding data) :

“We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. 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. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL’s Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.”

From Tom Wigley (ousting 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 ousted.”

From Phil Jones to Michael Mann (on suppressing dissenting opinions)

“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

From Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others (on redefining “peer review”)

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
“peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? 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. 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?”

Phil Jones Responded (regarding redefining “peer review”)

“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. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

Cheers
Phil”

From Phil Jones (forging of dates):

“Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn’t appear to be in CC’s online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.”

From a document titled “jones-foiathoughts.doc” (withholding of data):

“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.”

From Phil Jones to Michael Mann (on withholding and hiding data)

“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. 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! Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz – oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can’t see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer’s series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed. Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he’s a paleo expert by GRL statndards.

Cheers
Phil”

From Ben Santer (fantasy of violence against skeptics)

“Dear Phil,

I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really
like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley. They seem to
have no understanding of how science is actually done – no appreciation
of the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of what we do. Once
again, just let me know how I can help…”

From Mick Kelly (financial fraud, cover up)

“Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious. Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!

Best wishes

Mick”

Climate Modeling Program Code

 

Also revealed in the CRU data leak was actual computer code used in the climate modeling program. It’s coded in an old. Largely outdated programming language called FORTRAN. Programmers have been pouring over the code, deciphering how it handles data inputs. Most telling is the descriptions of subroutines left as REM statements by the programmers, Such as the notation in the file, briffa_sep98_d.pro: “apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!”

 

Another file, quantify_tsdcal.pro, has this interesting programmer remark embedded in the lines of code: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend – so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!” 

RELATED LINKS:

Searchable Repository of all leaked CRU documents

Climate: Gate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

FoxNews: Calls for an Investigation Grow

FoxNews: Stuart Varney Interview with Senator Inofe

 

22 Responses to “ClimateGate”
  1. This is probably one of the best emails on climate-gate I have received to date. Very concise and informative. I will surely pass this one on to my colleagues.

    Thanks,
    Marty Jennings

  2. Raymond says:

    The Bible say in St. Matthew 10:26 that “FEAR them not therefore; for there is nothing COVERED, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.” So Al Gore and his followers thought lying to the people was going to get him somewhere. As you see, he canceled his trip to Copenhagen, Denmark.

  3. Chris says:

    I Signed and posted on my site!

  4. Ken Wells says:

    Maybe Al Gores huge mansion will get a little “Greener” or better yet “Grayer” ?

  5. hungry4food says:

    Health care and Climate Change legislation are one in the same … and its all about Population Controls that would be a result of Restrictions on Wealth Creation .

    Health care and Climate Change legislation are one in the same … and are designed to give away the USAs ability to be self serving , stop these trends so we can have a proper debate about these issues , and keep America First Initiatives .

    Climategate Scandal: Caught Green-Handed

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/23742380/Climategate-Scandal-Caught-Green-Handed

    Population control called key to deal , I think this is why we saw the health care bill target elderly folks with restrictions on treatment with Medicare cuts .

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

  6. WillM says:

    Oh, and cap and tax? get real, this bill would be so ineffective, it wouldn’t raise anyone’s taxes. That’s just typical conservative brainwashing, everything is going to tax you to death, when they’re the ones who spend trillions on wars and stick tax payers (and our children) with the bill.

    You think that at any point we should tax PEOPLE to deal with climate change? You think ANYONE is proposing that?

    Eat more BS, slurp it down with a big ol spoon. Nobody’s raising your taxes. But you guys can whine and cry and freak out every time anyone talks about the gov’munt doing anything, because it will SURELY cost you personally thousands and thousands of dollars!

    You know who DOES need to be taxed? THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING RICH DESTROYING OUR PLANET.

    • Cheryl says:

      Here is yet another example of the ignorant left; listening only to the propaganda. It’s unfortunate that these types of arguments by the liberals can not be supported by factual evidence of any kind. If the liberals were more informed on the issues, and if they would research what science proves, we would not be having this conversation. Oh well.

      • hANOVER fIST says:

        “Here is yet another example of the ignorant left; listening only to the propaganda.”

        You ARE kidding, yes?

        PROPAGANDA is what Mann, Jones, et. al. have released to us under the cover of climate research.

        THE BITTER TRUTH is what you have received from McIntyre, McKitrick, Costella and the many scrupulous researchers who smelled a rat and called the scumbags out on their lies.

        Deal with it – “Global Warming” is as real as the Tooth Fairy.

  7. One fact overlooked in the Climatgate scandal is that the data they are manipulating are what we mathematicians refer to as “garbage” anyway. [Note: Harry Truman would have used a different word.] Mathematicians Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Professor Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Professor Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada argue that the whole idea of a global average temperature is invalid. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
    The complete article is available at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

    In real sciences, including the social sciences, averages went out with slide rules. The primitives who talk about global average temperatures start about by averaging the low and high temperatures for each reporting site. Taking only the high and low numbers in an irregularly distributed set of numbers produces a number which does not represent the set as a whole.

    Such an average can represent various different conditions. For example, an average temperature of 75 F could represent the following sets of high and low temperatures (100,50 – which can occur in deserts) (90,60) and (65, 85) which represent different climate conditions. A lower average temperature could produce more melting of ice if the temperature remains above freezing under the lower average temperature and the higher average represents a situation in which the temperature was above freezing for only 5 or 6 hours.

  8. Chavah Weiss says:

    Response to Reason McLucas: “Social science” is not really a science. And it has had a detrimental effect on society. One needs only to look at the origins of “social science” and some of the founders of these so-called disciplines. Alas, our high schools and universities are filled with “social science” students who in a normal world would do something constructive with their time. There are too many professional psychologists with their demands for encouraging self-esteem based on nothingness. There are too many sociologists which feed into the unhealthy victim industry. There are too many people writing useless thesis, dissertations, and books based on fancy theories. These theories are often elaborately worded and are of two sorts: those of garden variety common sense dressed in fashionable words, and those which cause mischief. In the latter category is the victim industry (he/she is too young, old, poor, uneducated, too complex, too important, or whatever to be held responsible for whatever.

    I had an English Literature professor who said that a sociologist is one who “spends thousands of dollars and several years, doing extensive research to prove that children get upset when you scream at them.” Nuff said.

    Incidently I agree totally with your point on “averages.

  9. Steven Mosher says:

    Our Book has gone on sale and is doing quite nicely!

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1450512437/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

    The details of how the mails came to light is covered here

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/12/the-mosher-timeline/

    drop me a line at moshersteven–at–gmail

  10. Jesse Fell says:

    These emails are quite damning prima facie, but are they in fact so?

    TRICKS ““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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” In scientific and mathematical writing, a “trick” means a “technique”. For example, in “The Number System”, by H.A. Thurston, you may read: “The trick is to use a set of signs in fixed order.” The “trick” referred to here is writing 1, 2, 3, instead of [,], [..], [...]. And the “real temps” that Jones referred to is a set of data obtained directly from thermometers and other instruments, rather than a set of highly problematic data inferred from the width of tree rings. This can be interpreted as manipulation only if using the best available data instead problematic data can be so called.

    COMPUTER MODELS ““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.” This statement has nothing to do with computer models. It appeared in an article the Kevin Trenberth wrote describing the need for better instrumentation. As the quote itself indicates, this statement is about the “observing system” — i.e., the sets of sensors deployed in a part of the ocean. Instrumental readings from one part of the ocean were lower than could be accounted for by the laws of science and contradicted expectations created by other sets of data. Trenberth’s response was not to fudge the figures, but to ask for better temperature recording instruments to determine whether the anomaly resulted from the instrumentation.

    FORTRAN “It’s coded in an old. Largely [sic] outdated programming language called FORTRAN.” Well, FORTAN (Formula Translator) may be an old programming language, but it is nevertheless a powerful and reliable language, in which vast numbers of proven scientific applications are written. To suggest that climate models are inaccurate because they are written in FORTRAN is ludicrous.

    As for resisting FOI requests, the scientists at CRU were wrong to resist, or suggest resisting them. Nevertheless, one of the dangers of freedom of information laws is their use by hostile parties as instruments of harassment. That is what the CRU was facing. Resisting the law is of course not the answer, but there is clearly a problem here that needs to be fixed.

    • Dan McGrath says:

      That’s a lot of words to say absolutely nothing pertinent to the situation.

      The tree ring data you call “highly problematic” is the whole point! The paleoclimate model that’s used to “prove” that it’s warmer than ever before is based on that “highly problematic” tree ring data. Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart is based on it, until the data didn’t agree with what he was trying to say, or OBSERVABLE REALITY (actual measured temps).

      Nobody suggsested that the climate models are wrong because they are written in FORTRAN. What matters is what the FORTRAN code DOES, with subroutines called “Apply a very artificial correction” and the like. Inputting random strings of numbers into the program will 9 times in 10 produce a hockey-stick result.

      Try again.

    • hANOVER fIST says:

      Why bother to give Mann any credit, when by his words and deeds he strangles himself?

    • David Ash says:

      I understand that “tricks” can mean technique and “real temps”can mean something innocuous (although I don’t think so) , but “hide the decline” means what it means. He saw that there was a decline and wanted to hide it. Not correct for it, but HIDE it. The language used throughout the emails is telling. While explanations for a phrase or one email can be explained, the whole tenor of the emails is to hide, obfuscate, lie, and intimidate. Looking at the whole thing, you must work very hard to explain away.

  11. Rick Price says:

    I can understand poking and prodding (manipulating) the data. These guys aren’t the first scientists to be aware that their funding and reputations depend on being right. What strikes me is that when challenged, they stopped acting like scientists and started acting like politicians. Read the emails… Deny, parse, mislead, intimidate, discredit, lie and cover up. It’s right out of the political dirty tricks handbook. That’s not the behavior of scientists. Mann et. al. have lost objectivity and their results can’t be trusted.

  12. Hunter Campbell says:

    It looks like YOutube deleted Stuart Varney’s interview with Sen. Inhofe

  13. Bill says:

    FORTRAN like any other programming language is only as good as the algorithm and especially the data. Models are very subjective and not objective. They all have something called initial conditions which can be tweaked to get the outcome desired.

  14. Peter says:

    Climate change deniers represent this age’s anti-evolutionists. Not that they’re mutually exclusive. You couldn’t believe that climate change was a farce without the internet and all the non-expert wacko voices it gives an audience. If you think climate change is some sort of orchestrated conspiracy you should feel the same way about all science based advancements in this world. Plasma TVs, modern medicine, nuclear energy, modern chemistry (industry) and your quality of life. If you had the same skepticism of every other type of science that you do for climate change you would be living in a self imposed dark age. You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

  15.  
Leave a Reply

*