Some of the most prominent scientists pushing the theory of man-made warming hail from or have ties to the University of East Angliaâ€™s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich,England. CRU scientists have played a major role in the United Nationâ€™s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (aka IPCC). CRU has been described as the gatekeeper of the UNâ€™s global warming assessments. Their research is featured prominently in the UNâ€™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. Itâ€™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 worldâ€™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):
â€œDear Phil and Gabi,
Iâ€™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 donâ€™t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.â€
From Nick McKay (modifying data):
â€œThe Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference â€“ 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 donâ€™t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?â€
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):
â€œIâ€™ve just completed Mikeâ€™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 Keithâ€™s to hide the decline.â€
From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):
â€œThe fact is that we canâ€™t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canâ€™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.â€
From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):
â€œMike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. Heâ€™s not in at the moment â€“ minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I donâ€™t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.â€
Note: This email was a reaction to a freedom of information request (FOI) for data.
From Tom Wigley (data modification):
â€œPhil, 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 Iâ€™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 â€” but weâ€™d still have to explain the land blip. Iâ€™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 â€” 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 â€œwhy the blipâ€. 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 â€” just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note â€” 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) â€” but not really enough. So â€¦ 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 Iâ€™d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.â€
From Michael Mann (â€œcontainingâ€ the MPW – Medieval Warm Period)
â€œPhil 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].â€
From Thomas R Karl (withholding data) :
â€œWe should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an â€œauditâ€ 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 â€œderivedâ€ 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 LLNLâ€™s Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.â€
From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):
â€œProving 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.â€
From Phil Jones to Michael Mann (on suppressing dissenting opinions)
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!â€
From Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others (on redefining â€œpeer reviewâ€)
â€œThis 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?â€
Phil Jones Responded (regarding redefining â€œpeer reviewâ€)
â€œI 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.
From Phil Jones (forging of dates):
â€œGene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesnâ€™t appear to be in CCâ€™s online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasnâ€™t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl â€“ try and change the Received date! Donâ€™t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.â€
From a document titled â€œjones-foiathoughts.docâ€ (withholding of data):
â€œOptions 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.â€
From Phil Jones to Michael Mann (on withholding and hiding data)
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.
From Ben Santer (fantasy of violence against skeptics)
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…â€
From Mick Kelly (financial fraud, cover up)
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!
Climate Modeling Program Code
Also revealed in the CRU data leak was actual computer code used in the climate modeling program. Itâ€™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: â€œapply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!â€
Another file, quantify_tsdcal.pro, has this interesting programmer remark embedded in the lines of code: â€œLow pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend â€“ so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!â€Â