It's now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam.



Thanks to hackers (or an insider) who broke into The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and downloaded 156 megaybytes of data including extremely damaging emails, we now know that data supporting the global warming thesis was completely fabricated.



Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.



The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), usually working together with the Hadley center (recall HadCRUT3 global temperatures), has been hacked.



So far, the most interesting file I found in the "documents" directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls (Google preview, click) which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.



Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic. See Briefing Room.



He says that he "can't remember" what he meant by "hiding the decline." Well, let me teach him some English. First, dictionaries say that hide means



1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where did she hide her jewels?

2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.

3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one's feelings.

4. to conceal oneself; lie concealed: He hid in the closet.

5. British. a place of concealment for hunting or observing wildlife; hunting blind.

6. hide out, to go into or remain in hiding: After breaking out of jail, he hid out in a deserted farmhouse.



Here Are A Few Choice Emails

The Reference Frame

Hadley CRU says leaked data is real

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.



In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "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."



"Have you alerted police?"



"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."



Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.



Alert The Police?

Market Ticker On The Scam

.....

Yes, I have the file. So do a few million other people.



There's enough evidence in there, in my opinion, of outrageously fraudulent conduct to make this the scandal of the 20th and 21st century.



Sorry folks, there's no science here - this is, from what I see, a massive and outrageous fraud, and now that the documents have been confirmed as authentic, it is time to pull the curtain down on this crap and start locking up all of the proponents - starting with AL GORE.



Here are some interesting "meta statistics" on the documents, and the number of times the words referenced appear: Fraud: 79

Falsify: 6

Inflate: 14

Conceal: 5

Hide: 19 Just for starters.



If you think that's bad, you might like this - from the file "ipcc-tar-master.rtf":



47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?



And then there's this...



From: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk

To: "Michael E. Mann" mann@meteo.psu.edu

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

Rules Of The Game

I downloaded the zip file, unpacked it, browsed a bit. I opened a .pdf file entitled “RulesOfTheGame.pdf”. Very interesting document. Most compelling is that I broke open the metadata for this file. The file date stamp is Oct. 3, 2006, the metadata says it was created Oct 14, 2005 using QuarkExpress v.6.1 (released in 2004). All properties and metadata for this file definitely appear genuine to me.



Interesting that this document describes methods of convincing the public of the “crisis”.



Excerpt:



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 modeling 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.



How To Avoid Taxes On Grants

Mike Abbott (17:06:59):



Here’s a quote from one of the emails:



“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.”

Reducing "Blips"

Ric Werme (19:43:43):



This sounds like a “get rid of the MWP,” I hope it’s just a what if

speculation/exploration that might lead to research directions.



tux:mail> cat 1254108338.txt

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 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.

Wang Fabrications

From: "D.J. Keenan"

To: "Steve McIntyre"

Cc: "Phil Jones"

Subject: Wang fabrications

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0

X-UEA-Spam-Level: /

X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO



Steve,



I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang case.



First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.)



Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang.



Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd.



Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was up to me.



Fifth, I put a draft on my web site--

http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm

--and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations for improvement.



I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to understand things.



I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to publish a retraction of Wang's claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879

There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no").



Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper.



Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil?



Kind wishes, Doug

Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph of global warming



Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a famous result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph. Developed by a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick’s publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless review reports.



Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.



The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed bristlecone pine data. ...



Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science.



I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent.



Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.