Friday, November 20, 2009

Is the Hadley Climate Research Unit hack the straw that breaks Al Gore's back?




"We'll get these hackers and waterboard 'em."



Maybe too late Al.



Megaupload has the 'stolen' files. I just downloaded them. Better get them before they disappear although it appears they are being mirrored widely across the net.

It will take an effort to go through them all to find all the 'good stuff' but I'd say there will be many who will in the coming days.


From the Examiner....
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. 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).

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. {more}

From gather....
If these emails prove authentic (which it appears many do), this is a scandal on the scale of The Pentagon Papers.

Here are several of the published emails:

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 Dr. 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 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, hen 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.
Where ever you stand on the climate debate, I hope we can agree that this is a wake-up call. The climate issue is too important to tolerate the lack of transparency that characterizes the current way of doing business. {more}

Also see:
Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?


Damage control is already in effect...
see The CRU Hack at RealClimate

6 comments:

  1. Didn't the Club of Rome come up with the global warming/climate change scam back in the seventies? It will be the new religion that isn't new at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No Sympathy for the MassesNovember 20, 2009 at 8:58 PM

    Back then it was the ozone hole so cfc's and freon had to go. Do a search for global dimming it concerns me more than how much Al can make off the abstraction known as carbon credits. We are carbon based life forms how could we not leave a footprint. The masses having a three second attention span helps the freedom grabbers immensely.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another question...

    what ever happened to the info that Gore met with Ken Lay and started laying the groundwork for this scam back in '99?

    A congressman asked Gore about this meeting in one of the recent dog and pony shows in the House and Gore acted like he "couldn't remember" if Ken Lay helped him put this scam together or not.

    Do you guys know anything else about that?


    And thanks for putting this collection together Kenny. If you need some help going through the emails and such, let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know if there's any available documented evidence of the Gore-Lay connection. There's certainly a lot of talk about it.

    I looked through the emails until my eyes hurt. I'm not sure there are a lot of smoking guns other than what's already been reported. If you downloaded the files you can look for yourself but it's time consuming.

    Anything on MSM tv about this? I haven't seen a thing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, as a matter of fact.

    GE's "MSNBC" is spinning it up as we speak..

    I came here specifically to give you a heads up.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149/ns/us_news-washington_post

    From what I have seen so far, it doesn't look all that bad, but still, when you consider the ramifications of this "research" you have to view any dishonesty as a serious problem.

    ReplyDelete