So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

[c1ue]

Hadley center computer hacked; many private emails all over internet.

Some embarrassing excerpts:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/ha...rence+frame%29

Tax evasion and money laundering:

That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money

Manipulation of data to get desired results:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

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

From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research

And tricks on how to avoid FOI requests (no example given).

And tips of stacking the peer review process.

No doubt more juicy stuff to come...

The hacking has been confirmed also - this appears to all be real.

[c1ue]

More good stuff...

Does this look like objective science to you?

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
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 theland 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”.
Why is it important? Because over the course of the 20th century the 40's blip leading into the cooling 50's 60's and 70's is a screaming refutation of co2 as a climate driver.
And I think newspapers will be able to explain that to your average Jerry Springer viewer. Unfortunately for Phil and Tom.

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

The 'stacking the peer review' email:

From: P
To: “M
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
M,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. [snip out of kindness] be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing A over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
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. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! [names removed because I'm giving quarter until legal advice arrives]
Cheers
P
M,
[Snipped again out of kindness. This section had to do with personal feelings and friendships regarding a paper which probably didn't tow the line.]

I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
P
Prof. P

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

And some links to IPCC as well. Good to know papers are being reviewed specifically in order to include into IPCC work when the transgressor explicitly notes the circular nature.

Now to your email. I have seen the latest Mears and Wentz paper (to Science), but am not reviewing it, thank goodness. I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to my usual standards.

[WildspitzE]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

wow. nice.

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

More good stuff: avoidance of FOI, deleting of material

From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxx
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 !

[jiimbergin]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

wow. nice.

Yes, very nice but very very sad also that science can come to this:eek:

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

Medieval Warming Period containment - from Michael Mann of hockey stick fame-dom

Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back

Kevin Trenberth - another IPCC lead author

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
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

Excerpt from "Rulesofthegame.pdf" - a primer on spreading the AGW message:

a new way of thinking
Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:

5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.

6. Use both peripheral and central processing Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.

7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.

8. Use transmitters and social learning People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.

9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.

Again, seems odd for scientists to be following PR/Marketing directives...

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

RealClimate comment management:

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go
there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in 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.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…

mike

More peer review gaming...

#1047388489
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
#1047390562
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
#1051156418
“This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on)…. deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).”
#1051190249
“Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.”
#1051230500
“Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications? – and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do make their way through the peer review process?”

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

More data modification?

From: Phil J*nes
To: Gil C*mpo
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data – One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series. This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away from the ocean
….
One final thing – don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may be down to SST issues.

Once again thanks for these! Hoping you’ll send me a Christmas Present of the draft!

Cheers

Phil

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

More good stuff...

From: “Tim Osborn”
To: I.Harris
Subject: cruts tmp to 2008
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:19:58 +0100 (BST)
Hi Harry,
finally had time to take a look at the latest cruts3 run through to 2008
for tmp, picked up from /cru/cruts/
…
So:
(1) hot spikes have been corrected.
(2) cold spikes still there.
(3) some odd differences in mean level.
Progress!
Tim

[aaron]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

Got more?

What a bunch of bozos! Don't they know email lasts forever!?

They do give the impression of activism, don't they? But, the other thousand email exchanges might not give such an impression.

I want to read more.

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

Got more?

What a bunch of bozos! Don't they know email lasts forever!?

They do give the impression of activism, don't they? But, the other thousand email exchanges might not give such an impression.

I want to read more.

I would not want to encourage illegal activity by providing you with a link to the entire archive - and indeed have not downloaded it myself. All of the above are from already published accounts or comments from others.

But the story is on www.wattsupwiththat.com and I'd suggest you read the comments.

From what I've seen, there are all manner of emails - many of which are quite mundane.

[tastymannatees]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

Maybe time to sell those global warming stocks:rolleyes:

[we_are_toast]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

So the denialists who can't make a scientific argument and who constantly lie, take things out of context, and deliberately misinterpret information in order to fool the uninformed, have stooped to stealing private emails so they can lie, selectively take things out of context, and misinterpret them. Hmmm, not just liars but thieves as well.

Well, at least you've admitted the pseudoscience stuff wasn't working, so going the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck route is more in line with the denialist ethic.