Two months ago, there was the “Dog Ate My Global Warming Data” episode. As noted at NewsBusters and at BizzyBlog (original source: National Review Online), we learned that important original information forming the underpinning of global warming alarmists’ claims about the earth heating up has vanished. It is longer available and apparently can’t be reverse engineered.
Today, e-mails hacked from a UK climate research facility appear at a minimum to indicate a willingness by scientists to fudge the data to make alleged warming trends more clear and convincing. At worst, the whole enterprise could be totally discredited.
Important and damming passages from certain of the e-mails have been acknowledged as authentic.
The Australian Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt claims, as paraphrased by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, that “that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming.”
Here are key paragraphs from Bolt’s blog post (presented out of order because of frequent updates at that post):
Hackers have broken into the data base of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – one of the world’s leading alarmist centres – and put the files they stole on the Internet, on the grounds that the science is too important to be kept under wraps.
The ethics of this are dubious, to say the least. But the files suggest, on a very preliminary glance, some other very dubious practices, too, and a lot of collusion – sometimes called “peer review”. Or even conspiracy.
(excerpt from a hacked e-mail; bold is Bolt’s–Ed.)
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
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.
(end excerpted e-mail)
Surely these emails can’t be genuine. Surely the world’s most prominent alarmist scientists aren’t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can’t find the warming they’ve been so loudly predicting?:
(a second excerpt from a different e-mail; I removed most of Bolt’s bolds in this instance–Ed.)
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
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.
….. 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.
(end excerpted e-mail)
This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isn’t, we’re about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.
I mean, the media will follow this up, right? In the meantime, use with care.
(in an Update)
So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.
Well, the UK Guardian, of all places, has followed up to an extent:
Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists
Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists over the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.
The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the UK’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege that they provide “smoking gun” evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind. So far the veracity of the emails has not been confirmed and the scientists involved have declined to comment on the story, which broke on a blog called The Air Vent.
The files, which in total amount to 61MB of data, were first uploaded onto a Russian server, before being widely mirrored across the internet. The emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement: “We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”
The Guardian hedged on the e-mails’ authenticity, but that question seems to have been for the most part settled, i.e., they have been acknowledged by their authors as genuine.
So perhaps global warming really is a bunch of what yours truly and others have called “globaloney” for years.
I get the sense that the fun has just begun, with or without U.S. media coverage. I would strike a cautionary note that it all seems too perfect. But maybe they are really are that dumb to leave such obvious tracks.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
UPDATE: Real Climate’s “yeah, right” statement of the day –
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.
Yeah, “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” is sooooo lacking in “context.”