Hackede CRU-mails

Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
Og P.S.: At ekstra CO2 alene ikke vil fremme havenes plantevækst er altså ikke bare min "mening" eller noget, jeg finder på - det er ret alment anerkendt. Når man foreslår at gøde med jern for at stimulere algevæksten visse steder, er det netop fordi, man har målt sig frem til, at jern er den knappeste (=begrænsende) faktor her.

Q. Did you ever receive a request by either Michael Mann or any others to delete any emails?
A. I did receive that email. That's the last one on your list here. I did receive that.
Q. So, how did you actually come about receiving that? Did you actually just — he just forward the — Michael Mann — and it was Michael Mann I guess?
A. Yes

Q. — That you received the email from?
A. Correct ...

A. To my knowledge, I just received a forward from him.
Q. And what were the actions that you took?
A. Well, to the best of my recollection, I did delete the emails.
Q. So, did you find the request unusual, that they were — that the request — that you were being requested to delete such emails?
A. Well, I had never received one like it. In that sense, it was unusual.
Q. I guess if the exchange of comments and your review was appropriate, I guess what I'm just trying to understand why you'd be ask to delete the emails after the fact, at the time that they're — it appears that the CRU is receiving FOIA requests
A. Yeah. I had no knowledge of anything like that. But that's what they were — where they were coming from. And so, you'd have to ask Keith Briffa that. I don't know what was in his mind.

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones' request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.

FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.proprintf,1,'Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season'
printf,1,'(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).'
printf,1,'Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.'
printf,1
printf,1,'NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY'
printf,1,'REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values'
printf,1,'will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,'
printf,1,'which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful'
printf,1,'than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).'

FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.proprintf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'

"I'm sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction"."

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

"... I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
"

" I've discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data."

What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.

He's skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
thinks the "right" answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.

Der kommer nok lidt mere info.... !

The discouraging part is that, to this day, not a person among them has admitted that they did anything incorrect in the slightest. Not one has acknowledged that they went a ways, not just a little ways, but a long ways over the line of ethics, morality, and honesty. No one has said they did a single thing wrong, no one has admitted they evaded an honest FOI request. Silence.

And silence, unfortunately, has also been the overwhelming response of the climate science community to their misdeeds. The miscreants say nothing, their supporters say nothing, they keep awarding each other honors and prizes, and they hope it will go away.

Ah, well. The saddest part is that the new revelations of the unthinking, off-hand venality of these main scientists of the AGW movement have lost their power to shock. That is a tragedy for climate science in particular and for science in general

In short, the problem is that I cannot find data supporting the temperature curves in IPCC and also published in e.g. Forster, P. et al. 2007: Assessing uncertainty in climate simulation. Nature 4: 63-64.
In attempts to reconstruct the temperature I find an increase from the early 1900s to ca 1935, a trend down until the mid 1970s and so another increase to about the same temperature level as in the late 1930s. A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940 is reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible human influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase above the late 1930s.

[...] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.

date: Wed Dec 3 13:31:06 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB

"

Dave,
Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn't pay the £10 we don't have to respond?

With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have
virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.
There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I'm not wasting my time
going through these.

Cheers
Phil

I too don't see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we're choosing the periods to show warming.

My guess is that anything that the 4 of us all can find consensus on, is
probably a good reflection of what the consensus is within the leaders
in this field, and you could certaintly use that as ammunition in your
deliberations with Peck and Susan...

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry
for the delayed response.
I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of
climate change.
In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air
temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we
analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there
might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses
are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990
period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations
used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be
more representative for the baseline change.
We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent
our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air
temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are
going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome.
As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his
group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the
past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his
center. The datasets we used are also from his center.
I'd be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a
co-author because my contribution would be rather minor.

Best regards,

Guoyu

Her lidt modspil fra Kinesiske forskere til Phil Jones mht UHI.
Deres resultater var ikke noget IPCC ville bruge til AR4... surprise..!

>The Beryllium record qualitatively compares well with the ALL forcing run.
>
>Perhaps I am missing something here, but from this comparison, it seems to
>be that most of the long term variability in the ALL run can be explained
>solely by the Beryllium record.
>
>I am not sure if this particular Be record was used for ECHO-G, but if we
>believe the Be record (probably debatable!), then it seems to me that the
>sun's activity can explain most of the NH temperature variability. CO2 and
>other greenhouse gases would therefore have a weaker influence.

Jeg kan rigtigt godt lide at man diskuterer så åbent hvad man observerer her, uanset hvad de så kom frem til.

"[Phil Jones] 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."

"As for your email, there was some press activity related to this skeptic [Timo Hämeranta?] below, but
managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything."

"While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn't see the light of the day at J. Climate, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is probably little that can be done here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL."

Taking the recent instrumental
record and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture,
with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking
strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields
a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures
are anomalous....
Unless the "divergence problem" can be confidently ascribed to some cause that
was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from
a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem
to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent
warmth is lowered.

I was just
looking at some of the recent Mann et al. papers, and at the
Osborn and Briffa paper from this year. In that one, as nearly as I can tell,
there are 14 long records, of which 2 extend to 2000, 8 end in the early to
mid 1990s, 1 in the early to mid 1980s, 2 in the early to mid 1970s, and one
in the late 1940s. That looks to be a pretty small data set by the time you
get into the strongest part of the instrumental warming. If some of the
records, or some other records such as Rosanne's new ones, show "divergence",
then I believe it casts doubt on the use of joined tree-ring/instrumental
records, and I don't believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is
wrong.

"
.. the 2003 GRL paper that is
probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in – Bradley
hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they
can contribute without just defending their past work – this is the
key to having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table
and don't start by assuming that ANY reconstruction is better than
any other.

...

So all I care about is how the recons
differ and where they differ most in frequency and time without any
direct consideration of their TRUE association with observed
temperatures.

"

Dear Dr. Jones:

You and I have been interacting, albeit at a distance, since I first asked you for your data some five years ago. I asked for your data in part because I was astounded by your answer to Warwick Hughes when he asked for the same data. You replied to Warwick at that time, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

I couldn't fathom that a leading climate scientist could actually believe that. Finding something wrong with other scientists' data and ideas is an integral part of how science progresses. This requires transparency and access to the data. I also couldn't believe that other climate scientists would let you get away with saying that, without some other scientist pointing out the anti-scientific nature of your denial...

"Mike, the figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC."

Hi Keith,

I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn't given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim [Osborn] I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all possible.

I'm scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom Carl and Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven't heard anything.

The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:

http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/8f6526d9731740728525663500684166/2dbbe64b5fe9981b8525710f007025b2?OpenDocument

So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider! Let me know if you'd like to chat over the phone at all about any of this. My cell phone number is 814-876-0485.

Mike

thanks for this but after a lot of soul searching this weekend , I have decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is intense – but the real reason is that I really think it could be politic to retreat into "neutral" mode, at least until after the IPCC. Report is out. I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics are starting to attack on this "non neutral" stance, and the less public I am at the moment the better I think. Hope you do not think I am a wimp here – just trying to go the way I think best.

best wishes
Keith

Hi Keith,

I'm pretty sure they're just asking for a neutral discussion of the science that you've done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). But I understand where you're coming from nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate? Any possibility Tim could do this instead? He's less intimately involved w/the paleo chapter of IPCC, so I think it might be less of a worry for him? Or Phil? Its your prerogative to suggest alternates, and I think
they'll take your suggestions very seriously. My greatest fear is that McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the legitimate scientists.Thanks,
mike

cc: "Lowe_Tom"
date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:07:05 +0100
from: "Mike Hulme"
subject: RE: is this an over the top article/reporting
to: "'Phil Jones'"

Oh dear, we're doomed, we're all doomed!

'Whipsaws' now join 'feedbacks', 'flips' and 'tipping points' in the Earth
science lexicon.
Hansen certainly uses the words 'peril', 'planetary rescue', etc. so it's
hard to blame Steve Connor, but what are we to make of all this? Does Jim
want us to stop sleeping at night?
Mike
—–Original Message—–
From: Phil Jones [mailto

.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 19 June 2007 16:49
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
Subject: is this an over the top article/reporting

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece

Mike,
I think I'd agree with you on this one.
PhilProf. Phil Jones

cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,
rbradley@geo.umass.edu
date: Thu, 06 May 1999 17:37:34 +0100
from: Phil Jones

subject: Straight to the Point
to: mann@snow.geo.umass.edu
Mike,
...

... Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us
think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term
decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale.

...

I can't think of a good ending, but hoping for a favourable
response, so we can still work together.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones

EVi har ikke set alt fra dannelsen af denne "uvilidige kommite, men jeg mener vi har set nok

from: Keith Briffa
subject: follow up as per Mike's comments earlier?
to: mann@virginia.edu,rbradley@geo.umass.edu,mann@virginia.edu,
mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu

We three have been discussing the weeks shenanigans and thought we should start the wider discussion on the concept and practical aspects of someone (perhaps us – perhaps not us) doing the "independent" audit of your 98 and/or 99 work.

"
date: Thu Nov 13 16:19:22 2008
from: Phil Jones

subject: Re: [Env.faculty] Global Environmental Change Projects
to: Claire Reeves

...
To almost all in government circles (including the US from Jan 20, 2009), the science is done and dusted. The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made."

date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: "Douglas Maraun"
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk

Dear colleagues,

I'd like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
coffee room:

"Climate science and the media"

After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast
number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them
greatly exaggerated.

...

Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss
the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the
way it should be.

In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all
deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the
public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how
this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:

-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and
are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not
especially honest.

-How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?

-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
..

See you later,
Douglas

Hi Mike,

in looking further afield than just my files, I see some other files that are no longer
needed. Please can you delete:
[1]ftp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/people/craigwallace/ folder and its content (an old word doc) as
I know these aren't needed any more.
I'd also guess that
[2]ftp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/people/davidviner/ folder and its contents can go (files all
dated >8 years ago).
Effie's folder is also empty.
mickkelly contains only holiday snaps!
Cheers
Tim
At 10:10 31/07/2009, you wrote:

Dear all,
After the recent problems with ClimateAudit, Phil has asked for all
unnecessary files to be purged from the FTP server.

You have a directory in /cru/ftp1/people. Please could you take a look
to see what files need to remain there?
If you would like assistance with this, let me know.
Please confirm by email when you've done it, so I can cross you off the
list.
thanks
Mike

"... but I also think the science
> >is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes
> >might not be too clever in the long run."

>Regarding the phrase 'IPCC position'? Would it be wise to check that
>McCarthy /Watson have the same understanding as we do.

[TC] You could try, but it has been tricky getting anyone to make
statements about anything. It seems that a few people have a very strong
say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions
are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:24:43 -0600 (MDT)
from: wigley@ucar.edu
subject: [Fwd: CCNet: "COLLAPSE TO NEAR ZERO?" EUROPE'S CARBON CREDITS
MAY
to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Keith,
See the last item. Why don't you just give these people the raw data?
Are you hiding something — your apparent refusal to be forthcoming sure
makes it look as though you are.
Tom.

>> Conclusions:
>>
>> 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented
>> detailed, critical and helpful evaluations
>>
>> 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested
>> appropriate revisions.
>>
>> 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Otto Kinne
>> Director, Inter-Research

"
Thanx — but not quite the end.
"

Thanks Mike
It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are disingenuous, and he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do.

It seems clear we have to go above him.

I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels–reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,
Thanks,
mike

date: Wed Apr 21 15:56:44 1999
from: Mike Hulme <???@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fast-track, CO2 and future worlds
...
Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can
therefore get away with anything.
....

So this is the situation as seen by me right now. I guess Solution 1 would
not pass decent Nature reviewers ...