A major story is breaking in climate science, after hackers posted a 61 megabyte data file on a Russian server that appears to be confidential emails and climate data hacked from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.
The data raises major questions about the role of scientists in what appears to be a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the public:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
If there's an innocent explanation, I'll be interested in hearing it.
In the meantime I've sent an email to Phil Jones asking if this email is genuine.
For those interested, the large file can be downloaded here [UPDATE, file removed from server. Have decided not to re-link in case some of the new ones around have been modified. I have a copy of the original. You can check out some of the alternative download links at Watts, but checksum the file as per their instructions to ensure it is the original]
UPDATE: Am busy on the TGIF deadline so have only generally perused the leaked emails. It appears to be a collection that might have been prepared for a possible FOIA (freedom of information) request and were in the process of being scrutinized. The tone of many is quite waspish, although like others the email above seems too damning to be true. Surely they weren't that stupid to commit such comments to writing back in 1999?
UPDATE 2: One of the emails refers to stacking the peer-review process to ensure scientific papers by the likes of NZ's Chris de Freitas don't make it past review into the IPCC's 2007 AR4.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Shocking. Lends authenticity to the documents as well – a US or European based hacker would not be likely to pluck de Freitas' name out of thin air if they were making something up.
UPDATE 3: This email from RealClimate's organ grinders illustrates a deliberate effort to prevent anything too challenging from being allowed on their website:
From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.
You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…