I have been saying all along that the Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the planet, it’s politics. You can now read in black and white from one of the official promoters of this hysteria – East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and their Hadley CRU temperature series.
Read and be horrified of the state of officially sectioned “science” today. This is the truth behind this official hypocrisy and the lies they deliberately have been feeding us.
Feel free to go through all my posts and read it in the revelation of this “news”.
You can find all the emails and documents here:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php
ClimateGate – Climate center’s server hacked revealing documents and emails
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate–Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner
November 20, 7:27 AM
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.
File download: The archive is available on FileDropper.com here
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.
RealClimate, a website on which many of the scientists in the emails actively write has posted a response and does not deny their authenticity.
According to TIGF, a New Zealand new magazine, “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.”
A spokesman for the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) told the BBC, “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.”
Wired reports that Kevin Trenberth from NCAR “acknowledged the e-mail is genuine.”
Nature reports quotes Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University as saying, ”I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails.”
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.
On the net:
Tom Nelson: Hadley hacked: Roundup with updates and hundreds of comments
Herald-Sun (Australia): Hadley hacked: warmist conspiracy exposed?
the Air Vent: Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold
Watts Up With That? :Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released
Gore Lied: From the hacked Hadley CRU files: IPCC lead author’s private admission: ‘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.’
Climate Audit: CRU Correspondence
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
ClimateGate emails provide unwanted scrutiny of climate scientists
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d21-ClimateGate-emails-provide-unwanted-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists
November 21, 10:22 AM
As the contents of a hacked climate change unit’s server in Britain were exposed on the Internet Friday, the event had some of the scientists involved scrambling to explain their emails and skeptics believing they had found a smoking gun. On the surface, the emails seem to indicate scientists modified data to fit the anthropogenic global warming theory, tried to silence dissenting opinions and reflect a concerted effort to restrict access to climate data possibly by deleting it.
The emails and documents were illegally obtained from a server at Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia and then posted to a Russian server. From there, the file and its contents spread like wildfire across the Internet. Inside are over 1,000 emails and dozens of documents that detail private correspondence among some of the world’s top climate scientists.
A spokesman for the university 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.” Law enforcement is involved and is trying to track down the person responsible for leaking the emails. Speculation is high that it was an ‘inside job’ as the contents were all targeted toward the science and debate about manmade climate change.
ClimateGate – Climate center’s server hacked revealing documents and emails
Al Gore fuels climate change skeptics with cover of new book
Skeptics of the manmade climate change theory quickly poured over the messages and pointed to what the Australian Herald-Sun called “a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.” The emails point to a number of questionable actions by the scientists including the modification of data, destruction of data and evidence, collusion, admissions of errors in data and resistance to having their analysis scrutinized by outsiders.
Emails from Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit, are arguably the most controversial. In multiple messages the director discusses his resistance to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests even alluding to destroying data rather than sharing it. In one message he says, “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” Jones apparently considered ways to stymie or limit FOIA requests by “removing station data” and “omit some other countries” because “it would annoy them [those requesting the data].”
Jones also exhorts his colleagues to delete email discussions saying in an email to Michael Mann, “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.”
The scientists also apparently struggled to account for the cooling the earth has seen over the last 10 years. One scientist, Mick Kelly, discussed giving a presentation and rather than include the cooling he said, “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.”
Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), was particularly frustrated by computer models that failed to predict the cooling. He said, “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.”
The scientists also did not approve of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its choices allowing opposing views to be heard. The group’s trade publication, Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) was targeted by Michael Mann as he wrote, “I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore.” He however acknowledged the publication’s importance saying, “We can’t afford to lose GRL.”
Mann seemed particularly concerned about a ‘contrarian’ with the name Saiers, presumably James Saiers of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences [where Saiers completed his PhD] that causes m some unease,” Mann wrote.
Tom Wigley, a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at NCAR, felt though that they could deal with Saiers by getting him removed from the AGU. “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.”
Some have questioned the authenticity of the emails and documents with the university saying, “Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.” Realclimate.org, a website that oftentimes serves as a publicist for many of the scientists, said the messages were ‘possibly edited’ but was unable to cite any examples where that may have occurred.
None of the scientists whose emails were exposed have disputed the contents within the archive. Jones, did not dispute the authenticity of the messages in an interview with TGIF Edition. Kevin Trenberth told Wired that “the email is genuine.” Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University said, ”I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails.” Considering the incendiary nature of the emails one would expect those involved would have pointed out any messages that were illegitimate.
The discussion about climate change is at a fevered pitch and these emails and documents will likely damage the cause of those seeking to advance the manmade climate change theory. Those who doubt the theory have had great success this year in getting their voices heard and have been able to demonstrate that the ‘consensus’ in the scientific community on climate change is anything but.
The timing of their release is fortuitous for the skeptics as the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is set to begin next month. Hopes for a treaty from the conference had already been dashed with the UN willing to settle for a ‘political agreement’ rather than a binding agreement. The messages also could damage President Barack Obama’s hope for cap and trade legislation, something that has already come under fire.
On the net:
Searchable database of the CRU emails
ClimateDepot – Updated page of sources about ClimateGate
Climate Audit - CRU Correspondence
Tom Nelson - Hadley hacked: Roundup with updates and hundreds of comments
the Air Vent - Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold
Watts Up With That? - Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released
Herald-Sun - The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones#63704
The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones
Andrew Bolt
Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 12:19pm
These are the emails that should have Professor Phil Jones most worried about his future.
Jones, head of the CRU unit whose emails were leaked, has been under most fire so far over one email in particular in which he boasted of using a ‘“trick” to “hide the decline” that would have otherwise spoiled his graph showing temperatures soaring ever-upward.
But far more serious – at least in a legal sense – may be his apparent boasting of destroying data to stop sceptics from checking this alarmist work. If, as some emails suggest, he destroyed it to thwart FOI requests from Professor Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, who’d already exposed as fake the Michael Mann “hockey stick”, Jones, one of the most active of the IPCC lead authors, could even face criminal charges.
(Note: in saying that, I should add that these emails may simply be poorly worded, out of context or even altered by the whistleblower who leaked them. Jones may also not knowingly have done anything wrong, and there is no proof that he did anything against the law. UPDATE: Several updates on Jones below, including his “selfish” wish to see global warming “regardless of the consequences” just to be proved right.)
Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by anyone not of their “team”. No wonder, perhaps, when the documents reveal Jones has so far attracted $25 million in grants.)
The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
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 !
Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre – or anyone:
From: Phil Jones
To: santer1@XXXX
Subject: Re: A quick question
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008
Ben,
Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails - unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!
Makes you wonder very strongly what Jones is trying to hide, doesn’t it? Also makes you laugh all over again at his claim once that the data being sought had, sadly, been … um, lost.
In1212063122.txtm, Jones urges another colleague, Michael “Hockey Stick”, Mann, to join in the deleting – at least of emails about the IPCC’s controversial ARA report on man-made warming which Jones co-authored, and which claimed warming was “unequivocal” and “most likely” caused by humans:
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil:
For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics:
From: Phil Jones To: mann@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. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
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 Zwiers 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 !
And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he considers ways to may checking it more difficult or annoying:
Options appear to be:
Send them the data
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.
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.
But Jones figures a way out:
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
UPDATE
More from Don’t-Disclose Phil, who seems to have a like-minded acolyte in Melbourne’s own Bureau of Meterology warmist David Jones:
Email 1182255717.txt
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit
.2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil
Wow. Which sites may they be? And what does it say of David Jones that the reading of a single website renders you a non-person, whose inquiries must invariably be disregarded?
UPDATE 2
How impartial a scientist is Phil Jones? How open to evidence that he may be wrong? Gather from this confession to John Christy:
…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil
How typical for Jones to confuse “science” with “hypothesis”.
UPDATE 3
The attempts to stop the publication of papers by sceptics such as Chris de Freitas and Roger Pielke (sr?) are astonishing. This is how the image of consensus was forged – in both senses of the word: From Phil Jones to Michael
Mann, dated July 8, 2004:
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
The trouble is the so many climate scientists and institutions are implicated in these emails, or are connected to those involved, that who is left in the scientific community to hold Jones and his mates to account? Who has even the will to strike against a high priest of the warming faith?
Yet from the reaction even at RealClimate, it seems even the faithful must now hold their nose.
UPDATE 4
It seems that Phil Jones’ request to his colleagues to delete emails followed an FOI request not from Steve McIntyre but from engineer David Holland. The following time-line (from Bishop Hill) of Holland’s FOI requests to Keith Briffa, a lead author of the IPCC’s key chapter 6 of ARA4, is especially damning:
May 5 – FOI request
May 6 – CRU Acknowledgement
June 3 – CRU Refusal Notice
June 4 – Holland Appeal
June 20 – CRU Rejection of Appeal
Fom the May 5 FOI request to the CRU, which employs Briffa:
Dear Mr Palmer,
Request for Information concerning the IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process
Drs Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn of your Climatic Research Unit served as lead authors on the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which by international agreement was required to be undertaken on an comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis.1 On 31 March 2008, I asked Dr Briffa for important specific information, not so far released, on his work as a lead author to which I have had no reply or acknowledgement, but have, through other FoI enquiries, been given a copy of his email dated 1 April 2008, to several other IPCC participants including Dr Philip Jones, and to which my letter was attached. He told his colleagues his response to me would be brief when he got round to it. Also included in the documents released to me is an email dated 14 March 2008 to Dr Briffa, among others, from Susan Solomon, Co-Chair of WGI, advising the addressees not to disclose information beyond that (which I consider inadequate) already in the public domain.
Accordingly, I hereby request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004:
But here, again, is CRU boss Phil Jones, just three weeks after David Holland’s FOI request:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
UPDATE 5
No to disclosure to non-friends!:
From: Phil Jones
To: santer, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –
Ain’t peer reivew grand? You only get to be checked by the people you know will agree.
Incidentally, where in FOI legislation does it say man-made warming sceptics are banned from using it?
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>
See also
