As was reported here previously, the release of thousands of e-mails and documents from a climate research center threatens to expose some of the biggest scientific names in the global warming debate to serious charges of fraud, unethical attacks on colleagues, censorship of opposing viewpoints, and possible criminal destruction and withholding of evidence.

Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider, Kevin Trenberth — these are but a few of the "big guns" of global warming alarmism who are unfavorably exposed in the documents that were posted on the Internet by unknown hackers who penetrated the computer system of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's University of East Anglia.

Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, especially comes off very poorly in the newly revealed documents. In an e-mail of January 29, 2004 to Michael Mann, Jones refers to the recent death of global warming critic John L. Daly with this churlish comment: "In an odd way this is cheering news!" In the same e-mail, Jones then suggests to Mann that he has obtained legal advice that he does not have to comply with Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests from other scientists to release data and codes underlying his research claims. Devising ways to delay and deny FOI requests is the subject of additional e-mails, such as one from Jones to Gavin Schmidt (with a copy to Michael Mann) of August 20, 2009, arguing that the data from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is exempt from these requests. Jones writes:

The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI — the skeptics have been told this.

The IPCC's reports, of course, have been presented as the "last word" on climate science by Al Gore and most of the major media. Like all other UN agencies and programs, the IPCC claims to adhere to the highest standards of "transparency." However, many distinguished scientists, including former IPCC scientists, have objected to the IPCC's opaque process and criticize the unwillingness of the IPCC to release data it cites as the basis for its extravagant claims.

Some of the e-mails seem to confirm concerns that Jones, Mann, et al, have destroyed data that could expose their fraudulent methods. That appears to be the case here, where Jones suggests to Mann that he delete certain e-mails that apparently dealt with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was released in 2007. He also suggests they get other colleagues to delete related material.

 In another e-mail to Mann, Jones may have set himself up for legal prosecution for attempting to thwart the UK's newly passed FOI law. Jones says, "I think I'll delete the file rather than send [it] to anyone," and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

"Hockey Sticks" and Hokey Data

Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at Pennsylvania State University, is the lead author of the now-discredited "Hockey Stick" graph used by the IPCC and Al Gore (most notably in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth) to "prove" man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).  

In a particularly damning e-mail exchange from 2003, Mann and Jones discuss a scheme for getting rid of Hans Von Storch, the editor of the journal Climate Research, for publishing the contrary research of  distinguished fellow scientists.*

This theme of getting rid of Von Storch appears again in other e-mails, such as this exchange between climate alarmists Tom Wigley and Timothy Carter (with a copy to Phil Jones).

 And Hans Von Storch is not the only professional targeted by the climate activists, who appear to have taken political correctness to new levels in silencing those in the scientific community that voice disagreement with their apocalyptic scenarios. Among other examples is an October 12, 2009 e-mail exchange among Stephen Schneider, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenbreth, and one of Schneider's students. The student brings to their attention a BBC report that deviates from the BBC's usual The-Sky-Is-Falling! AGW propaganda. The student writes:

Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics' views.

The BBC report, in this case, was on the mark, as most scientists now agree (and even many of the alarmists now admit — though some still try to explain away) that global temperatures actually have cooled for the past decade. (See, for example here, here, and here.) Stephen H. Schneider, professor of environmental studies at Woods Institute for the Environment, passes on the student's query, asking his colleagues if they would like to try explaining "the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis," which he recognizes as a problem in terms of keeping the public panicked over climate change.

Yes, this is the same Stephen Schneider who prior to 1978 was proclaiming that man-made CO₂ emissions were going to drive planet Earth into global cooling and a new Ice Age. It is also the same Stephen Schneider who admitted in a 1996 paper that "scientists" sometimes have to use scare tactics, exaggerations, and suppression of doubts and contrary evidence in order to win public support for desired political policies. He said winning support required "loads of media coverage," and to obtain that scientists would have to "offer up scary scenarios." Here is the full quote:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
 scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
 truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the
   doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
   are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
 we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context
   translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
 disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting
 loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
 simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
   we might have.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Michael Mann responds to Schneider's October 12, 2009 e-mail indicating that he will contact the Met Office (the British meteorological agency) and the BBC about the Paul Hudson report, which was causing the alarmists so much angst. Based on the other e-mails, as well as on what has been previously reported elsewhere about other retaliatory attacks, it may not be far-fetched to infer that Mann was intimating that he would have pressure applied to Hudson to toe the AGW line.

An amusing admission against interest in the above exchange (October 12, 2009) is this comment by Kevin Trenberth, who can't figure out what to say about the historic low temperatures:

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth then goes on to admit: "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." 

However, the alarmists' admitted inability to explain away this enormous fact has not lessened their certitude nor dampened their zeal for implementing a planetary climate regime.

The release of the e-mails has come at an inopportune time for many of the "experts" who may be appearing at — or whose scientific research is prominently tied to — the fast approaching United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. Claiming that man-made emissions are causing calamitous global warming, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  (UNFCCC) to be voted on in Copenhagen will call for global governmental mandates to regulate and tax all human activities.

Public awareness of the content of the CRU e-mails could significantly undercut support for the UNFCCC. Thus, many of the media organs that have been most vociferous in promoting the global warming hype have been curiously subdued in reporting on the recent "Climategate" scandal. The University of East Anglia said that the purloined e-mails and documents had been selectively leaked to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous." And, it seems, much of the media are content to go with that spin.

Many of the scientists in the "realist" or "skeptic" community, including those who have borne the brunt of attacks by Mann, Jones, et al, have not weighed in on the matter yet. Many voices on the realist/skeptic blogs and web sites expressed the need for caution, suggesting the e-mail releases could even be a hoax, or that false e-mails and documents could be mixed in with those that are genuine. That is a possibility. However, according to reports in the New York Times and elsewhere, some of the emails have been confirmed as genuine by the named authors. It may be some time before all of this massive trove of documents is vetted and certified. In the meantime, one of the websites that has sifted through a significant number of the emails and provided helpful summaries of their content, can be accessed here.

* Those scientists mentioned by name are: Willie Soon, a physicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory; Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division and Senior Scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute; Patrick Michaels, retired Research Professor of Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia and former state climatologist for Virginia; and William Gray, a pioneer in hurricane forecasting, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU.

Carbon Scam? Al Gore, Profits, and Copenhagen

From Rio to Copenhagen

Australian Prime Minister Goes Hysterical Over Global Warming

"Smart Grids" & Monitoring Your Power Use

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (15)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Thomas Paine said:

	One small step for man This is a giant step for mankind. We need victories like this to expose the fraud of the NWO!
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 23, 2009
Votes: +6

Bondservant1958 said:

FRAUD! All us deniers have been saying all along is "SHOW US THE MATH!" well we have now seen the math....All personal perspectives aside, out of context vs. smoking gun, the real issue is not about the sanctity of science but much simpler. TO create false information for the purpose of financial gain whether it is grant money or sustainable business is called FRAUD and the hacked e-mails and more importantly the codeing in the models SHOW that this group of scientists KNEW exactly what they were doing in "smoothing data" colluding among themsleves and stifyling critism of skeptics are GUILTY OF FRAUD!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 23, 2009
Votes: +8

JJ Suprise said:

	Thanks!!!! Thanks to whomever managed to get this information public. It is just a verification of what we already knew and will cause some serious discomfort for the followers of "The Book of Gorman" and hopefully a total destruction of this nonsense. And another thanks to you Bill Jasper for all you do. I look forward to seeing you again, perhaps on the river, ASAP. HooDeeHoo! JJ Suprise
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 23, 2009 | url
Votes: +5

Steve S. said:

	Climategate has finally been destroyed this was the mother load. Many of us knew this was all hype and a worldwide conspiracy, and now we have proof....the hacker should get some type of major award...
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 23, 2009
Votes: +5

Flu-Bird said:

	Enviromentalsm a evil cult Enviromentalism is a radical pagan new age cult of earth worshipping fanatics who look upon humanity has a blight on the earth and as offensive to GAIA the pagan deity they worship and bow down to and abortion as awell as euthinasia are their sacrifices to gaia
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2009
Votes: +7

Phoenix Roberts said:

Oh, if only... I'd like to believe that this is the end of the man-made global warming scam, but you and I, being smarter than the average Democrat, know perfectly well that even a chorus of heavenly angels singing the praises of rational thinking wouldn't move some of the GW enthusiasts from their misguided notions. We can't stop these fanatics, we can only control them by outnumbering them at the debate and the polls.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2009
Votes: +2

mkurbo said:

What do you say ? Daddy, why are we killing the polar bears with global warming ? Oh sweetie, come here and sit down for a minute. You see, certain scientists told the world some lies about this thing called global warming. Then, leaders from around the world supported those lies and told more lies of their own. Even our leaders here in America told us lies too about how this made-up thing would hurt people. Look peanut, these people did a really bad thing. Their lies have cost trillions of dollars and wasted people’s time and energy all around the world. But now these bad people have been caught lying so don’t worry, the polar bears will be fine and we will all be ok. Now I want you to go out and play and stop thinking about this stuff some people at school and other places have put in your head. Go out and have fun and just remember, don’t tell lies, they might affect the whole world someday. End of Story

report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2009
Votes: +5

Charlie Peters said:

	Clean Air Performance Professionals support HR 1207
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Charlie Peters said:

	Clean Air Performance Professionals Hoax? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN7ioCiSmtc
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2009
Votes: +1

Mark Whitney said:

	... As it turns out, it was not a hacker. The files were placed on a public server either accidentally, or by an inside whistleblower. The files had apparently been compiled in anticipation of a FIA request. No one is denying their authenticity. Mark
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

Cliff said:

More heat is needed This is the time when we should be turning the heat up to white-hot, before the politicians rail-road everyone into accepting the treaties. They will probably be especially desperate now that these emails have come to light, because they know it's now or never. Write to you congressman, senators the president, committee members, Digg this article, Tweet it, send it to everyone you know, before the Copenhagen convention.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +3

Dashing Leech said:

Shooting yourselves in the foot No people. There's nothing damaging in these emails. Does the saying "When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail." mean anything to you? The "damaging" comments have focused on specific out of context words and wording, not actual actions or data. The word "trick" was taken out of context, and the peer review issue was a known scandal in which a sloppy paper was published and half of the editorial board resigned in protest to it bypassing proper peer review. Nothing here indicates any change to any paper or any scientific conclusion anywhere, nor suggests any changing of data or exclusion of scientifically sound analysis. If you are going to try to deny climate change science you must do it through scientific data, not through political pressure or PR activities. If you continue down this route you will look stupid because none of it changes a single data point.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 27, 2009
Votes: -5

jbs-believer said:

Climate Change Science Fiction Dashing Leech wrote: If you are going to try to deny climate change science you must do it through scientific data, not through political pressure or PR activities. If you continue down this route you will look stupid because none of it changes a single data point. It's seems quite obvious to the most casual observer which side of the debate is now looking "stupid." In fact, there has been no debate from this earth goddess group, just a non-stop force-feeding of one-sided fanatical propaganda by con-artists masquerading as scientists. The only "political pressure or PR activities" to have existed in this global ponzi scheme, emanates from this same group of junk science developers at the CRU. This hoax was debunked over 5 years ago (Meltdown for Global Warming Science]http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2789]Meltdown for Global Warming Science) by highly credible scientific study and methods the media, along with the IPCC have refused to acknowledge. Over 31,000 Meteorologists, Cosmologists, Geophysicists, even Nuclear Engineers with more than 9,000 of them possessing PhD's in their scientific fields (See Petition Project]http://www.petitionproject.org/]Petition Project) have refuted this Global Warming/Climate Change fiasco, yet we are instead to believe a handful of manipulating fraudsters facing possible criminal indictment? How can one possibly claim with a straight face given the current revelation including what we already knew, that it doesn't "change a single data point?"

report abuse vote down vote up

November 28, 2009
Votes: +4

Jason said:

Keep the good news coming! Everyone I'm sure is pro-TRUTH even if it is by such means as this, regardless of the admissibility of it at a court level, that does not take away from the fact that those in positions to make decisions for the public, may, knowingly do things for reasons other than what they say or the media most available would lead you to believe. Either way you see it it's a step in the right direction, and in retrospect things will improve because of it.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 08, 2009
Votes: +1

Wormsnapper said:

Hide the Decline! "Shooting yourselves in the foot No people. There's nothing damaging in these emails. Does the saying "When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail." mean anything to you?" The word 'trick' is not the damaging bit, the words 'hide the decline' are, and they cannot be misinterpreted. And it's not just that they cast into doubt the last bit tacked onto the rising temperature graph, but that they demonstrate that the whole mass of tree-ring proxy data is at fault. Also, programmers across the Internet have been looking at the data amidst those emails. It has been fudged: past temperatures subtracted from and recent temperatures added to so as to give the impression of a rise. It is fraud, plain and simple, and you 'Dashing Leech' are the denier.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 23, 2009 | url
Votes: +1