Safe Speed Forums

The material was taken from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – a world-renowned climate change research centre – before it was published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

It has been claimed that the emails show that scientists manipulated data to bolster their argument that global warming is genuine and is being caused by human actions.

One email seized upon by sceptics as supposed evidence of this, refers to a “trick” being employed to massage temperature statistics to “hide the decline”.

The university yesterday confirmed that research data had been stolen and published online and said it had reported the security breach to police.

A spokesman said: “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.

“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine.

“This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry."

The files were apparently first uploaded on to a Russian server and then mirrored across the internet.

An anonymous statement accompanying the emails said: “We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”

One of the emails under scrutiny, dated November 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Scientists who are alleged to be the authors of the emails in question have declined to comment on the matter.

From: Phil Jones

To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX

Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

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 XXXX

However, these principles are a
first step to using sophisticated
behaviour change modelling and
comprehensive evidence from
around the world to change
attitudes towards climate change.
We need to think radically, and
the Rules of the Game are a sign
that future campaigns will not be
‘business as usual’. This is a truly
exciting moment.

Now all my life ,I've had a Shoemaker for a dad . He'd had sypathy for Cobblers as not knowing how /not being trained to do his trade properly .On AGW he had several choice words after 80+ years on earth , mostly about seing changes recurring -i.e he'd seen the summers get hot /winters cold and summers mild with mild winters over his life .As had his dad who'd seen similar changes .Can't ask him any questions now as he passed away over a year ago , but his recolection of weather was that it always averaged out .

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

From: Phil ***** To: ****@xxx.edu

Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA

Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005

Cc: “raymond s. ” , “Malcolm ”

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !

Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis ***** is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
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!

My question to you is - why, when it comes to deciding whether the climate is changing, would you use the uncertain memory of one old man (and his memory of another old man) rather than the very reliable written records which exist? Are you concerned that the written record has been tampered with in recent times?

My question to you is - why, when it comes to deciding whether the climate is changing, would you use the uncertain memory of one old man (and his memory of another old man) rather than the very reliable written records which exist? Are you concerned that the written record has been tampered with in recent times?

Sorry -mate - had you met him -even aged 85 ,before his stroke ,you'd have agreed that his memory was not ,as you put it "uncertain " - he was a very concise old man ,with a very logical mind .This is the problem that exists in the UK- people like you using questional data to ridicule the recollections of an older generation's memories .

Christopher Booker in the Mail today. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... hange.html

all those other scares which have raced in and out of the headlines in recent decades, such as the 'Millennium Bug', which at midnight on December 31, 1999, was going to crash the world's computers