Climate Change Fraud Bombshell: Warming Data Faked

[Lahtari]

Climate Change Fraud Bombshell: Warming Data Faked
Contributed by Concerned Citizen on Friday, November 20, 2009

According to the reliable climate change monitoring blog site Watt's Up With That (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937), and The Herald Sun (Australia) (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked) computers at the leading climate change researcher East Anglia Climate Research Unit were hacked. The report states that a 61MB file containing 1079 emails and 72 documents was posted on a Russian FTP server. The hackers wrote:


We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents

Most people who have examined the file believe it to be real and here is a link to some of the emails (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments).

And, now from TBR.cc (http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html), according to the director of said Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, it is real.


The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "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."

One of the most damaging email threads follows;


From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

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.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

This part is especially interesting...


From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: 'Michael E. Mann'
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley

Hi all – I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not

without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.

My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion first.

I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it's called) on global climate
change.

Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
then…

I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
it.

What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?

Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing anything with out real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.

Cheers, Peck

Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O

__________________________________________________ ____________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
__________________________________________________ _____________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) xxx-xxxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)

–

Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +xxxx
fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

In another email, they privately admit they can't find the global warming they have been preaching about.


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

Hi all

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. [1][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.***


...Fraud is the intent to deceive and that is what is happening here, assuming this trail of electronic evidence is found to be true. This could be one of the major news stories of the year that will no doubt have an impact on the Copenhagen environmental summit and Washington's Cap and Trade discussions.

http://mobile.beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000000525

[Cato]

Teehee.

[The Lawspeaker]

Now that's what I call being caught red handed. Ah with a bit of luck a lot of people will hear about this :D

[National_Nord]

I think there is a secret development by the security forces of climate change, and sharp fluctuations in climate - is the impact of global experiments ...

[Amapola]

hacked? :D Who believes they were actually hacked?

[Lahtari]

hacked? :D Who believes they were actually hacked?

Apparently the director of the Climate Research Unit himself. ;)


The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "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."

[Smaland]

From The Epoch Times:

Climate Change Scandal Erupts After E-mail Hack (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/25478/)

Climate Change Skeptics Get to Say 'I told you so!' (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/25520/)

[Amapola]

Apparently the director of the Climate Research Unit himself. ;)

Any bribe? :coffee:

[Lahtari]

Any bribe? :coffee:

Are you seriously suggesting, that let's say some big industrial conglomerate offered him a bribe, and he agreed to frame himself and his colleagues and sacrifice his reputation? If he's willing to do that, he could as well have been bribed by Al Gore or George Soros in the first place. :D

[Birka]

No, it really is ManBearPig!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

[Groenewolf]

Maybe not the most neutral source (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/media-manipulation/5656-nytimes-we-wont-publish-qstatements-that-were-never-intended-for-the-public-eyeq), but heck :


With the release of hundreds of emails by scientists advocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors -- including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments -- even the New York Times is forced to concede that "the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists." But apparently the paper's environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating. Andrew Revkin, the author of that blog, writes:


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.

This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation's paper of record. But in this case -- the documents were "never intended for the public eye," so the New York Times will take a pass. I guess that policy wasn't in place when Neil Sheehan was working at the paper.

As a journalist, there is no greater glory than publishing materials that were not meant to be published. If I could, I would only publish emails and documents that were never meant to see the light of day -- though, unlike the New York Times, I draw the line at jeopardizing the lives of American troops rather than jeopardizing the contrived "consensus" on global warming.

If Revkin's position is that he will not reproduce publicly available emails simply because they put the authors -- whom he happens to agree with and whose increasingly questionable agenda he happens to support -- in a bad light, than he ought to consider another career.