« They are coming to take them away... | Main | Friday Night is Music Night (Another Typical Night at The King's Arms Edition) »

Hacked CRU Files? The Big Climate Science Story Today

Bishop Hill was the first to alert me that :
It is claimed that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has been hacked and there is a massive file of emails and code up on a server in Russia. If what has been posted is real then the balloon is about to go up.
Excerpts of the emails have been posted here. They include a CRU scientist welcoming the death of a prominent sceptic, discussion of how to fiddle results and so on.
Amazing. If true.
As someone says, if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

The original download site seems to be down but I found a copy of the file here: MEGAUPLOAD

Quickly scanning through them they have a ring of truth, but has the original seam been salted with fools gold to catch out crowing sceptics?

Sample files are described as:
0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: "try and change the Received date!"
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: "too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve"
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU's truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: "something else" causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * "Carefully constructed" model scenarios to get "distinguishable results"
0968705882.txt * CLA: "IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results"
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death "cheering news"
1029966978.txt * Briffa - last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: "not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference" (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: "Keenan has a valid point"
1118949061.txt * we'd like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

1059664704.txt reads:
From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: reconstruction errors
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400

Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably larger uncertainties farther back...
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files.
I can't even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...

And so on - Lucia, Watts up and Climate Audit (and others) have more


First Yamal; now this. If true it means that Jones, Briffa, et al have been playing with a marked deck. Tsk. Smacked wrists.

Zipped file available here.
The original Russian FTP source has gone - fishy?
Then again wikileaks is checking the authenticity and it does appear to be CRU stuff, but nothing official yet.

Here is a link to the story on an NZ site called TGIF:


They have contacted CRU and asked Phil Jones about the veracity of the leaked emails and got no denials, Key quote:

'Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant
by using the words “hide the decline”.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you
remember the exact context of what you wrote ten
years ago?”'

From that linked file I've had a look through some of the mail messages and they're a real hoot.

Not least this admission of "we don't know wtf is going on":


I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't account
for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going". In my eyes these are two
different things -- the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.


From file: \FOI2009\FOIA\mail\1255550975.txt

Post a comment