CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change

James Corbett
The Corbett Report
Friday, November 20, 2009

A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.

The link to the data appears to have been posted to a number of climate science websites yesterday by an anonymous hacker or insider going by the name “FOIA,” an apparent allusion to the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science sites.

The information contained in the leaked emails and documents are as shocking as they are damning of the scientists who have been most vocal about the manmade global warming scare. Some of the excerpts include this email, purportedly from Phil Jones to researchers including Michael Mann of “Mann’s hockey stick” fame:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxxDear 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

And this excerpt in which researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal because he seems to be sympathetic to climate realists:
M,

This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.

I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.

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. Even this would be difficult.

How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.

T.

According to Investigate magazine out of Australia, Dr. Phil Jones has now confirmed that these emails do appear to be real.

The importance of this information will not be lost on The Corbett Report’s audience, as a recent interview I conducted with Tim Ball discussed the very issue of the Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones’ intense secrecy regarding their data:

I'd like to comment on the scientific process.

Worldwide, there are 1000's of papers published in peer reviewed journals and conferences on the issue of climate change each year. The vast, yes vast, majority of them support the hypothesis that climate change is real and it is man made.

The emails you refer to only highlight the fact that fraudulant data will eventually be outed. Yes, there is a lot of pressure to publish and sometimes people edit data to their own ends but others repeating their experiments quite often find conflicting answers and debates begin. Eventually the truth surfaces. Science is a tough game and anyone who presents fraudulant findings and is found out can kiss their career good bye.

I agree that scientists will attempt to publish in journals sympathetic to their views. That's why we don't see "creation science" published in mainstream biology journals. Apart from the fact that it is quackery and not supported by fact it is not in the theme of modern biology journals.

We need to beware the motives of people from both camps. The smoking lobby defended cigarettes for 50 years whilst knowing of the serious health consequences of tobacco. They funded research and published only results they thought appropriate.

The oil and coal lobbies are well funded and have massive amounts of money to lose if the climate change lobby is believed. They will do anything possible to discredit climate change research and researchers.

If we believe the sceptics and conspiracy theorists and do nothing and all is well then OK. But if we believe them, do nothing and they prove to be wrong, which is the majority view, then we are in for catastrophic change.

End of rant.

Sasha said...

So what???
If sea level rises there will be MORE places to KITE !!!

Actually there'll be less - higher sea levels mean less km of coastline.

Why would the sea level rise when the global temp has been dropping since the late 90's? Please explain that to me members of the church of global warming.
Fact is the sea levels have not risen like the modelling said it would.
The whole lie is being outed, too bad we're all going to be taxed for it and the economy is going to take a serious hit.

Even if it is a big scam and man made polution has nothing to do with global warming, I would still allheartedly applaude leaders willing to attempt to change things.

In the worse case scenario where it all goes wrong, I would still be able to look my children and grand kid in the eyes and say that we attempted to make changes.

Also if it all fails and it doesn't affect the temperatures in anyway or even if there is no global warming at all, the air will still be more breathable (have you ever climbed a mountain and took a deep breath? was it more enjoyable than in your city?).

Would that mean less rubbish in the environment, new more efficient vehicles and possibly overall more respect for mother nature?

I believe in global warming and the escalation of natural disaster seem to back up this theory accross the world but even if it is untrue, a push for a greener world will never be a bad thing in my eyes.

There is still hope, let's nurture it.
Never thought I would need to put up this argument on a Kiting web site

^^^"Why would the sea level rise when the global temp has been dropping since the late 90's? Please explain that to me members of the church of global warming.
Fact is the sea levels have not risen like the modelling said it would.
The whole lie is being outed, too bad we're all going to be taxed for it and the economy is going to take a serious hit."

Latest data has actually been underestimating sealevel change. It was previously thought that west antarctica ice sheets weren't melting... turns out that they have been melting at higher rates than predicted.

Heard an interview with some climate fella on radio national breakfast prog. he reckoned that if you take the best possible trend the globe is infact warming. He also said that the latest email saga has been taken out of context... I'll see if i can dig up a link to the interview.

^^^^ "The earth is constantly changing and has been doing so for many many millions of years before man was even here. The earth has been hotter, the earth has been colder, land masses have moved, coastlines have shifted since the dawn of time .... the sooner we realise we have no control over this the better we will be. Humans have an uncontrollable desire to control everything........"

That's dead right... but the rate of change is unprecedented in the geological record.

"Its about MONEY"

For me it's about leaving the joint in a better condition. We have had the chance to enjoy it.... future generations should have that chance as well.

Land rights for gay whales!!!!!!

China is currently bringing on line every week 1 new coal fired power station. That's 52 new coal fired power stations every year. They have plans for 200 nuclear power stations in the near future. China is rapidly moving into the first world (1 billion people). Also, look out here comes India, another billion.
The Rudd governments puny attempt to reduce our CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020 is a joke and will have no effect of global emissions.

Hmm, how to proceed?

1. Global warming is a misnomer. Global climate destabilisation is a more apt term.

2. Not all information sources are equally credible. Look for long-standing peer-reviewed articles and papers that contradict their author's usual bias or vested interests.

3. This guy is gold, and the whole series (about 4 hours worth) is well worth watching:

4. Even if you doubt the science that the climate is changing and that increased CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels emitted by human activities are causing this, there are equally compelling reasons to transition ASAP to a renewables-based society:

Peak oil and peak coal.

Peak oil has had plenty of publicity. Peak coal less so. How these will interact with climate destabilisation is just plain scary. Your lifestyle will change in the next 20 years whether you like it or not and whether the government imposes carbon trading or other schemes or not. The only question is how we engage with planetary limits.

Here's why:

1. Fossil fuel resources are finite.

2. As oil extraction peaks, we (especially China, the USA and India, all the biggies) are turning increasingly to coal.

3. Not all of what's there (resources) is economically viable to extract (reserves). Every ton of coal takes more energy to mine than the previous one (cos we mined the most accessible stuff first), yields less energy (cos we also mined the best stuff first) and is also more polluting (again, we mined the best stuff first). A point is reached when it ain't worth digging the stuff up (like walking ten miles to get a snack with only enough energy for five miles of walking).

4. A peak output in terms of quantity is reached a long time before the reserves (let alone the resources) are used up (research Hubbert linearization for more info), and for coal, it looks like somewhere in the next thirty years (for some countries, especially China, much sooner).

5. A peak output in terms of net energy is reached before the peak quantity output (we mine the best stuff first) And this (as a global net energy output) could happen within twenty years. (For more see "Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis" by Richard Heinberg.)

6. Non-linear feedback mechanisms mean that if you haven't got alternatives already in place as an energy peak approaches, then all your energy output is needed just to subsist and there's none left to re-tool to new energy systems, transport systems etc. Mass starvation, war over dwindling resources and the loss of a great deal of cultural and biological diversity ensue.

7. To avoid this, we have to accept that the cheap energy party will soon be over and that as much as possible of remaining fossil fuel should be used to power a transition to sustainables (there is not the resource and skill base to replace fossil with nuclear before the peak even if we wanted to).

8. Material standards of living will drop either way. The earlier we act, the less severe that drop, and the more we accept it because we know we've chosen it in the service of an ethical agenda.

Disclaimer: I am not a sponsored kiter. I have an academic and professional background in the philosophy of science and in community development and organisational change. I currently work with groups and individuals to facilitate change processes that are ethical, sustainable, sustaining, and satisfying. I take the train or the tram to the beach.

FlySurfer said...
OK, OK... to make the wacko greens happy (I'm a green and I like CO2), I propose we BAN carbonated drinks! Yup no more Pepsi, Solo, Coke, Sparkling Wine...

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. That would include beer.

For those who think there's money in Global Warming, the Oil, Gas and Coal industry would beg to differ. From another post;

From www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/12/us-climate-bill-oil-gas

"America's oil, gas and coal industry has increased its lobbying budget by 50%, with key players spending $44.5m in the first three months of this year in an intense effort to cut off support for Barack Obama's plan to build a clean energy economy.

The spoiler campaign runs to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress. Its intention is to water down or kill off plans by the Democratic leadership to pass "cap and trade" legislation this year, which would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions."

....

""These guys are spending a billion dollars this year convincing Americans that they are clean, green, cuddly and warm," said Bob Perkowitz, founder of the eco- America PR firm. Perkowitz is to brief the White House yesterday on a new environmental messaging strategy. "The enviros are getting their message out, but they are being outspent by 10 to one." he said.On advertising, the ratio is about three to one. "

Trouble is the real issues get overlooked as nothing gets considered by government or academia unless it's got "carbon" or "co2" in front of it. Global issues such as pollution in-general, access to water, access to food are going to bite us in the bum a lot sooner then 2050.

Correct me if i am wrong .the earth normally works in 100,000 year cycles of cold (80,000 years) and warm (20,000 years) and were overdue for the cold cycle the earth does move on its own accord but at the moment were pushing it along .
There are two types of ice age the first minor , covers most of the northern hemisphere towards the equator etc and second major, total cover of the earths land mass in ice .
Perth has been coverd in ice 5k high in its past history and sea levels have been a meter higher as well.
scotland rises about 1mm a year above sea level while london sinks this is due to the fact that the ice starts at the top (north pole ) and works down towards the equator,during an ice age the ice over the top of scotland is thicker and the weight of the ice compresses down the land mass which bounces back during the warm years.
why the f... dont we use more solar power

pps try not to worry about my grammer

mattyjee said...
Yes, i agree, but this works both ways. Most people who believe climate change only do so because it is the new cool trendy thing to believe in, not based on any personal qualifications or research base.

I hope you give your doctor more credence

From New Scientist :

In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).

I'm not sure about you, but if 9 out of 10 doctors said I had cancer, I wouldn't believe the one who said I didn't.

There are arguments both ways, but the media tends to concentrate on one side of the argument, and the public love to lap it up.

I think we all understand how dumb the media can be, they usually misunderstand the science as well. A hot day is proof of global warming, a cold snap is proof that it's a hoax. They just want news, not truth.

Pretending to care about the environment has become fashionable.

Just ask my girlfriend, I'm anything but fashionable

Hey wait a minute maybe we should want climate change. I know I would get very board with the same freaking weather day in and day out, year after bloody year.

And if the world becomes more like a greenhouse, FANTASTIC; I hate the cold, it hurts my bones and shrinks my pecker. I get so depressed in winter I have to go sit in my greenhouse.

And if the water rises, well FANTASTIC, means my place will be closer to the beach... woohoo! ... I know, I know poor Bangladeshi's... well Kevin managed OK in waterworld.

Now on a serious note, since we is all such knowledgeable people here, answer me this: Where is the extra revenue generated by this proposed MASSIVE taxation or even Carbon trading going? I haven't read a single thing explaining if we're going to be sodomized by taxation or a trading scheme or where the revenue is going or if other forms of taxation will be reduced.
Is it going to building nuclear fusion reactors?
Is it going to blow more things up in Iraq and Afghanistan (those bomb sure generate a lot of heat)?
Is it just going to disappear like all that GST that was supposed to replace taxes that still exists?????
Are the motherf**ckers in Canberra going to charge us GST on our carbon taxes?

Our economy is 99% dependent on carbon based energy... any tax on it, is going to really hurt and we don't have any alternatives at present, wind and solar are crap. Panels cost a lot, don't generate much and KEEP the Suns heat on earth!


Trant: I'll see your 3146 scientists, and raise you 31,486 scientists in the US alone who aren't dependent on IPCC grants :) www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

I love this thread.
Djdojo, I'm with you all the way on this one.

Unfortunately, most people in our sheltered society a get all their current affairs information from journals like New Idea. Very few would ever consider subscribing to New Scientist (of which I'm one). If all you read, if you read at all, is tabloid news, or watch tabloid TV then all you'll see are 30 second grabs of sensationalist, poorly sourced crap. Conspiracy theories make great news! Sure, be sceptical but be prepared to change your views under the weight of evidence.

FlySurfer said...
Trant: I'll see your 3146 scientists, and raise you 31,486 scientists in the US alone who aren't dependent on IPCC grants :) www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

Fair enough, although I'd like to point out that I'd be eligible to sign that if I was American, and I haven't even looked at a textbook for 16 years.

On a slightly different tangent, I wiki'd the scientist Frederick Seitz who did the cover letter for that petition, quite an impressive bloke but here's an extract

" Shortly before his retirement from Rockefeller University in 1979, Seitz began working as a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, advising their research program.[4]. In a discussion of the dangers of secondary inhalation of tobacco smoke, he concluded "there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances."[5] Philip Morris attorney Alexander Holtzman described Seitz in a 1989 internal memo as "quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."

Now I'm not suggesting anything, but this amused me no end