Hacked e-mails & docs reveal 'darker' side of global warming discussion

Bjarki

Registered Member
#1
Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.Story recap & latest news: ClimateGate emails provide unwanted scrutiny of climate scientists
The electronic break in itself has been verified by the director of the research unit, Professor Phil Jones. He told Britain’s Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition "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."
The file that has been making the rounds was initially brought to light by the website The Air Vent. The 61mb file contains thousands of documents and emails. As the archive was just discovered within the last 24 hours, its authenticity has not been determined and as such readers should cast a skeptical eye on the contents. It should also be noted that it appears the emails were illegally obtained by whoever originally posted them.

At least one person that was included in some of the correspondence, Steve McIntyre of the website Climate Audit, verified the authenticity of at least some of the messages. McIntyre said, “Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine. It is really quite breathtaking.”
The contents of the archive contain documents and email correspondence from a veritable who’s who in climate science. Among those included in the emails are Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, his assistant, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona, Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and others.
The emails contain an array of discussions including what appear to be concerted efforts to withhold data. Just as troubling is conversations that allude to potentially manipulating climate data to “hide the decline” of temperatures seen in the last decade.
Some of the excerpts of emails within the archives (edited for brevity, emphasis added):
From Michael E. Mann (witholding 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?
From Tom Wigley (acknowleding 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.
From 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) amd 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 Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
From Phil Jones (witholding 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
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
From Michael E. Mann (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. 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.
From Phil Jones (witholding of data):
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.
If the emails and documents are a forgery, it would be an extremely large one that would likely have taken months to setup. No doubt much more will be coming out about these emails and their possible authenticity. Stay tuned to the Climate Change Examiner for updates as more information becomes available.
Update, 10:30am – Since the original publication of this article, the story is gaining steam and now the BBC is reporting on it. They report that a spokesman for the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.”
Analysis of the emails and documents in the archives continues. We must stress that the authenticity has not been proven however there have been no denials of such by the climate center. Some of the more recent revelations include:
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.
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, then 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 Thomas R Karl (witholding 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 (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" (witholding 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 Mick Kelly (modifying data to hide cooling):
Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. 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.
Update, 3:45pm MDT: In regards to the authenticity, not one report disputing the veracity of the emails has come out. Many sources have talked to some of the email authors and they have not disputed the messages.It would appear at this point that there is little doubt that the emails are authentic. If they were not, the principle players would certainly have said so by now.
Source: ClimateGate - Climate center's server hacked revealing documents and emails
 

Bjarki

Registered Member
#2
Interpretation by the Wall Street Journal:

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.
Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet.
The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence policy makers around the world.
The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in climate models such as the IPCC's.
A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."
The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.
Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate scientists have dismissed those claims.
The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.
Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.
One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.
More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.


Source: Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor - WSJ.com
I do not agree with the way this information has been made public.. but since it's there.. it's worth posting cause it shows the data on which the global warming theory is based is far from undisputed even among scholars who advocate it towards the general public. Furthermore, it raises questions about the scientific integrity of these so called 'objective' researchers.
Well anyway, I thought it was nice to get an insight-view into the global warming-discussion, a fight that can get ugly :stare:.



Thoughts?
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#3
From Bjarki (defending pedophiles):

A pedophile for example may justify his behaviour by pointing at the 70's or classical Greece, in order to show that pedophilia has not always been frowned upon and that nowadays people are 'too uptight' about it (and that, for this reason, he should feel no guilt about it).
Or would that be justifying pedophilia? Either way, if we want to trust in ad hominem arguments and quote-mining, then I would choose not to trust it when pointed out by someone who says "nowadays people are 'too uptight' about it" in regards to pedophilia. See what I did there? ;)

Character assassination is easy.
 
Last edited:

icegoat63

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#4
I haven't been ab le to read thid thoroughly yet because I'm using my phone, however what I picked up pretty much further solidifies my stance on global warming. Its been going on for 11,000+ years, has been turned into a public scare tactic for political advancement and is otherwise out of our control.

I'll add more later when I can better allocate more time to reading the article in it entirety.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#5
From icegoat63 (being with young girls):

I've been in lopsided age relationships and quite frankly they arent easy to maintain.
Consider that along with:

From Bjarki (defending pedophiles):

A pedophile for example may justify his behaviour by pointing at the 70's or classical Greece, in order to show that pedophilia has not always been frowned upon and that nowadays people are 'too uptight' about it (and that, for this reason, he should feel no guilt about it).
A pattern is emerging. A meaningless pattern, because I'm quote-mining and misrepresenting things, but if you knew nothing of Bjarki and icegoat, and were predisposed to thinking global warming skeptics were pedophiles....
 
Last edited:

Wade8813

Registered Member
#6
From icegoat63 (being with young girls):

Consider that along with:

A pattern is emerging. A meaningless pattern, because I'm quote-mining and misrepresenting things, but if you knew nothing of Bjarki and icegoat, and were predisposed to thinking global warming skeptics were pedophiles....
On the flip side, ignoring their statements entirely seems like a bad idea too. Especially if they're being confirmed as legit.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#7
Wade8813 said:
On the flip side, ignoring their statements entirely seems like a bad idea too. Especially if they're being confirmed as legit.
Which is why people should read the original set of documents in their entirety, or at least skim them. I understand they are not damning at all, but rather boring and technical on the main, but I haven't read them so I don't know.
 

Bjarki

Registered Member
#8
Which is why people should read the original set of documents in their entirety, or at least skim them.
If you do it first! :lick:

I understand they are not damning at all, but rather boring and technical on the main, but I haven't read them so I don't know.
Thought so :lol:

Anyway, I didn't include an 'interpretation' for nothing.. :rolleyes:
Sure my knowledge of the discussions that take place between the advocates of global warming is limited.. and so is the knowledge of the general public. What these e-mails tell me is something I already knew before: that these scientists are 'stimulated' to correspond a certain message to the general public and in the proces leave out any details that speak against it.
Charts and figures are manipulated (which is common practice in any science) and those who disagree are called idiots (which is also common practice in academic circles), the only thing that bothers me is that these men feel that only they have the right to voice their opinion on the matter and that the public only needs to hear their version of global warming..

Against the background of so much pressure, and the felt importance of their mission, is it not reasonable to question their ability to remain objective?
To me it seems they are spending more time fixing 'inaccurate' date than searching for new theories to explain for them. If the past decade has learned anything it is that climate cannot be predicted and that the original global warming doom-scenarios are outdated and need serious readjustment to explain the recent cooling. And yet the only thing they do is create more panic by sending signals to the world predicting the disappearance of all ice on earth, water level rises of dozens of metres, weekly returning natural catastrophes, etc etc. Getting people to take action has become more important than presenting the public with a fair and balanced view.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#9
Bjarki said:
the only thing that bothers me is that these men feel that only they have the right to voice their opinion on the matter and that the public only needs to hear their version of global warming..
They did the research! The media should not give equal time to people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about. This wishy-washy, "you have to present both sides" bullshit that's overtaken society is absurd. The media should be presenting the facts, and a good way to get those is to go to the experts. Who are the experts on the climate? Not Joe I-Have-An-Opinion, but climatologists. If someone who disagrees with them wants to be taken seriously, then they should take the measurements, run the experiments, do the calculations, and read the literature: they should become experts on the climate AKA climatologists.

Someone who studies and researches something knows more about it than someone who does not, and their opinion on the topic is thus far more likely to be correct. Nobody should just automatically defer to such authority without question, but since the media isn't about to give everyone a college educations worth of knowledge about the climate, they damn well should. Yeah, people would rather hear someone say whatever they already believe or want to believe, and we've been spoiled rotten with it to the point where we don't want to be taught anything if it might risk upsetting our delicate beliefs. So we say that we have to be told both sides of an issue, unless we're just listening to some shmuck know-nothing's opinion, and then balance doesn't matter because we can just dismiss him as the schmuck he is. So at the end of the day the schmucks end up shouting the loudest, so they shape the public discourse, and really, fuck them.

So my point is: fuck the schmucks and up with the experts on matters of fact. And this is coming from a schmuck!
 
Last edited:

Bjarki

Registered Member
#10
They did the research! The media should not give equal time to people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about. This wishy-washy, "you have to present both sides" bullshit that's overtaken society is absurd. The media should be presenting the facts, and a good way to get those is to go to the experts. Who are the experts on the climate? Not Joe I-Have-An-Opinion, but climatologists. If someone who disagrees with them wants to be taken seriously, then they should take the measurements, run the experiments, do the calculations, and read the literature: they should become experts on the climate AKA climatologists.

Someone who studies and researches something knows more about it than someone who does not, and their opinion on the topic is thus far more likely to be correct. Nobody should just automatically defer to such authority without question, but since the media isn't about to give everyone a college educations worth of knowledge about the climate, they damn well should. Yeah, people would rather hear someone say whatever they already believe or want to believe, and we've been spoiled rotten with it to the point where we don't want to be taught anything if it might risk upsetting our delicate beliefs. So we say that we have to be told both sides of an issue, unless we're just listening to some shmuck know-nothing's opinion, and then balance doesn't matter because we can just dismiss him as the schmuck he is. So at the end of the day the schmucks end up shouting the loudest, so they shape the public discourse, and really, fuck them.

So my point is: fuck the schmucks and up with the experts on matters of fact. And this is coming from a schmuck!
There is nothing like 'the opinion' of 'the experts'. There are merely opinions and scientists. There's isn't just one opinion among climatologists, there are many, and yes, they are all equally scientific.
It's a lie that climatologists all agree on the subject and that the only skepticism comes from 911-'the-truth-is-out-there'-conspirancy believers..

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YouTube - Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

Btw, also worth viewing, the leader of greenpeace talking about 'emotionalizing' scientific facts.
YouTube - Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration