Flashback summary of Climategate from 2010 SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]
Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming — As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
UK Daily Mail: Dec. 13, 2009: ‘Hide the Decline’ – On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated – but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines. ‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. ‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’
Since Warmergate-broke, some of the CRU’s supporters have claimed that Jones and his colleagues made a ‘full disclosure’ of what they did to Briffa’s data in order to produce the hockey stick. But as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’. On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines. By 2007, when the IPCC produced its fourth report, McIntyre had become aware of the manipulation of the Briffa data and Briffa himself, as shown at the start of this article, continued to have serious qualms.
November 20, 2009: Rush Limbaugh Praises Climate Depot for ClimateGate Reporting: ‘It’s a great place to keep up on the global warming debate’ – ‘Morano’s probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what’s going on here’
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later’ – Curry: ‘Scientists that are skeptical of AGW or critical of the IPCC, they seem to be better off post-Climategate’
Climategate’s ‘Hide the Decline’: Sciencemag # 3: ‘Briffa and Osborn (Science 1999) had not just deleted the post=1960 decline, but had deleted the pre-1550 portion as well’ – ‘The deletions contributing to an unwarranted rhetorical impression of consistency between the reconstructions, an impression that was capitalized upon in the commentary in the running text of Briffa and Osborn 1999’
Warmist trashes fellow Warmists: Climategate’s ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller — ‘They are not allowed to do this in science. It isn’t up to our standards’ – Watch Now: Muller: ‘As a scientist, I now have a list of scientists who’s papers I will not read anymore’ Muller also disses Hansen! ‘So we have NASA’s Jim Hansen who predicts things ahead of time — what he is going to find’
‘We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now’ — UN’s ‘Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped’
WarmerGate Fallout: ‘I am sick to my stomach’: ‘As a long time AGW supporter I must say I found the emails very disturbing’ – ‘I feel ashamed for the behavior of our leading scientists – I feel betrayed…at ideology overriding science. Science being bent out of shape to support a hypothesis…We need to acknowledge that wrong was done. We need to replace the tainted leadership’
A-Hole Debate Goes Viral! CBS News: Tempers Flare In BBC Climate Change Flap
Morano ‘both won the debate and deserved the scientist’s epithet’
DC Examiner: ‘Morano just chuckles. Some guys have all the fun’
Hot Air: ‘Theatrical eye-rolling and a perfunctory dropping of the A-bomb’
Know Your Boreholes From Your A**holes, Dr. Watson; Peer-Reviewed Studies You Should Have Read
Analysis: Understanding Climategate’s ‘hide the decline’
Rare ABC News TV Debate: Climate Depot Vs. Center For Am. Progress — ‘UN IPCC was a political organization masquerading as a science group. It’s been exposed’ – Weiss: Blizzards are ‘consistent with what scientists had predicted’ — Morano Response: ‘It’s consistent with climate astrology, basically it’s a horoscope…You should be embarrassed’
Dec. 12, 2009: Watch Morano debates Climategate with UK professor at UN climate summit in Copenhagen
COPENHAGEN – A contentious live global warming debate took place in Copenhagen on UK’s Sky News TV on December 12 between Professor Mark Maslin of the University College London and Climate Depot’s Executive Editor Marc Morano.
During the debate, Professor Maslin erroneously asserted there are “5000 leading climate scientists” with the UN IPCC to support the claims of man-made climate fears. “None of the science has been actually changed. If you look at the [UN] IPCC report, 5000 leading climate scientists put together all the leading science together,” Maslin stated. [Professor’s Maslin’s email is: [email protected] ]
Climate Depot’s Morano countered: “Your idea that [there are] 5000 UN scientists – you need to apologize and retract that immediately. The biggest number you can come up with if you include [UN bureaucrats] and delegates is 2800.”
Professor Maslin, of the Department of Geography, interjected “Oh, absolute rubbish.” [Editor’s Note: Maslinalso recently debated MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen and Maslin claimed in this video clip that “There are very few (skeptics) and none are actually credible.”]
A frustrated Maslin also claimed that “every single intelligent person” listens to UN scientists and accepts that man-made global warming is a serious problem.
“I have been having this debate for the last 20 years, the key is that every single intelligent person, every key politician in the world, listens to the key scientists, they actually look at the data,” Maslin said. [Editor’s Note: Perhaps Professor Maslin is guilty of this: MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable’ – July 6, 2009]
Morano responded: Matt [anchor of Sky News TV], check out the claim of 5000 UN scientists — that is a bald face — error. The professor needs to retract it. There is no 5000 [UN IPCC climate scientists]. And interestingly a few days ago [Professor Maslin] said 4000 [UN scientists]. Why not just say 100,000? You gave it away sir when you said ‘key scientists’. It is a small cadre,only 52 UN scientists signed (a reference to the only 52 scientists who authored the media hyped 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers). Peer-reviewed studies are showing the [man-made climate] scare is ending.
Don’t Miss this Report about UN IPCC Scientists Attacking IPCC’s Credibility and Ethics
Via Tom Nelson blog:
ClimateGate–see “outed” emails here
ClimateGate search engines are located here and here.
Here: All in one place, all ClimateGate I and II files, along with source code files, HARRY_READ_ME files, email attachments, documents, etc
A list of my ClimateGate postings:
- Email 1103, Sept 1999, Michael Mann on the use of questionable data: “I’m happy to do it and let the reviewers tell us if they see any problem”
- Email 1101, Oct 2008, UEA’s press office writes to Reuters, claiming that UEA has “Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans…Major blow for climate sceptics presumably”
- Email 5134, Dec. 2008, Phil Jones: “…Problem is much of this is down to wacky data. I’m beginning to think that the modelling has lost the real-world agreement between variables”
- Email 1342, June 2008, Phil Jones on his own keen mental powers: “I get people coming up to me now saying we met in 199? and have no recall of our meeting – sometime no recall of even going to the meeting where I was supposed to have met them!”
- Email 5114, April 2007, Phil Jones: “Even GHCN and NCAR can’t say where they got their data”
- Email 2409, June 1999, Phil Jones actually suggests that he knows the average 11th or 12th century temperature of the entire Earth with an accuracy of one or two tenths of a degree Centigrade
- Email 3408, Jan 2008, Phil Jones: “I’d like the world to warm up quicker, but if it did, I know that the sensitivity is much higher and humanity would be in a real mess!”
- Email 600, Sept 2007: Watts expose makes NOAA want to change entire USA method
- Email 1616, Ian Harris, Mar. 2008: “I don’t really think the published papers reflect the actualité of how the dataset was produced…They contain elements of truth but there are glaring inaccuracies”
- Email 1025, Oct 2009: Two trees here, five trees there, make for trillions of dollars everywhere…
- Email 4291, May 2009, Trying for pre-emptive legalese shield against FOI requests
- Email 494, April 1999, warmist Ray Bradley: “As for thinking that it is “Better that nothing appear, than something unnacceptable to us” …..as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant”
- Email 3470, warmist Philip Mote, Sept 1999: “The trends in intense Atlantic hurricanes are indeed downward…there seems to be a tendency for models to suggest decreasing trends in [tropical cyclones], though this too is inconclusive”
- Email 3711, Mar. 2007, Phil Jones: “There is only one view worth listening to – and that is what IPCC says on the subject…We have done without mass flying until recently. It seems as though we could do without it now. This is hypocracy on my behalf…”
- Email 3826, Feb 2001: In an email copied to a long list of believers and realists, the late John Daly writes “What is at issue is the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the [tree-ometer] theory before its scientific value had been properly tested”
- Email 2507, Mar 2007: “The AAAS Board released a strong statement on 18 February saying, “We are already experiencing global climate change–and the pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years.””
- Email 2511, Feb 2008, Phil Jones brags that much of the IPCC’s “Physical Science Basis” is based on his work; he also admits that the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize was a “political gesture”
- Email 2566, June 2002, UEA’s Mike Hulme to Doug Parr of Greenpeace: “In regard to climate change, one can argue that the problem is not the conduct of science but the conduct of the public. Many of us actually lead the public in terms of radicalism”
- Email 2568, Nov. 2004, Hayley Fowler to Phil Jones on temperatures in Pakistan and northern India: “In summer months both max and min temps are falling, but min more than max”
- Email 2585, Nov 2006, more unsettling stuff for tree-ometer believers: An important, “arbitrary” adjustment and anomalous growth in *1850* blamed on CO2?!
- Email 2590, Sept 2005, Rosanne D’Arrigo after McIntyre asked to see the data from her paper that was referenced by the IPCC: “they should fire him as a reviewer of IPCC”
- Email 2660, June 2007, bummer from Rita Yu: Less CO2 emissions allegedly means *more* droughts
- Email 2216, Sept 2003: Malcolm Hughes reports that some guy “may well be able to find the raw data for the 27 long western conifers chronologies used to calculate the PCs in MBH 99, etc.”
- Email 2361, Feb 2007, NOAA’s Tom Peterson talks about ways to cool 1998 and 1880
- Email 2378, Oct. 2009, Desmogblog warmist Richard Littlemore to WSJ-Europe’s Anne Jolis, copying Revkin: “The very fate of the world” may be in the hands of Steve McIntyre
- Email 2395, Feb 2004, Phil Jones: “For some inane reason I put my name forward to do the chapter on atmospheric obs. for [IPCC] AR4. Hope I don’t get picked.”
- Email 2406, April 2005, Phil Jones: “Every now and then I go to the BAS web site of Gareth Marshall and pick up and manually add in back Antarctic data…I don’t keep any sort of record of any of this…The Antarctic stuff is important as coverage is poor down there”
- Email 2429, April 2005, Phil Jones admits that he may not be able to find the code that McIntyre wants, and “it is likely to be hundreds of lines of uncommented fortran !”. There’s also a “variance correction” that McIntyre doesn’t know about
- Email 2455, Aug 2006, warmist Keith Briffa admits that he drives “30 miles and more a day” and spends “far too much of my life flying around the world to discuss and research the problem of climate change”
- Email 2486, Jan 2004, Phil Jones: “I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either…I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition”
- Email 1529. April 2005, Phil Jones to David Appell: “MBH is in this premier league. MM is Sunday morning soccer played by amateurs”
- Email 1541, Nov. 2009, Phil Jones: “What is important to global average temperatures is the marine data. I think skeptics realize this, but it is much harder for them to do any work in this area”
- Email 1546, April 2002, Ed Cook writes “Omitting a period because the proxy and instrumental data disagree is not a good thing to do”, then admits that he does that too
- Email 1550, Feb. 2009, reviewer Bob Prichard tells Phil Jones that you’re supposed to study the data first, *then* see what conclusions can be drawn
- Email 1558, Nov 2003, UEA’s Nick Brooks: “I¹m always wary of claims…that we are entering a period of unprecedented warmth…research suggests tropical sea-surface temperatures some 5-6 degrees higher [in the Holocene] than present…such claims may come back to haunt us”
- Email 1872, Sept 2004: Is Phil Jones really suggesting that to estimate temperature at one location, he might use data from “over 5 deg of lat and 10 deg of long away”
- Email 1914, Oct 2000, warmist Tom Crowley on “the solar crowd”: “basically I think most of them act like nuts…And I am someone who thinks longterm solar variability influences climate!”
- Email 1917, Oct 2009: IPCC’s Phil Jones writes to IPCC’s Jean Palutikof for advice on a “figurehead” to be used in a “multi-institutional bid for a seriously large amount of [climate scam] money”
- Email 1983, Mar 2006: Warmist Richard Alley admits that he has “serious doubts about tree-rings as paleothermometers”
- Email 1256, Jan 2007, more insanity from UEA warmists: To show “governments that climate change should be on the top agenda of world politics”, all UEA employees were encouraged to not use electricity for five entire minutes
- Email 618, June 2009, “Takehiko” to Phil Jones: “I want to discuss several climatic topics concerning unusual warm periods in 1850s and 1860s just after the end of LIA. Recently in Japan, old instrumental temerature records were found during this period near Tokyo, in which several unusually hot summers were detected.”
- Email 1105, Nov 2007, Phil Jones: “there are lots of climate meetings – seems as though you could go to one almost every week”
- Email 1345, July 2004, Philippe Huybrechts: “The most robust feature of all these runs is that the rate of glacier retreat for the second half of the 20th century is always the same, irrespective of the starting point of the climate forcing, and irrespective of whether the 20th century climate was cooling, warming, or stable.”
- Email 707, May 2001, Tom Wigley: “I personally do NOT want anyone else developing software that overlaps MAGICC/SCENGEN”
- Email 717, Sept 1998, Michael Mann disses climate modelers: “there are a few individuals in the modeling community who could benefit from slowing down on the stone throwing from their fragile glass tower”
- Email 719, Aug 2003, UEA’s Andrew Watson: “[IPCC] preferred estimates of the size of the land and ocean [carbon] sinks were out of date before they were published, and quite substantially wrong”
- Email 752, Aug 2009, Willis Eschenbach to UEA: “”My dog ate the confidentiality agreements” doesn’t cut it in the scientific world, where billions of dollars hang on your data”
- Email 798, Aug 1999, Ed Cook disses “pathetically poor” paper by key climate hoax modeler Tom Wigley
- Email 1408, Dec. 2006, UEA’s Clare Goodess reports to Briffa/Osborn/Jones on her eavesdropping session next to McIntyre and Wilson
- Email 1432, Jan. 2007, Phil Jones again admits: “we don’t still have the original data”
- Email 1492, Aug. 2008, Phil Jones on various FOI officers’ (and the Information Commissioner’s) strategy to not share IPCC-related information
- Email 1499, May 2000, Mick Kelly, UEA: “CA are lookign for someone to say more extreme events likely in future due to global warming at lanuch of new campaign…they are getting desparate”
- Email 847, May 2003, warmist Tom Wigley is far too impressed by his own climate model: “One of the nice results is that we can use MAGICC to back out the signal from the noise…MAGICC can simulate both volcanic responses (on a monthly to century time scale) and solar responses (annual to century) with extremely high fidelity”
- Email 914, March 2000, Phil Jones: “As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some flak from the skeptics saying we’re wrong because everyone knows it was warmer in the Medieval period.”
- Email 1573, Feb 2004: UEA data fudgers get their ninth successive 3 year grant from the US Department of Energy
- Email 1577, July 2009, Phil Jones admits that CRU doesn’t have the original, unadjusted data; he also writes “I’m the only one who knows where the files are here”
- Email 1614, Oct 1998: Mike Hulme to an EDF researcher who wanted to blame CO2 for Southern Africa drought: “Avoid this one – and indeed avoid pretty much all climate indicators related to precipitation. The large natural variability of precip. makes it very hard for a human-induced climate change trend to be picked up”
- Email 1619, Nov 2003, Michael Mann offers a cover story in an attempt to explain why “the full data set could not be made available until a few years after the ’98 study”
- Email 1621, Dec 2008, lots of interesting statements by Phil Jones: “The SOI, PDO and others are natural modes of variability – that the atmosphere likes…we’ve no idea why the oscillation change”
- Email 1636, June 2002: “Fairly thrilling” climate hoax game in development; it’ll allegedly help the UN and the World Bank to gain insights; warmist Stephen Schneider is the principal climate advisor
- Email 1661, Mar 2006, Ed Cook: We know that trees don’t function as thermometers for the period where we have thermometer data, but let’s just assume that they worked as thermometers for all periods before that
- Email 1849, Dec 2003, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann again: “I would STRONGLY encourage you not to bother responding to any of their emails under any circumstancdes”
- Email 1023, April 2008, UEA’s Tim Osborn has a good question about exactly how CRU data is fudged: “Is this algorithm written down anywhere?”
- Email 1028, April 2008, Phil Jones: “It seems we just need the La Nina to finally wind down and the oceans to warm up a little”
- Email 1038, Dec 2001, UEA’s Mike Hulme proposes adding Roger Harrabin (BBC) and Bill Hare (Greenpeace) to the Tyndall [Climate Hoax] Centre’s advisory board
- Email 1045, May 1999, Michael Mann already more of an activist than a scientist?: “…I do presentations on capitol hill for USGCRP…Mostly, though, I’ve been trying to help Mike McCracken and company behind the scenes”
- Email 2038, Nov 2009, Tom Wigley casually and completely contradicts Phil Jones’ explanation for early 20th century warming: Wigley minimizes the sun, doesn’t mention volcanoes, and points at NADW; Jones stresses the Sun and volcanoes, doesn’t mention NADW
- Email 2969, Aug 2006, Keith Briffa: “The TAR was, in my opinion, wrong to say anything about the precedence (or lack thereof) of the warmth of the individual year 1998”
- Email 2013, March 2006, Richard Alley: “It looked to me like [D’Arrigo] had pretty well killed the hockey stick in public forum…this looks to me to be a really big deal”
- Email 1653, July 2004: Steve McIntyre schools Phil Jones on replication and checking
- Email 71, Mar 2006, Richard Alley: “all the people [at the NRC “hockey stick” committee?] I heard were asked the same thing: Do we know the temperature of a millennium ago within 0.5 C? All gave some qualified version of “no”.”
- Email 91, Aug 2007, with Wei-Chyung Wang facing fraud allegations, Michael Mann writes: “There are some folks I could put We-Chyung in touch with who could certainly help him out with w/ the legal issues, if he’s interested. As you might imagine, I have some experience and numerous contacts now in this area ;)”
- Email 102, Aug 2003, CRU’s Mick Kelly confuses weather with climate, wants to “capitalize on this press-wise” if a high temperature record is broken
- Email 112, Feb 2007: Michael Mann lashes out at Curtis Covey, who dared to write things like “…the science is not yet settled” in an email to unbelievers Singer and Monckton
- Email 137, Sept 2006, warmist Jerry North asks Mann et al to share their data with McIntyre: “McIntyre does have a point in that most of our research has been supported by US Taxpayers…as scientists we all owe it to each other to share information to the maximum extent possible.”
- Email 143, June 2007, your tax dollars at work: $1200 airfare, then $543 per day each to send warmists to Bermuda in high season for proposed climate hoax meeting
- Email 155, Sept 2008, Met Office’s Kate Willett on surprising relative humidity data: “the Marine data showed very significant negative trends”
- Email 297, August 2004, Phil Jones and Michael Mann: This peer review process looks completely corrupt, with warmist Jones rejecting a paper by realists McKitrick and Michaels, and Mann somehow in the loop, wanting to use this “to help bolster the case against MM??”
- Email 21, Sept. 2009, Phil Jones: “I’ve saved emails at CRU and then deleted them from the server. Now I’m at home I just have some hard copies”
- Email 38, Feb 2007, Manola Brunet to Phil Jones: “How it is possible that “intelligent” people dedicate their time and energies to audit scientific work and not to work in a more positive way for making real scientific analysis and contributing to push science and knowledge ahead.”
- Email 1800, Mar 2005, precious question by Phil Jones: “Is the pre-20th century really that important when it comes to [detection and attribution]?”
- Email 1811, July 2003, AGU’s Public Information Manager brags about unleashing the AGU “publicity machine” to push Mann et al’s climate hoax propaganda
- Email 1817, May 2005, Phil Jones on what the IPCC actually did: They didn’t tell us what was in the peer-reviewed literature, they gave us their own [warmist] opinions on which parts of the peer-reviewed literature were correct
- Email 1819, Nov 2003, warmist Tom Wigley to Mann et al on possible responses to McIntyre and McKitrick’s request for data: “The second is to tell them to go to hell”
- Email 4578, July 2005, Phil Jones: “it is possible to get a trend of nearer 0.75 if the trend starts around 1920 (especially if the cold year of 1917 is at the start)”
- Email 2349, Nov 2003, Energy and Environment editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen writes a great letter to Mann, Briffa, Pachauri, etc
- Email 4582, Feb 2009, Phil Jones on global average surface temperature: “The work that estimated the 14 number (it was 14.02 for the globe) made lots of assumptions over the sea ice areas and the Antarctic. I always thought this was accurate to about +/- 0.5 deg C”
- Email 4631, Jan 2001, UEA’s Mike Hulme recommends a now-defunct “The Carbon Trader” climate scam website
- Email 4653, March 2002, Geoff Jenkins of the Met Office: “…we can only use “will” when we have complete confidence in the direction, ie Temperatures will rise”
- Email 4847, Aug 1999, Sari Kovats et al: Increasing CO2 emissions would “will cause a net decrease in temperature-related mortality in many cities”
- Email 4868, Sept ’05: IPCC reviewer McIntyre asks to see the data underlying a paper; warmists complain this is a “major abuse of his position”
- Email 4881, June 2007, Phil Jones: “The final end product looks just like my hope – summers were 0.5 deg C too warm…”
- Email 4887, Dec 2007, Phil Jones: The global temperature record “can be quite well approximated from a solar series (preferably a recent one by Lean), a volcano series and anthropogenic sources (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols)”
- Email 4919, Aug 2000, Phil Jones denies the divergence problem: “there is no way Singer can say the proxy data doesn’t record the last 20 years of warming, as we don’t have enough of the proxy series after about 1980. “
- Email 3008, Oct 1999, Timothy Carter to Mike Hulme: Japanese model shows Arctic Ocean to get up to 26 degrees C. hotter
- Email 3178, Sept 2000, UEA’s Trevor Davies: Met Office considering move to UEA’s town (Norwich); “An objective of the Met Office is to “diversify into environmental services””
- Email 325, Oct 2003, Ammann to Michael Mann: “…the first half of the 20th century warmed up naturally”; this conflicts with current information on a DOE website
- Email 412, Mar. 2001, Tom Crowley to several Hockey Team members: “It therefore seems that the conveyor is indeed oscillating but the time scale of the larger scale CLIMATE shifts may be more regulated by solar, with volcanism adding some stochastic contribution”
- Email 1609, Jan 2007, Jonathan Gregory to Phil Jones on ‘not particularly unusual’ sea level rise: “Personally, I suspect that the network is too sparse, so that the variability is to some extent measurement noise. It is so large we have no physical explanation for it…”
- Email 176, Jan 2008, more settled science: Phil Jones seems alarmed at the “solar constant” being changed “from 1366.5 to 1361!!”
- Email 235, Oct 2007: Phil Jones calls a warmer climate “better”; warm weather leads to good harvests, cold weather leads to famine; “people are not affected much by climate or climate change. What effects them is the Weather!”
- Email 237, Mar 2006, Briffa and Osborn: We don’t really know how warm it was 1000 years ago, and this allegedly isn’t a big deal
- Email 239, Oct 2003, John Holdren defends Michael Mann’s alarmism by stressing Mann’s careful weasel wording
- Email 295, Feb 2008, Phil Jones: “…the long-term change from the 19th century to the present is only about 1 deg C. This 1 deg C is small compared to weather variability”
- Email 4423, April 2009, warmists struggle to explain what happened with the weather in 1997-1998: “if not instrumental, then maybe an abrupt climate change bogie man came out of the closet to cause 0.5 offset after that time – any ideas? “
- Email 4418, Feb 1997, maybe CO2 doesn’t cause malaria: “I dug up the malaria data (Italy and The Netherlands) between 1820-1930 which do show evidence of this 20 year cycle, with exacerbations in 1821, 1839, 1860, 1879, 1902, 1920. “
- Email 4417, Feb 2005, Warmist Peter Thorne to Phil Jones: “I don’t think we should be scared of admitting that we just don’t know, if indeed we just don’t know (which I believe is a fair reflection of the state of the science)”
- Email 4413, Oct 2009: Environmental plant physiologist writes to Briffa: “As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology”
- Email 4405, Mar. 2001: Phil Jones calls changes in ice caps/glaciers “our best piece of evidence”
- Email 4403, Jan. 2005, Keith Briffa: “the glacier evidence is problematic for interpreting precise and quantitative indications of the extent of regional or Hemispheric Warmth (and even cold) – issues of translating tongue position or volume into specific temperature and precipitation forcing”
- Email 4400, Feb 2006, Keith Briffa: “do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we know is right.”
- Email 309, Jan 2008, Phil Jones on London UHI: “1.5 is the average UHI, but it can be up to nearly 5 but as low as 0 on some days”
- Email 342, April 2009, Phil Jones: “Climate scientists are 100% confident that they can detect an anthropogenic signal in surface temperature data”
- Email 362, Aug 1999, Barrie Pittock: “The great danger of doing things the way we are, in our rush to prepare these IPCC reports, is that we are not submitting this stuff to peer review before using it”
- Email 384, July 2004, Michael Mann to Pielke Sr.: “I would think it obvious that peer-review alone is *not* a sufficient to establish what is “good science””
- Email 385, July 2005, Phil Jones: “The warming from 1915 to about 1940 is generally believed to be due to a slight increase in solar output and a reduction in volcanism.”
- Email 451, Jan. 2009, Stephen Schneider: “We are witnessing the “contrarian battle of the bulge” now, and expect that all weapons will be used”
- Email 611, May 2008: Former navigator informs Phil Jones how critical sea surface temperatures were gathered: “…peering at the thermometer with a weak torch in the middle of a gale, spilling most of the water, making up readings, copying what others had written before (as it was dark, blowing a hooley and you couldn’t be bothered to go onto the bridge wing)”
- Email 541, Sept 2006: Fair-and-balanced Andy Revkin writes to a long list of warmist scientists: “i’m just trying to be sure that folks like all of you take an extra couple seconds to use Inhofe against himself”
- Email 1414, March 2007: Kevin Trenberth on the political process of changing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers in a 2007 meeting at which journalists were barred: “It was hardly a closed meeting or process”
- Email 1409, Sept 2009: Tim Osborn asks Phil Jones why New Zealand pre-1930 temperatures are “now very different, being much cooler (by > 0.5 degC for a 25-year low-pass mean)”
- Email 1395, Oct 2000: Bad weather in various places around the world; this allegedly wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t drive cars
- Email 1359, June 2004, Phil Jones on getting out of jury duty: “I just said I had meetings to go to (which was true once), the second I said the new students were coming in late September. The fact that I have little to do with U/Gs didn’t seem to matter”
- Email 1335, Nov 2005, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann on the prospect of attending a workshop also attended by a guy who disagrees with him: “If Zorita is in, I am out!’
- Email 1336, Phil Jones, Mar 2006: “I can say for certain (100% – not any probable word that IPCC would use) is that the surface temperature data are correct.”
- Email 1317, Oct. 2000, on CRU: “Five lead authors for the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are drawn from the unit…The work of Jones and co-workers with [CRU’s temperature] record can justifiably be claimed to have been central to the acceptance that humans are having a significant impact on climate”
- Email 1304, Dec 2002, warmist Tom Wigley on a critical climate hoax model: “SCENGEN is also owned by me. All of the conceptual and intellectual input has been mine”
- Email 2530, June 2003, Phil Jones: “note that I’ve changed the way we smooth the series to preserve the late 20th century trend, like we did in the Eos piece”
- Email 1145, May 2005, Jonathan Overpeck to Briffa/Jansen: “We’re hoping you guys can generate something compelling enough for the TS and SPM – something that will replace the hockey-stick with something even more compelling”
- Email 1104, March 2005: Heinz Wanner says he was highly critical of the hockey stick as an official IPCC reviewer in 2001, but “My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times”
- Email 1162, June 2007: Eugene Wahl says the Ammann-Wahl paper can be freely shared among warmists before it comes out in hardcopy, but it should be kept away from McIntyre
- Email 1150, Dec 2004, Chris Landsea to Pachauri: “Dr. Trenberth in representing the IPCC has successfully promulgated into the media his own opinion that the 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR”
- Email 1075, May 2004: Phil Jones wants to use his IPCC involvement to get a pay raise
- Email 1057, June 2009, “Tom”: “[Hansen] warms the trend in 42 percent of the urban stations indicating that nearly half have an urban cold bias”
- Email 1046, Nov 2009, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley don’t know what caused the early 20th century warming, but a “possible explanation” is changes in ocean circulation
- Email 1028, April 2008, Phil Jones on adjusting SST data for the mid-20th century: “Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary”
- Email 1996, Jan 2008, Tim Osborn reveals that Tom Karl’s IPCC review editor letter was one sentence long
- Email 1897, Dec 2008: After Phil Jones admits deleting material, UEA’s FOI officer David Palmer writes: “Phil, you must be very careful about deleting material, more particularly when you delete it”
- Email 1887, Nov 2001, Geoff Jenkins of the Met Office: “…The increase in heavy rain days is much less (<50%) than it was in 98 (200%)…I am concerned we have enough time to explain these differences, and their implications for confidence in UKCIP02, properly”
- Email 1885, Phil Jones, Dec 2007: “I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here”
- Email 1837, Feb 2005, Phil Jones: “The coldest two centuries were the 17th and 19th for the last 2000 years”
- Email 1823, Sept 2008, Håkan Grudd to Briffa: “[Climate realist Craig Loehle] puts in print some worries I have had since first starting off with the tree rings: The non-linear growth response, which we all know is there but which we do not really account for in making reconstructions”
- Email 1791, Sept 2009: UEA insiders circle the wagons as their own student paper starts asking them tough questions
- Email 1710, April 2006, UEA’s Tim Osborn: “I’m not sure that we can tell Science that we do *not* want to issue a correction to our paper and at the same time tell McIntyre that he cannot make public the fact that we used CRUTEM2v rather than HadCRUT2 as I stated in the online supplement”
- Email 1706, March 2004: Phil Jones is unhappy about a paper that says “Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend”
- Email 1705, April 2002, what “settled” science looks like: After Michael Mann writes “There are some substantial scientific differences here, lets let them play out the way they are supposed to, objectively, and in the peer reviewed literature”, Raymond Bradley writes to Briffa “excuse me while I VOMIT!!”
- Email 1544, Oct 2000, Phil Jones: “…warmer conditions than today during many summers from 1750 to 1850…Central England also shows little change in summer since the 18th century. Autumns for CET in the 1730s were clearly warmer than today. All somewhat perplexing”
- Email 1505, October 2000: IPCC meeting held at Environmental Defense
- Email 2368, Dec 2008, Phil Jones proves that he was lying when he later claimed “We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU”
- Email 2252, July 2005, Phil Jones: “I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25 years”
- Email 2234, Nov 2009, Phil Jones: “Warming since 1975 to 2008 is slightly more than 1915-44.”
- Email 2223, April 2004, UEA’s Mike Hulme shows his belief in the climate hoax: “I do indeed support the campaign to boycott Esso (ExxonMobil). I do not purchase petrol from this company, and have not done so for more than 2 years now”
- Email 2196, Dec 2004, Jonathan Overpeck: “note that G. Pant (and others? – it was just a talk, not a pub – would be nice to have a pub) has shown that the two major deserts in India are also getting wetter”
- Email 2157, Oct 2004, Phil Jones channels Lord Monckton: “I just cannot accept that any model will ever be as good as reality..models still have a long way to go before they can be considered as alternatives to real observed data”
- Email 2151, Jan 2005, Tom Wigley suggests religious cleansing: “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”
- Email 2047, Aug 2009, Jonathan Jones to David Palmer, UEA: “I begin by noting that it is wholly perverse to claim simultaneously that the data is “already available” and that the data is “confidential””
- Email 2947, June 2004, Phil Jones: “some data we’ve received have probably had adjustments applied but we don’t know when or by how much, then there are adjustments we’ve applied in the mid-1980s (which we know about), then there are your adjustments”
- Email 2903, Feb 2009, Phil Jones on problems with Antarctic temperature data: “The problem is that some sites get buried, but still seem to transmit”
- Email 2783, Oct 2007, warmists squabble over which 25 of them will get free, completely unnecessary fossil-fueled trips to Oslo; Trenberth wants his name entered multiple times in a “random” drawing
- Email 2743, Sept 2009, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann: “So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.”
- Email 2740, Oct 2009, Phil Jones: “even if we get everyone agreeing in Copenhagen to massive emissions reductions (say 80% reduction in 1990 emissions by 2050) it will not make much difference to the sea level rise”
- Email 2720, Oct 2003: Warmist Keith Briffa admits(?) “we do not understand the role of specific forcings (natural and anthropogenic) that influenced medieval and current climates”
- Email 2699, Oct 2007, Phil Jones on the alleged lack of solar influence on climate: “There is really only one paper where a solar influence on climate on decadal and longer timescales that has been shown to be possible”
- Email 2581, Feb. 2007, Phil Jones on McIntyre et al: “am not sending the data. I am already tried and convicted, so there is no point in sending them anything. I will not bother replying as well. I might as well act as expected. They will run out of steam in a week or two and move onto something else”
- Another way to search ClimateGate emails
- Email 2560, April 1999, Ray Bradley on his hockey stick co-author Michael Mann: “One day, (perhaps) Mike will grow up”
- Email 2526, June 2008, Phil Jones: “John had conveniently lost many emails, but he did reply with a few. Keith and Tim have moved all their emails from all the named people off their PCs and they are all on a memory stick”
- Email 2519, Oct 2003, Michael Mann on McIntyre and McKitrick: “If *others* want to say that their actions represent scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets let *them* make these charges for us! Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM”
- Email 2504, June 2002: MIke Hulme suggests that Prince Charles might want to invest in an insane plan to convert a coastguard tower into “a centre for awareness of climate change…[which] has a lifetime of up to fifty years before it falls into the sea due to erosion of the coastline”
- Email 3880, Mar 2000: Michael Mann agrees to let the CRU folks print T-shirts/polo shirts with Mann’s hockey stick on the back
- Email 3868, Aug 2009, Phil Jones: “European instrumental temperatures in summer ae going to be revised downwards (by about 0.4 deg C for periods before 1850)”
- Email 3867, Feb 2007, Phil Jones: “…the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will eventually cause Greenland to melt”
- Email 3795, May 2004: In conjunction with the release of The Day After Tomorrow, an announcement: “The UK is taking the lead in rapid climate change research. A £20 Million Rapid Climate Change programme (known as RAPID for short) is being funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)”
- Email 3794, Nov. 2003, truly odd stuff from Tom Wigley: “My thinking is that the only way to truly squash M&M is to have an independent third party come along and say … I used exactly the same data and method as MBH and got exactly the same results, and, furthermore, I endorse the method…I still don’t think that hard-earned data needs to be made freely available”
- Email 3792, Jan 2008, Phil Jones seems remarkably relaxed about the details of how the Earth’s temperature is measured: “I don’t care if they are a little bit inaccurate in their locations…Maybe if we did know where they are to a greater accuracy, we could check by Google Earth whether instruments were there !!”
- Email 3723, Mar. 2004, warmist “Mike” (Schlesinger?) on why CO2 emissions might be bad: “in US, more crop production means more tax money used to provide subsidies–it costs us money.”
- Email 3716, June 2004, Sarah Raper on magical climate models: “You can make the 20th century [glacier] melt bigger/smaller by moving the ELA (1961-1990) up and down”
- Email 3651, Mar. 2005, Olga Solomina: “During a good half of the Holocene the glaciers were SMALLER than now…What is unusual about the modern retreat is the RATE, though we do not know much about the rate of the former retreat “
- Email 3647, Sept 2006, postcard from the global warming hoax glory days: “Bloody hell!! this must be the 6th or 7th request for a speaker that CRU or I have had in the last few of days!!…because we are the World’s Leading Climate Change Institute we get absolutely inundated with requests and find it extremely difficult to do everything”
- Email 3640, Dec 2006: Any chance that politics or special interests influenced the IPCC Summary for Policymakers?: Nearly 1,000 comments “received from governments and NGOs”
- Email 3628, April 2008, Phil Jones on UHI in NY: “Also on warmest days it is warmer outside the city. This is probably unique to NY”
- Email 3608, Aug 2006, UEA’s Laura Middleton on pitching the climate hoax: “Many people among the general public are not used to reading any kind of text and graphs and don’t understand them…we need to pitch it to the average (not the most intelligent) 12 year old, and one with a short attention span at that!”
- Email 3605, October 2007, Phil Jones on a “Past Millennia Climate Variability” paper: “Taking on putting this paper together has been a real nightmare. I still can’t seem to get any response from Keith, Tim and Caspar – and I know two of them are in rooms less than 5m from me!”
- Email 3593, Dec 2007, Phil Jones on James Hansen’s magic red global warming hoax crayon: “Their extrapolation also makes Antarctica much warmer than it probably was”
- Email 3563, April 2009, Phil Jones on his belief that UHI isn’t an issue: “I could use the St. James’s Park record in the global T calculations. It wouldn’t make any difference anyway”
- Email 3557, May 2009, Tom Wigley on IFR (design for a nuclear reactor): “through the lies and misdirections of Clinton, Gore and Kerry, we may have lost the opportunity to solve the problem cheaply. History nay well judge these guys as much worse than Bush Jr.”
- Email 3548, May 2008, Phil Jones on FOI: “It might surprise you all to know that we have a full time person here at UEA for this!”
- Email 3541, July 2009: Dave Palmer, UEA FOIA expert, jokes(?) about leveraging UEA’s FOI problems into a free trip for himself to a Bali IPCC climate hoax meeting
- Email 3539, July 2008, Phil Jones on individuals and organizations using IPCC involvement to gain cash and/or glory
- Email 3538, Dec 2007, Phil Jones to a guy who wrote about solar influences on climate: “I’m not going to comment on your text, because your report is awful…You’ve not understood any of what was said on the Real Climate Audit web site. “
- Email 3537, Jan 2005, Phil Jones on RealClimate: “The web page is interesting, but whatever you do don’t delve too deeply. It will just eat into your time and in the end be completely useless…it is only for those with time on their hands”
- Email 3498, March 2005, IPCC lead author Phil Jones writes some unintelligible, yet eyebrow-raising stuff about the allegedly gold-standard IPCC process
- Email 3497, Aug 2009, Phil Jones on McIntyre’s requests for data: “it soon became clear that it was a concerted action to waste my time”
- Email 3467, Oct 2007, UEA paper admits “most [polar bear] populations are currently stable or growing”
- Email 3461, May 2001, Ed Cook: “I do think that there still exists a signficant uncertainty as to the relative contributions of natural and greenhouse forcing to warming during the past 20-30 years at least.”
- Email 3357, Nov 1999, Tim Osborn: “there is a fairly strong temperature signal in the tree-ring density series, but that a non-temperature trend is also apparent post-1950 that gets bigger and deteriorates the temperature relationship…you also have to make the assumption that this non-temperature signal is something anthropogenic and didn’t occur in the past”
- Email 3343, April 2007: Award-winning climate hoax communicator Gavin Schmidt suggests putting up the data “in an as-impenetrable-as-possible form”; Michael Mann agrees, saying that will “blunt the line of attack that has the greatest traction”
- Email 3338, May 2008: Did climate junk scientist Phil Jones’ group get $1.5 million from the US Department of Energy?
- Email 3333, Nov 2003, Ian “Harry” Harris of UEA struggles to download Mann’s data; writes “If Steve McIntyre’s having the same difficulties, no wonder he’s pissed off!”
- Email 3315, June 2008, Phil Jones, clouds schmouds: “I think the time series of rainday counts may be a better homogeneous proxy for cloudiness. Cloud observations will be a waste of time!”
- Email 3287, January 2005, Phil Jones: “The recent warm period in the Arctic is, however, not yet as long as that in the early-to-mid 20th century.”
- Email 3285, May 2006, Rob Wilson on why trees allegedly stopped working as thermometers last century: “I think we all agree that it is most likely anthropogenically driven to a certain extent”
- Email 3284, Phil Jones on FOI, Sept 2009: “There is the issue of wasting our time, which is the main one. The other issue is that Met Services putting conditions for the use of the data was common in the mid-1980s and 1990s. We were just quite adept at getting around the conditions.’
- Email 3283, Feb 2001: UEA’s Trevor Davies likes an insane plan to spend some of the anticipated UK 50 million pounds per year in carbon tax loot: pick 20 UEA staff households and reduce their CO2 emissions by 60% “because this is the value which will start to make a difference in climate terms”
- Email 3282, July 2006, Olga Solomina to Keith Briffa: “I am getting more and more concern about our statement that the Early Holocene was cool in the tropics – this paper shows that it was, actually, warm – ice core evidences+glaciers were smaller than now in the tropical Andes”
- Email 3265, June 2003: Climate realist Chris de Freitas: “North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market bottom – not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of- hand”
- Email 3235, March 2004, Phil Jones: “Chris [Vincent] seems much more honest than Trevor [Davies]”
- Email 3235, Mar 2004, more stellar paleo work by Phil Jones. Given that he was born in 1952, he calculates that he must have been 28 in 1970
- Email 3219, Nov 2002: Warmist Ed Cook suggests that Rod Savidge (Professor, Tree Physiology/Biochemistry) isn’t qualified to criticize dendrochronology; David Lawrence claims that “Tree-ring science is an exact science”
- Email 3207, June 2005, Jonathan Overpeck on how to handle that inconvenient Medieval Warm Period
- Email 3203, June 2008: Steve McIntyre asks for a PDF of a paper which is cited by another paper with is cited by the IPCC; Michael Mann suggests that “CRU should charge him a fee for the service”
- Email 3195, Mar 2005: Who needs thermometers when you can allegedly estimate temperatures by measuring the lengths of glaciers?
- Email 3193, July 2007, Keith Briffa: “There is much to be done on the area of exploring how models simulate the climate variability…Issues such as the climate sensitivity of models versus the real world and the roles of specific forcings and their influence on the future, represent important foci for continued study”
- Email 3192, Oct 2008, Warmist Phil Jones in Iceland: Since it was cold and snowy outside, and he had nothing better to do, he takes a look at Climate Audit
- Email 3167, July 2005, more IPCC-style consensus: IPCC folks “worry very much” about showing two different figures in the same chapter that conflict with each other
- Email 3118, Aug 2008: Tom Crowley complains that a researcher at an institute receiving “tons of federal money” is refusing to share “what the original investigator thinks is the best long term (back to about 900 AD*) reconstruction?”
- Email 3115: Michael Mann again on refusing to communicate with the “idiots” and “losers” who dare to question Mann’s work
- Email 3114, April 2007, Phil Jones again with a massive red flag: He suggests that only skeptics want to see raw station data; and that the entire believer community was content to work with mysteriously-massaged data
- Email 3107: UEA has evidently written a two-page climate hoax brochure for WWF. Now WWF wants a “stronger sentence…that the rate and magnitude of change may be so great that many ecosystems and species of wildlife may not be able to adapt”, maybe in the first paragraph
- Email 3099, July 2001, Keith Briffa, HIHOL report: “there is a growing number of striking coincidences between climate changes and the occurrence of abrupt changes in solar activity such as grand minima”
- Email 3089, Feb 1999, Phil Jones: “there is no evidence that there will be any increase in tropical storms. In the area with the best data – the tropical Atlantic, there has been a reduction in both the numbers and the severity of Atlantic Hurricanes over the last 50 years”
- Email 3078, Sept 1998, Keith Briffa: “I am currently involved with writing a bid on behalf of the earth science community to try to extract 8 million pounds for a 5 year project from NERC to support Palaeo/Modelling validatin work”
- Email 3062, Feb 2008, Phil Jones: “We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written that sounds as though it could have been written by a coral person 25 years ago. We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. What we want is good honest stuff, warts and all”
- Email 3061, July 1999, Neil Leary, IPCC WG II: Use of non-peer reviewed sources: “Basically,your expertise substitutes for the peer review process for material that has not been peer reviewed.”
- Michael Mann vs Michael Mann: Did I say that the hockey stick might qualify to be the “truth” as portrayed in the IPCC Policy Makers Summary? I meant it was an “obscure graph” that unnamed other people have made “appear more definitive than it was ever intended”
- Email 3046, July 2000, Michael Mann: “Our method, as you know, doesn’t include any “splicing of two different datasets”-this is a myth perptuated by Singer and his band of hired guns”
- Email 3045, Michael Mann to Andy Revkin, Feb 2005: “The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you’ll find this reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with”
- Email 3034, Oct 2004, Phil Jones on “adjusting” temperature data for many of the problems of site changes and observational practice changes that have occurred over the years: “for a lot of countries we have to do this work ourselves. This is sub-optimal as we don’t have all the necessary metadata (data about data), but we do the best we can”
- Email 3016, Oct 2008, Phil Jones: We earn money the old-fashioned way: We write government proposals for it
- Email 3010, July 2008: Keith Briffa rejects a paper on the problems caused by larch budmoth for climate reconstruction, but admits “no fundamental objections have been raised regarding the science”
- Email 277, May 2003, Mike Hulme: “the argument about rising damages over the last 20-30 years…says more about the insurance industry than it does about climate change…it is very difficult to pull out the climate signal from such data and even harder to pull out the anthropogenic climate signal”
- Email 4997, Phil Jones on NAO, 2004: “Also putting this in a box doesn’t mean we know what is causing it. My view is that we will never know. Is the influence stronger now because of anthro effects – who knows.”
- Email 4993, May 2003, Michael Mann rants against unbelievers Soon/Baliunas/C. Idso/S. Idso; claims to know their motivations; somehow also knows that “NYT, Scientific American, and a few other journalists are working on exposes of Baliunas and co., and those should appear soon”
- Email 4991, Oct 2007: Arthur D Edelstein writes to Phil Jones, asks for the complete HadCRUT3 dataset and source code, consistent with AGU policies; Jones plans to ignore the request
- Email 4990, Mar 2006, Richard Alley to Michael Mann: “she was not convincing that trees were thermometers when it was warm a millennium ago but are not thermometers when it is warm now”
- Email 4986, Aug/Sept 2009, Phil Jones: “They are mostly people who correspond on the Climate Audit blog site. They all seem to have infinite time as they are all retired.”
- Email 4984, June 2008: John Finn presents Phil Jones with some inconvenient data that “doesnt seem to square with the aerosol cooling theory”
- Email 497, May 2008: Keith Briffa’s “Private Clients” advisor suggests that Briffa make a significant investment in a fossil fuel company
- Email 4975, convenient urbanization: Phil Jones ignores it when it hurts “the cause”, uses it when it helps the cause
- Email 4973, Sept 2007: Phil Jones needs his US Department of Energy grant renewed, so he can pay for his flights and pay his staff?
- Email 4965, July 2005, Kevin Trenberth: “…to say that the warming in the first part of the 20th century was partly due to solar, the cooling from 1940 to 1970 to increased aerosol, and the warming after 1970 to the increasing GHGs”
- Email 4951, April 2003: Briffa wants M. Kelly to review a couple of papers for him including one “(on solar influence on climate ) which I think will be a rejection but I need hard justification”
- Email 4950, May 2002: Details about the Tyndall Centre’s climate change hoax show for children
- Email 4936, Michael Mann in January 2007 claims that Caspar Ammann has “independently investigated the claims of our critics and shown them to be either incorrect, inconsequential, or both.”
- Email 4933, Eric Kreileman to Mike Hulme: “…we discovered very strange behavior of the climate module. At higher C02 concentrations the climate sensitivity tents to be much less than expected”
- Email 4911, Michael Mann, July 2007: “What McIntyre and his ilk are trying to do is to make doing science as unpleasant as possible for us. I suppose they think that discouraging the scientists is the best way to prevent the science from moving forward”
- Email 4907, Aug 2005: Michael Mann comes out against unprofessional email exchanges, and “inflammatory and ad hominem public commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate.”
- Email 4887, Dec 2007, Phil Jones: “There are too many journals…and all have difficulty finding qualified reviewers”
- Email 4878, July 2009, Dave Palmer, UEA FOIA expert: “In reality, we don’t have any IPR in the raw data so we have no ‘rights’ to it…”
- Email 4854, Oct 2003, Phil Jones: “It is rather odd that the email said [M&M] had rerun his (Mann’s) exact analysis and got quite different results. I know I couldn’t do this, as when Keith, Tim and me wanted to do some comparisons with MBH98 a few years ago a few of the series could not be made available.”
- Email 4853, Keith Briffa, Nov 2006: “dropped the inference of direct, positive association with temperature, because we added in sites that Mike in particular had used because of their inverse sensitivity – ie they were really more precipitation sensitive”
- Email 4817, Simon Shackley to Mike Hulme: “dear [Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research] colleagues…looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from this largesse?”
- Email 4815, Jan. 2006: Eystein Jansen: “The timing of these matters are being followed closely by McIntyre…and we cannot afford to being caught doing anything that is not within the regulations”
- Email 4785, Nov. 2009, Tom Wigley on Richard Lindzen: “he is a very clever person with a top reputation outside of the global warming area”
- Email 4780, April 2009: Eystein Jansen and Jonathan Overpeck feel the need to “make the case that paleo-science continues to be highly relevant for IPCC”
- Email 4778, May 2009, Phil Jones to Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of AR5 WG1: “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”
- Email 4768, Oct 2003, Michael Mann’s psychological projection: He rants about the alleged “extremely dishonest”, “really scandalous” things that McIntyre and McKitrick allegedly did
- Email 4766, Phil Jones to the Met Office, May 2009: “We would look stupid if you released the data now”
- Email 4763, June 2008: Michael Mann wants to highlight “how critical [Phil Jones’] efforts have been to developments in areas such as [Detection and Attribution]”
- Email 4758, UEA’s Tim Osborn, Oct 2000: “how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! “
- Email 4754, Andy Lotter, Feb 2005: “What about CO2 reconstructions for the Holocene that do not derive from ice-cores?… I am not sure whether the ice-core lobby will be happy to deal with them as they tend to show somewhat different results.”
- Email 4753, Phil Jones, Oct 2004: “We have a mix of abilities in the LAs, but Brian, David P, Dave Easterling and Albert Klein Tank of KNMI are solid. The Iranian, Argentinian, Romanian, Kenyan don’t seem up to too much, but this is life in the IPCC – remember Ebby !”
- Email 4752, Phil Jones, July 2009: “The way you describe IPCC is a good way of putting it – a loose confederation of academics. It might not be perceived this way by govts or thr public, but the phrase you use is the reality.”
- Email 4750, Phil Jones: On climate fluctuations, “what matters is the 5-year plus timescale”
- Email 4749, July 2003, Michael Mann to WSJ reporter: Back when dinosaurs were wandering around near the poles, it was “almost” certainly warmer; this was allegedly “due to the influence of plate motion on the production of co2 by geological sources (e.g. volcanic outgassing)”
- Email 4713, Phil Jones, April 2009: Solar “constant” is now 1361, most models have 1366-1370; “Not that keen on tipping points!”; “there has been a dramatic decline in [relative humidity] in the past 3 years (this is very, very new!)”
- Email 4712, Tom Wigley, June 2003: “…The word ‘quality’ here has been chosen carefully — as something that is deliberately a bit ambiguous. The point here is to have something that we can fall back on if anyone criticizes *any* specific input series”
- Email 4709, Phil Jones, Nov 2007, urbanization shmurbanization?: “There are no corrections/adjustments for urbanization applied…There are several papers in th IPCC WG1 Ch3 that show that urbanization isn’t an issue”
- Email 4693, April 2002, a classic from Tom Crowley to Mann et al: “somehow I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships”
- Email 4690, Phil Jones, 2008: “For temperature, weather and natural variability (partly from ENSO) is large on timescales from monthly up to about 3-4 years, so dominates over human influences. The latter dominate over decadal and longer timescales”
- Email 4685, Missing Heat-Gate: Mike Hulme writes: “the global T increase to date has been patchy, except for the last 30 years and this extra heat will not have penetrated far into the oceans yet”
- Email 4660, Phil Jones, 2008: “…what we do now will have hardly any effect on temperature increases until 2040”
- Email 4657, Oct 2000, It’s a small world after all: Editor of Journal of Climate, Michael Mann, gets Phil Jones to review a paper by Tom Wigley and Ben Santer
- Email 4608, Phil Jones, 2005: “I wasn’t able to stop some comments being put in by Lindzen, but Tom has a paper as does Myles which are enough to ignore his and the Douglass papers”
- Email 4584, July 2003: Phil Camill asks Keith Briffa about a “…possible climatic forcing by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation” paper with no editorial response or reviews for 14 months
- Email 4559, Phil Jones, Aug 2003: “The Science Editor-in-Chief’s response…should be rammed down Singer’s throat…”
- Email 4478, October 2008, UEA’s David Palmer on requests for data: “quite frankly, I am surprised that not more requests of this nature have been made”
- Email 4465, June 2002, Keith Briffa: It has always been clear the competition for funding “was destined to be very fierce. The points you make about social relevance (which translates into political pressure) of the proposals is crucial…”
- Email 4047, May 2001, Mike Hulme: “The earlier part of the morning will ‘sell’ environmental science in the broader context, before we sell the particular challenge of climate change.”
- Email 4055, June 2005: Warmist Ray Bradley: “We got the $$ from a Congressional earmark…We hope to get another one next year, so as to give us an additional couple of years cushion.”
- Email 4074, January 2001: Bob Watson of the World Bank talks about how he’s going to write the IPCC Summary for Policymakers
- Email 4086, July 2000: Learn about “Palaeo-climatic Research and Earth System Modelling for Enhanced ClImatic and ENvironmental PredicTion (PRESCIENT)”
- Email 4093, Mar. 2005, keeping out the riff-raff: Madhav Khandekar applies for RMS fellowship; Phil Jones says “I’d be wary of accepting him” because of Khandekar’s association with “greenhouse skeptics”
- Email 4158, Oct 2003: To counter McIntyre/McKitrick, Michael Mann says “we’re preparing for a mass emailing tomorrow”; MacCracken writes “I do hope you send the note to high in US Admin”
- Email 4160, Warmist Richard Somerville: “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.”
- Email 4180, July 2000, on who should be on the Tyndall Centre Climate Change Hoax advisory board: “Certainly we need advice but we also want cash”; how about these wind power guys?
- Email 4225, Aug 2001: Warmists Rob Swart and Tom Wigley agree that cutting CO2 emissions would not make any distinguishable difference to the climate until “well into the second half of the century”
- Email 4243, Oct 1998: Storyline involving “a global underclass develops.. crime, drug dependence, homelessness and suicide rates increase…religous cults spring up everywhere….etc..” considered too alarmist for IPCC SRES report
- Email 4297, Phil Jones, Jan 2008: “…show that years like 2005 and others in the period 2002-2007 are after extraction warmer than 1998.”
- Email 4312, April 2008, Stefan Rahmstorf to Andy Revkin: “So if I had to bet money at equal odds on warming or cooling, I’d still bet on warming, although with less confidence than previously. “
- Email 4314, Oct 2004: UK warmist Phil Jones off to Seattle for a US DoE meeting; also mentions his new DoE grant
- Email 4321, Sept 2003: Mike Hulme sees that Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas have been asked to provide the annual progress reports for global warming for the PiPG journal, resigns as Editorial Advisor
- Email 4326, October 2009: UEA’s Head of Communications asks Phil Jones if UEA should say “Computer storage facilities have improved dramatically since the 1970s and early 1980s. Storage space at that time was limited and expensive and we were not in a position to keep all the raw data we received”
- Email 4327: Interesting rant from warmist Stephen Schneider on the alleged stupidity of the little people
- Email 4331: Ben “Beat the Crap out of Pat Michaels” Santer to McIntyre: “I see no reason why I should do your work for you…Please do not communicate with me in the future”
- Email 4337, June 2009: Railway engineer and global warming activist Pachauri sends out his “Chairman’s vision paper” for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
- Email 4352, Feb. 2007, Phil Jones writes to a US Department of Energy contact: “…when do you reckon you might be able to issue a new contract? I hope you are all pleased with the IPCC outcome.”
- Email 4356, Aug 2001: Warmist MIke Hulme admits that there can never be a consensus within the scientific community on the “non-dangerous” level for atmospheric CO2: “This question is not appropriately answered by science – it has to be answered by society!”
- Email 4378, May 2009: Warmist Thomas Stocker suggests that FOI should apply to polluters, but not to warmists?: “to take this convention and turn it around appears to me like a perversion”
- Email 4386, May 2009: Internal controversy on potentially ditching a “Weather Generator” that may be “virtually worthless: “[The Government wants] the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish”
- Email 4392, April 2009, Declan Conway, UEA: Still more cash for climate junk science?: “a large Defra call for a climate impact/risk assessment for the UK in 1-2 months – something like 1-2 million pounds”
- Email 4393, April 2003: Who’s who list of warmists is copied on an email thread on how to counter Baliunas/Soon; “a noted group from the detection and attribution effort” is listed as ClimateGaters “Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes”
- Don’t miss email 2624, Jan 2008, UEA’s Tim Osborn writes about deliberately holding back a climate realist paper, while fast-tracking an alarmist paper
- Email 4937, June 2003, Ed Cook to Keith Briffa: “This is not terribly kosher, but I am sending you the paper I am reviewing that attempts to destroy dendroclimatology as presently done, and my present review of it.”
- Email 4346, July 2001, Rachel Quinn, Royal Society: “The sort of things we could be doing now to cut back on GHG radically are, in fact, extremely good for the economy and society as well as the environment.”
- Email 4342, Keith Briffa, 2002, on paleo work: “These things will have many millions thrown at them”
- Email 5318, Phil Jones on hurricanes, July 2005: “Maybe one or two years of record numbers/severity will be enough to convince more Americans”
- Email 5294, Oct 2003: Hockey team in uproar over upcoming paper that destroys the hockey stick
- Email 5290, 2001, Ian “Harry” Harris on climate models: “”the sulphate runs are shit” is [Dave’s] no-doubt confidential opinion ;-)”
- Email 5283, Phil Jones, 2008: “As an aside the bias adjustments in the SST data are far more important than anything up with the land. All you have to do a moderately reasonable job with land and you’ll be fine”
- More pal review: Email 5271: Phil Jones is evidently “not conflicted” to review a proposal by hockey team member Ray Bradley, although he admittedly knows Ray “very well”, and he’s been a co-author with him
- Email 5260, 2005: Trenberth and Jones use terms like “concerned” and “alarmed” about data that doesn’t fit the warmist narrative: Trenberth: “The lack of reproducibility here is very disturbing”
- Email 5259, 2006: “trumpet LAURA’S successful £16,000 application to Defra’s communicating climate change fund for an exhibition stand…will show the influential role of UEA in international climate change research”
- Email 5239, Feb 2004, Adrian Simmons to Phil Jones on the “almost certainly erroneous cooling trends seen in the daily mean analyses for Australia and much of tropical South America” for 1958 to 2001
- Email 5199, Oct 2009: “there is some cynicism out there about what this £40million can really achieve above and beyond all the other climate change initiatives ongoing…What will all this research and disemmination achieve?”
- Email 5179, May 2008, on sea surface temperatures: Given all the potential errors, number fudging, and changes in measurement method, is it prudent to spend $45 trillion and change our lifestyles based on small reported fluctuations in these numbers?
- Check out email 5177 (1999): Here’s the actual code that allegedly told us how much the planet will allegedly overheat
- Email 5149, Phil Jones, Sept 2004: “I reckon that you would have to go back to about 3500BC to find a warmer period”
- Email 5120, 1997, the week before Kyoto: Phil Jones and Mike Hulme become “TV Stars!!” with “nicely timed” announcement that “1997 is on course to be the warmest year on record”; “Mike you looked very much like the Pope making very authoritive pronouncements!”
- Email 5068, Adri Buishand to Phil Jones, July 2008: “The trend differences are sometimes more than 1 degree per decade”
- Email 5053, Phil Jones, Sept. 2007: “Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with”
- Email 5036, Sept 2003, Keith Briffa: “would prefer no involvement of Mann and Phil – and can you tell me what reconstruction [hockey team member Ray] Bradley did ever ?”
- Some ClimateGate emails about cash for junk science: “10-12 million Euro looks like a reasonable guess for possible budget”
- Email 5007, June 2007: Reviewer of a Briffa et al paper writes “I value the findind that the strenght of climate-tree growth relationships has not declined during the 20th century”
- Email 4133, April 2005, David Rind, NASA GISS: “what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got”
- Email 4132, Phil Jones, 2003: “As for the title, why don’t we go for ‘Climate during the past two millennia’, still with the empahsis on the last one..The first millennia will be semi quantitative and would just be smoothed versions – simple averages of what we can get”
- Email 4131, Phil Jones, April 2007: “These requests are harrassment despite what you say – just look at their website!…We make the gridded data available. This is enough for normal climatologists.”
- Email 4107, Phil Jones, 2008: “[McIntyre] seems at last to have realized that the SST is potentially the weakest part of the global T record”
- Email 4092, 1998, Trevor Davies, CRU: “[Goldman-Sachs] is the sort of company that we might be looking for a ‘strategic alliance’ with”
- Email 4027, Nov. 2009: Warmist Tom Wigley admits that Naomi Oreskes’ famous paper on the alleged consensus is “useless”
- Yipes: In ClimateGate email 4022, Briffa talks about “avoiding the high early decades”; “deliberately omitting the data between 1900-1920”, and conceivably uisng instrumental data in the recent period
- Don’t miss this Nov 1999 UEA email (5309) : “All climate change signal detection and attribution studies to date have assumed a model-based estimate of natural climate variability. This is a major and relatively untested assumption to make, and is potentially a major source of criticism”
- Email 5307, April 2008, UEA’s Ian “Harry” Harris: “We do have ‘station files’ – these give the number of stations theoretically contributing to each cell. Where it’s a zero, and it’s also a land cell, you’ll get (full) relaxation to the climatology”
- Settled science?: In email 5298, Overpeck asks hopefully if Keith Briffa happens to have some “figure illustrating a new compelling reason to have faith in the recons for the last 1000 years”
- Email 5295, May 2009: UEA’s Stephen Dorling asks Phil Jones about “the recent finding that humidity was declining in the measurement record”
- Email 5279, UEA’s Tim Osborn, 2004: “Mann is now making an assumption about the real world climate. If we knew the amount of long-term variability that the real climate showed, then we wouldn’t be needing to reconstruct it in the first place!”
- Email 5251, 1999: Revealing email on how IPCC writing was actually done by “a small set” of people; “We could solicit input on certain topics, but I think we know the field well enough to make that an unnecessary burden on others”
- Email 5250, Phil Jones, 2009, on why he evidently thought that sharing climate data was optional: “I also don’t see why I should help people, I don’t want to work with and who spend most of their time critisising me”
- Email 5241, Phil Jones, Oct. 2007: Lack of raw data “isn’t an issue for almost all climate scientists around the world. They are happy with the products we put together…We’ve always not made the raw data available”
- Email 5234, June 1999: Critical climate model shows that “Glacier, Greenland and Antartic melting (for 5.5xCO2) are all lower than for 4.5xCO2”
- Email 5221, Phil Jones: “There has been little trend in winters over [Northern Europe] during the 20th century because winters were mild in the first 40 years of the century…Since 1951 winters in C and E Siberia have warmed, but they were milder in the first part of the century as in parts of Europe”
- Dec. 2004, email 5212, Phil Jones on IPCC lead authors for his chapter: “we are working with about 50% good people who can write reasonable assessments and 50% who probably can’t”
- Email 5197, Sept 2009, Phil Jones: The Met Office is “wanting to do as little as possible as they have just lost all the MoD money for climate science, which was £4M per year.”
- Email 5188, March 2009: Phil Jones invited to review a paper with an abstract that includes “mankind activity contributes to the recent global warming by much less than 15%”
- May 2008, email 5179, David Thompson, CSU: “I was also uncomfortable with the Hadley Centre propaganda. I think it would have been a lightning rod for the critics”
- Phil Jones, 2005: “I wouldn’t tell anybody about the FOI Act in Britain”
- Email 5089, Ed Cook: “in certain ways the [Medieval Warm] period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times”
- Email 5076, Phil Jones: “As you know, ENSO variability is an order of magnitude warmer on the interannual timescale than the greenhouse warming, so dominates on timescales less than 5 years”
- 2009 ClimateGate email, Phil Jones: “don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be changing the SSTs there for 1945-60”
- Email 5030, Pal Review in action: Ed Cook writes to Briffa: “The review is in. It was very strong in support of what you want to do: Alpha5. I can’t wait to sip an Adnams with you”
- 2008 ClimateGate email: Has anyone “even started thinking about” “how the US government will distinguish “impacts of climate change” from “vulnerability to natural climate variability” in allocating resources for adaptation assistance?”
- Email 4199, a ClimateGate twofer from Phil Jones: “the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried”; “The land data are robust as they result from all the countries doing different things”
- In case you missed it: “Smoking gun” email from BBC’s Jonathan Renouf to Keith Briffa: “Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past”
- Email 4401: “We need to specifically move on from the concept that “15 trees are enough.””
- Wow: In email 3423 (year 2001), UEA warmist Mike Hulme said that the evidence was NOT sufficiently strong to start reducing emissions
- Email 2748: Phil Jones sees McIntyre closing in on Mann
- Email 3874: Mann sends email trashing McKitrick and McIntyre to his “Friends and Colleagues” at the New York Times, Environmental Defense Fund, EPA, and Senator Lieberman’s office among others
- Self-promotion of Mann to Warmist PR Machine
10 Responses
The mainstream media have mostly contained Climategate inside the circle of skeptics.
Despite Climategate, Warmists are continuing to gain ground. More policies are being enacted, at all levels of government, to fight climate change.
Let’s see how President Trump evolves his position when he has to face the whole world on this.
Climategate is only the TIP OF THE ICEBERG!!! Long before the conspiring, hired-shill scientists began reporting about so-called man-influenced “global warming,” they were engaged in other activist-minded lying endeavors.
For example, they relentlessly pushed the notion that smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer. The Tobacco Institute fought this gamely for 4 decades, with their own scientific papers that effectively discredited this theory, before they finally threw in the towel.
Now the public accepts without question that smoking causes lung cancer. WRONG. It’s caused by radon and HPV.
Ya, it’s only the tip of the iceberg……. but it’s particularly poignant in that its in their own words. It’s not us yipping at them – it’s them exposing themselves. Gotta say it – maybe there’s a tie-in with Anthony Wiener, eh?
We must go back and right the wrongs that were done by the paid shills who took down the tobacco industry with lies about smoking and lung cancer.
So true! Anyone who questions the so-called climate change consensus is a flat-earth believing, troglodytic, pro-tobacco industry conspiracy theorist. Anyway, I’m late for my UFO flight to a NAZI base on the dark side of the moon.
I do not believe in a flat Earth or UFOa Nazi bases on the moon. I’m merely pointing out that a LOT of science is bunk, and that climate science is not the first scam run on the American people. Long before anyone thought of “global warming,” medical huckster scientists were falsely warning of the health dangers of smoking tobacco. And the reputable scientists for the Tobacco Institute could not overcome this.
Smoking tobacco is not unhealthy. That’s a pack of lies propagated by paid shills. Smoking actually is healthy.
And the Earth is cooling, no matter what the global warming prevaricators say.
ArtMofo, nice twist on the lie that climate realists were tobacco company shills in the past.
Does it really matter if the cause is ingredients of cigarettes(radon) or cigarettes?
I would answer, but your questions makes no friggin’ sense. Why don’t you re-read/rephrase. I can’t read your mind for what you meant.
This Global Warming caused by humans is in itself: one of the biggest environmental disasters in history!
Why?
Because it sent $Billions$ of critical money needed for real environmental problems directly to Wall Street Bankers selling Carbon Credits on Asian Markets (where they can hide the transactions). Money needed to clean up water, air, and soil pollution was wasted on give aways. Even new clean energy production and transmission methods were not funded properly.
Carbon Credits even allowed US manufacturers to continue to pollute as long as they bought carbon credit bribes. Just awful and disgusting how much damage has been done in the USA and around the world by this massive financial fraud.
I have been saying that for years it’s all crap about global warming. Earth has gone thru and is going thru it’s change something it has been doing since earth was formed. The UN should be made to return all monies it took from countries so gulable to fall to their scam. Al Gore a democrat was the first to cry wolf, what a sad excuse for a human being. UN should be disbanded as they are just another corupt sleezy organization that take advantage of countries. To many hands in the cash drawer only to line their pockets.