Climate Change proponents emails and files hacked

[David Guyatt]

Thanks Sue.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-Co...and-emails

Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The FTP link first appeared on a blog called The Air Vent. The blog's owner, identified as "Jeff Id", downloaded the file, examined it, and posted a brief summary on his blog. Another commenter, identified as "Steven Mosher," passed the information on to Steven McIntyre's Climate Audit blog and to another blog, The Blackboard, run by a blogger identified as "Lucia." Most recently, blogger Anthony Watts, who runs a blog titled "Watts Up With That?" mentioned the FTP archive in his own blog.
Commentary on all the blogs involved has been brisk, except, oddly enough, at The Air Vent, where only seven comments have been received.
The FTP server is in a Russian domain and uses the anonymous FTP protocol, which does not require a pre-registered user account or password for downloading. The file is named FOI2009.zip, an apparent reference to US Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 383, the Freedom of Information Act.
Several commentators have expressed skepticism as to the authenticity of the archive, pointing to its lack of clear provenance and suggesting that someone was attempting to embarrass, either directly or indirectly, the dignitaries attending the upcoming climate-change conference in Copenhagen. Other commentators who have examined the e-mails in the archive conclude that the header and other information that they contain is too detailed to be a hoax. Thus far, no commentator has found anything in the e-mail headers that appears to be mistaken.
Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:
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.
The emphasis in the above quote was added.
Mr. Mosher offered this summary of the rest of the e-mails that he had found:
And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia[.] And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain.. you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy. [Y]ou get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect. I don’t know that its real.. But the CRU code looks real
John Daly (not to be confused with the professional golfer of the same name) is identified in one of the e-mails as a global-warming skeptic who died in January of 2004.
As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average subject/resident of the United Kingdom. The document suggests that it is a precis of a longer document housed at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Developing...
Update: The Russian FTP server administrator appears to have deleted the archive. The text of the link was: <http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip>
Activity on The Air Vent has picked up considerably since this story broke.
Further Update: Two other possessors of the file have uploaded it to two other file-sharing services: MegaUpload and FileDropper.
Further Update: A Pirate Bay torrent link is now available.
Also: The "72 documents" refers to 72 files and folders at the top level of a directory called "documents." In fact, reliable counts indicate at least 3485 documents present, not counting the e-mails.

[Helen Reyes]

Pirate Bay links:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/...OI2009.zip)
61.91 MB, 449 seeders

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5172307/..._-_FOI2009
61.93 MB, 26 (?) seeders

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5172267/...ok)_Format.
4.01 MB, 7 seeders

Interesting this follows right on the heels of Rush Limbaugh picking up the prisonplanet.com infowars.com story about Gore changing the cover of his book to include hurricanes and inundation. I think Rush got the story slightly wrong, he said one picture was the original NASA imaging and the other was Gore's photoshop. I read the article on infowars and it showed one book cover and the edited latest book cover. I'm sure both images were ultimately from NASA, but on infowars they were already being used as book covers.

Is there a pattern emerging? Is it a unified attack on AGW, or is it a dogged and determined process of discovering lies and coverups by proponents of AGW? I'll wait for the third shoe to drop, so to speak. Things are supposed to happen in threes.

UPDATE: the first torrent now has over 1000 seeders. I downloaded in minutes flat. Not much danger of this, but if it does disappear, I can upload it if someone needs it and can provide a place to put it (FTP, or I can rapidshare it I guess)

[Magda Hassan]

Thanks for posting about this David, Helen and Susan :wavey:
There sure is a lot of politics and money behind all of global warming whether skeptical of it or accepting of it. It is a good example of divisions within the ruling classes but regardless of those divisions everyone wants to come out ahead wrt money and power. It seems that the initial upload and possibly hack was Russian. FWIW. That alone has a multitude of possibilities.

I've noticed there are more stories (which I have posted here) on the origin of oil being bacterial and not necessary from fossils. Therefore with the potential for it to be manufactured. No more peak oil.

I do think that there is such a thing as man made global warming and even if there isn't we can do no harm, environmentally, to move to a zero emmission culture. One only has to see the retreat of the glaciers and snow falls over London over the years of industrialization and the rising waters in some of the Pacific islands. Nevertheless I am not much of a fan of Al Gore. He is a charming and intelligent man according to friends who have met him and my own copy of 'An Inconvient Truth' comes from his own hand, but his share portfolio is/was allegedly heavy with petro-chemical industry investments and other decidedly non-green stuff. And I never could understand his capitulation to Bush in 2000.

In any case, all of the debate needs to be open and public. No secrets. Why should there ever be?

[Jan Klimkowski]

Man-made global warming is clearly a highly political issue.

Once Al Gore, an absolute establishment insider who'd never uttered an original thought or appeared to be motivated solely by moral conviction in his entire political career, became the defacto "leader" of the green movement, my assumption was that the eiltes wanted the option of being able to coopt and subvert the science according to their needs.

In my judgement, the positioning of Gore through that flawed documentary offers the elites the following options:

i) man-made global warming can be used as a stick to further elite geopolitical interests - eg by refusing to allow developing countries to become economic competitors and by pushing through unpopular but lucrative technologies, such as nuclear power;

ii) the green movement can be subverted so that ordinary people have to "make sacrifices" (eg pay much more for their energy), whilst the "radical" envirnomental agenda targetting elite profits in activities such as aviation, logging, industrial pollution, etc can be marginallized;

iii) if events prove that man-made global warming is about to run out of control much sooner than the science predicts, then They already have their pointsman in charge of the "popular movement" in Al Gore Jr.

The emails which, on a balance of probabilities, may well be genuine, show that the science is still very unclear.

However, trying to understand events on a major life-bearing planet in a sizeable solar system, to measure Gaia in time and space with the equivalent of a ruler and pencil, is near impossible. There are so many variables which need to be measured and modelled that the science will probably be speculative and controversial for centuries or millenia.

It is entirely possible that severe environmental events will overtake contemporary scientific knowledge, rendering it irrelevant.

In the interim, it will be intriguing to see the uses made of that science by the elites.

[Helen Reyes]

I believed it. The theory seemed reasonable before, say, in the 1980s, then we started seeing real changes in climate and there was this theory to explain it. The media did a good job at presenting it as "the whole world scientific community believes this is happening but the US is dragging its feet because of oil money."

I didn't bother to look at the science. Even when Michael Crichton in his famous interview on BBC said "show me the evidence," it didn't click for me. Not that I'm even a small fan of his writing, but his words were right, science has to base itself on empirical evidence.

When I finally got around to looking into it, all I found was computer modeling of climate. This is akin to, but less accurate than, using tarot cards to predict climate change. It is inherently subjective, especially since the people involved are not disinterested and climate is so little understood. Heck, fluid dynamics is little understood even now.

What I did find was a plausible explanation for climate change in the late 80s till now based on solar radiation flux. I also found that the temperature variations we had experienced were very mild compared to the geological record. I did not find any sea-level rising (although I might not be looking in the right places) or really extraordinary changes in glaciers or icecaps, no real attrition of the Greenland or Antarctic icecaps.

And then I had to look at the politics and furore surrounding it all. Using AGW as a control mechanism, as an economic austerity program, as a wealth-transfer vehicle. Is there something more to it? I don't know. I had a nightmare once about the world going dark, and global warming seems much preferable to global cooling, as a general rule.

AGW also provides a pretext for geopathology experiments under guise of terraforming to engineer an antidote to AGW. I mean chemtrails. How spreading barium isotope salts and aluminium in the upper air serves the interests of life, I can't for the life of me see.

Then there's the issue of hypocrisy. Gore, the oilman, having lakes artificially filled during droughts so he can have a photo-op in a canoe etc. HAARP superheating the ionosphere. the US military's "carbon footprint." Reducing carbon emissions isn't harmless if it means ruining the economic prospects of underdeveloped countries and accelarting the deindustrialization of the United States.

Those are my thoughts on it these days, recognizing that I was duped by smoke and mirrors masquerading as science, and that I am just as dupable now.

[Gary McGowan]

Interesting and worthwhile comments from varying points of view at this scientist's blog.

.

[Peter Lemkin]

I have a doctorate in Environmental Science and teach it at a University here. The current climatic and other changes to Earth's environment are all due to anthropogenic-induced changes - get over it! We are a plague [literally] on the planet. 7 billion - soon to be between 10-14 billion and destroying our home, 'fouling our bed'. There are many powerful interests who fund 'questioning' and others who can't face the horror [denial]. This is the worst potential/likely catastrophic disaster for humans and many other species in the last few hundred thousand years - and the effects are upon us and will now come at break-neck speeds. Katrina and the ever-growing strength and number of storms are just a taste of what is to come. Most Environmental Scientists now believe we are beyond the tipping point and only disaster can occur...we now have only the choice of how bad the disaster and how long we wait to prepare to ameliorate it, best we can. It is NOT just climate change that is the issue. Humans are out of control and 'sadly' religion and lack of contact with Nature has made humans feel that all is as it should be. I personally feel the deep political 'shit' is motivated by the same hubris, greed, lack of natural values, and denial as are the ecological 'shit' we face. Your children and grandchildren will not look kindly on our generation who sit on their asses and do nothing - some trying to claim it is due to natural cycles of climate change - not true - and a zero percent explanation of all the other environmental assaults this arrogant species has burdened Gaia and all its living things [as well as humankind] with - to the point of facing catastrophe and mass die-offs [non-human and human!] The Native Americans called this coming disaster correctly back in the 1600's! when they saw the values [or lack thereof of] the European invaders - totally out of touch with Nature and natural philosophy. See the threads on Erik Jensen for where we stand and what we must do [destroy civilization to save human kind and Gaia]. The hour is much too late and we are screwed and to die a horrible death as a species [taking along many of the innocent other species] unless we do an immediate and radical 180! :mad:

[Gary McGowan]

With respect, Peter: We disagree. I hold not much in the way of credentials in anything, but I have put a great deal of effort in my 63 years into trying to figure out what in hell is going on--this most especially after I noticed a number of significant leaders (I'm American) were being assassinated, the official investigations were blatant whitewashes or muddying of the waters, and that most everybody seemed to be running around as if hypnotized, playing games related to "money" when they weren't watching TV. I feel as if I have been witnessing a very slow-motion tragedy of death and maiming and worse for the past 40 years, and it's not good.

But because we disagree is no reason not to try to communicate with one another. To that end, may I inquire in all sincerity: When you look at such as the following report, where do you think the author is coming from? Do you regard it as intentional propaganda, misinformed science, or what?

CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time [/FONT]
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., PhD, D.Sc. PDF file[/FONT]


This seems a good place to mention, though I don't see it as related to my question above, that the exposure of the climate change hoaxers at Britain's Climatic Research Unit doesn’t disprove claims of anthropogenic global warming and potential catastrophe therefrom one way or the other. It certainly exposes something well-worth examining, but it’s not science.

[Gary McGowan]

The following statement by Lord Christopher Monckton appeared yesterday on the website, ClimateDepot, run by Mark Moranao, former aide to U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Lord Monckton's anti-fascist credentials are well-established, his grandfather having served as the lead solicitor in the 1936 removal of Hitler-admirer King Edward VIII.] by Christopher Monckton



November 23, 2009
This is what they did—-these climate "scientists" on whose unsupported word the world's classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.


The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the "global warming" fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world's four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years—and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.


Worse, these arrogant fraudsters—for fraudsters are what we now know them to be—have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset—the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.



Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and global warming profiteers—for that is what they are—have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists—they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.



I am angry, and so should you be.



What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.



No, they're not. They're criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK's Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute. But I won't be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.



At our expense, and at the expense of the truth.
.

[Helen Reyes]

Peter paints a desperate situation with all those hurricanes. Reminds me of the event that buried all those mammoths in Siberia 10,000 years ago or so, with undigested buttercups still in the stomachs of those not torn limb from limb.

This might be too fine a point for MSM to bother with, but Hadley CRU did not fudge the science, becaue they weren't doing science. They were running computer simulations.

From what I can tell, this is the best "science" IPCC can come up with, simulations and secret and/or lost datasets. This doesn't destroy the foundations of climatic science in any way, but it is very revealing on AGW. We already knew about this UN political body's false "scientific" consensus on AGW. Now we have access to a bunch of documents which seem to indicate plain fraud, an attempt to provide a scientific basis for what amounts to a cherished belief. With trillions of dollars expected to come of it among the powerbrokers.

The AGW theory has been disproved: carbon dioxide is still rising, but temperature isn't. The main hypothesis is untenable. CO2 as a trace gas in the atmosphere was never even a very good candidate for AGW. Water vapor and methane carry heat a lot better.

Luckily for the climatic terrorists, there is plenty of natural climate change afoot, as ever, and any number of disaster scenarios with which to titilate and scare funding out of the somnambulent public.

A point on the current leaked documents: a BBC meteorologist allegedly claimed they were genuine because he received the same set over a month ago. This cannot be true, because the batch I got has letters from around November 15, 2009. Either the BBC meteorologist is lying, or he never said any such thing. The claim seems designed to foster the idea they were leaked from inside rather than hacked, maybe to make them admissible in some court. I assume they're admissible anyway, they all seem to be emails and documents made during worktime at public expense.

I'm not sure why environmentalists engage in neo-Greek to rename the Earth, either. Maybe it sounds more scientific? I understand the "Gaia hypothesis" is nothing more than panspermia or animism, religion under guise of "hypothesis."

Gaea, Gaia or Ge
Greek myth. the goddess of the earth, who bore Uranus and by him Oceanus, Cronus and the Titans[from Greek gaia earth]