The Climate-Gate Files

The following brief quotes come from emails and documents supposedly hacked from the Climate Research Unit in Britain and posted on the internet

Dr Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit has admitted the emails are genuine. Kevin Trenberth has commented on

the emails and not denied they are true. In time these documents may unravel the position of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) For brevity we have listed 20 of the first quotes to be

publicised

Dr Phil Jones Climate Research Unit, Britain

IPCC Scientists deliberately hid data to keep others from finding what they have done wrong.

“And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.” – Phil Jones

Faking the Facts?

“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.” – Tom Wigley

 Tom Wigley

“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that

we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the

data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” – Kevin Trenberth

IPCC scientists are not nearly as confident in their knowledge of the climate as they would have us think.

Kevin Trenberth

“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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”      – Phil Jones 

 

IPCC scientists have manipulated data to get the results they want.

(Mike`s Nature trick is a reference toMichael Manns fraudulent hockey stick temperature graph, once championed by the IPCC, but now discarded)

Conspiring against Sceptics?

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...” – Michael Mann

 Michael Mann

Hiding Information

“You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.” – Phil Jones

 

“But that explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus [sic] viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.” – Michael Mann 

 

Michael Mann

Making the facts fit their theory

“We can only strive to do our best and address the issues honestly. Some "sceptics" have their own dishonest agenda - we have no doubt of that. If you believe that I, or Tim, have any other objective but to be open and honest about the uncertainties in the climate change debate, then I am disappointed in you also.” – Keith Briffa

 

Keith Briffa

One stays out of the conspiracy while admitting climate uncertainties

“We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”  – Kevin Trenberth

 

Climate science very uncertain Unbalanced Climate Energy Budget

A Conspiracy to silence the voices of

sceptics in the scientific community?.

“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.” – Tom Wigley

Tom Wigley

More collaboration against sceptics?

“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. Kevin (Trenberth?) and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” – Phil Jones

 

Conspiring against fair process?“PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the

editoring. Hans Von Storch is partly to blame—he encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about … ….. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work—must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people {sceptics} like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.” – Tom Wigley

Tom Wigley

Hans Von Storch

Although not a sceptic

seems more fair minded

Fudging the graphs

“Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.” - Mick Kelly

 

Mick Kelly

Massaging the Mean

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

 

Cover Up

“If FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR (Information Protection Rights?) to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.” – Phil Jones

 

More cover ups• “Francis Zwiers is still onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey

sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !CheersPhilPS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” – Phil Jones

Conspiring to hide information

”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!!” – Phil Jones

IPCC scientists agree that Emission Trading Schemes are stupid.

“I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE -WE WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION- COME WHAT MAY!” – Eugene Gordon

ETS will not work• “At the moment, no country has any experience

with serious emission reduction POLICY. Minus 15% is serious, particularly because of the effort that will be spend on the monetary union and because the UK and Germany are too optimistic on their baseline emissions. Rash action instead careful thinking may well run serious, international climate policy deep into the ground.” – Richard Tol

Richard Tol

ETS economics not workable

“Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” – Tom Wigley

And now to examine some of the “fudged” data (Checked by the NZ climate science coalition)

The Original (Raw) Temp data The “manipulated” data

This graph looks flat But this one has a big temp rise

This graph found by Steve McIntyre which shows the deleted part of the temperature data in red that

these scientists had talked about

ConclusionA number of leading IPCC scientists have been

dishonest about the way they determined their scientific results, deleted data, & covered up the fact they did so - all in an attempt to convince the world that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming.

The real test will come out later when the

“massaged” data gets compared to the previous published data that many governments say is overwhelmingly true. Will it concern you if science is proven to be falsified and covered up to convince you to vote for an ETS.

We trust you are outraged like us that governments, and ordinary people should ever be given false and unreliable facts upon which to make decisions with.

All of us should work towards truthful scientific and political processes, no matter which political persuasion we hold.

There is no scientific proof CO2 causes Dangerous Global Warming. “Climate – Gate” may seal the fate of this belief.

If you want more evidence check our website.

Leon Ashby

President “The Climate Sceptics”

www.climatesceptics.com.au,

info@climatesceptics.com.au