Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government


Academic, Non-Governmental

What Those Hacked Climate E-Mails Really Say

A Different Picture Emerges When You Read Them All

By Elizabeth May

Dec 7, 2009

He goes on to suggest that the university and directors of programs just point out where the data can be found in the public domain and urge them to try their own calculations (if they have the competence.) He suggests they point out how it can be done by getting a grad student to work up the data from public sources that the contrarians keep demanding.

The enormous volume of e-mails gives a picture of thoroughly decent scientists increasingly finding themselves in a nightmare. One refers to the atmosphere moving to something akin to that created by Joseph R. McCarthy. Their professional reputations are suddenly at risk. They write each other in disbelief, protesting, “I have never been political. I am an honest scientist.” They are threatened, and "sting" operation FOI requests are set up to ensnare them and keep them from doing their work.

And now the worst of the worst are gleefully eviscerating my new friends (yup, that’s how you feel after reading these guys’ emails for the last dozen years, like putting on the kettle and hoping they drop round for tea.)

Worst of the worst? Patrick Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He was once at the University of Virginia and considered a decent scientist. He is famous for giving testimony attacking Dr. James Hansen to the U.S. Senate showing how wrong Hansen’s projections were. Only he had redrawn Hansen’s graph to make it wrong! (He admitted this when I cross-examined him on CBC Sunday Morning’s “Kyoto on Trial” in 2002). And all the media cheerfully quote Michaels doing his impersonation of serious scientist deeply troubled by emails that suggest the East Anglia group had little use for him.

More hacked emails will apparently be released soon. The one scientist I think has some explaining to do is Dr. Wang at State University of New York at Albany who has told colleagues for years he has the hard data from Chinese meteorological stations but never seems to be able to produce it. It is a very small piece of data in the scheme of things, but Wang should either produce the data or explain where he got the numbers.

Certainly nothing in these emails suggests any problem with fundamental science. Dr. Phil Jones, who headed up the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, has just stepped aside during the investigation. My money is on a full exoneration for him.

Meanwhile, the walking propaganda machines for the fossil fuel industry will continue their Disinformation Pyramid Scheme. Only responding to each lie with a well-referenced fact, duking it out with these guys on blog sites and newspaper letters to the editor will help keep the truth in mind.

In the meantime, if you want to get to know some wonderful scientists, their life is on display on a Russian server.


See also:

Civil Conspiracy Lawsuits Filed Against Climate Change Deniers

Climate Science 101: Holdren, Lubchenco Take Congress Back to School

Military Veterans Seek Inhofe Apology over Global Warming Remark

Skeptics Exaggerating Science Scandal to Derail Copenhagen Climate Talks

Latest Science Shows Climate Change Outpacing Previous Projections

In Congressional Hearings, Amateurs Invited to Confuse Climate Science

A Climate Deception Revisited: What's Behind the Signatures of 31,478 Skeptical "Scientists"

I have got

I have got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about an hour. I am a newbie and your success is very much an inspiration for me.

This is an affecting point

This is an affecting point of view on this topic. I am happy you shared your ideas and I find myself agreeing. I appreciate your clear writing and the effort you have spent on this post. Many thanks for the good work and good luck with your site, I greatly look forward to future updates.

very interesting.I wonder

very interesting.I wonder what goes on from here now that all that has happened just a while ago

Your blog is outstanding!

Your blog is outstanding! I mean, I have never been so entertained by anything in my life! I mean, how did you manage to find something that matches your style of writing so well? I am really happy I started reading this today. Thanks for sharing it here.

Its all about chasing

Its all about chasing shadows.
By that I mean latching on to this or that latest, most innovative idea that some self styled money making guru has put out in the hope it’ll go viral and make them a lot of money off the backs of all the headless chickens who will follow them blindly down a blind alley. Its a shame but a truism nonetheless that people will follow where someone they see as an expert leads. Even if they lead them to certain disaster, which is what most of the gurus tend to do to their flocks.
The trick is to recognize a shadow when you see it!

Climategate and Shame of Global Warming Alarmists

Elizabeth May, Canada Green Party Leader, is, like Al Gore, an unrepentent liar. Yesterday, Snake Oil Al told reporters that the most recent email in the CRU hall of shame is from 10 years ago when in fact the latest email is from early last month.

Elizabeth May likewise laments that no one is asking who hacked the CRU computers and actually has the stupidity to wonder who paid the alleged hackers when it hasn't even been established that this is the work of hackers. Noted security experts say it is far more likely in situations like this one that emails were leaked by an insider.

If the mainstream media hasn't been asking who's responsible for the exposed emails and computer code from CRU, it's because the mainstream media has until just this week had its head in the sand.

Fairly Certain It Was A Hack

East Anglia was not the only lab hacked. Most of the others were discovered and stopped. An Office in Victoria caught 2 guys trying to hack emails and ran them off. Our NSA knows exactly who they are it just depends on whether they want to go after them.

Dyslexics Untie!

Strange- I read a couple hundred of the 1073 files, some of which contain many emails in a continuous thread.
What struck me was the absolute intellectual corruption.
As far as the actual details of the programming - it was data rape, no ambiguity about that - and it's in plain sight.
The emails are not a portrayal of mischeivous guys dedicated to science by any stretch of the imagination - they were a shocking display of the worst vanity and vituperaton imaginable. They got people blacklisted and even 'ousted'. It could have been no worse at the vatican dealing with Galileo.
They deserve prosecution for the most serious betrayal of trust, of science and of humanity.

People Ousted

Yeah, they were absolute frauds.

For Andy and Thomas

Andy, you wrote: "You do realize that the East Anglia CRU destroyed all their original data from actual climate measurements, right?"
Please read this:
Then consider whether allegations of "destroyed data" might not be defamatory.

Thomas: you appear to know what "hide the decline" means. You may even know better than Jones what it means. So, why don't you give us a lecture on just what is meant by "hide the decline"?

this is amusing

"The one scientist I think has some explaining to do is Dr. Wang at State University of New York at Albany who has told colleagues for years he has the hard data from Chinese meteorological stations but never seems to be able to produce it. It is a very small piece of data in the scheme of things, but Wang should either produce the data or explain where he got the numbers."

You do realize that the East Anglia CRU destroyed all their original data from actual climate measurements, right? We're supposed to take it as a matter of faith that the modified data they still have was modified correctly, without being able to see the data that they started with. Why exactly does Dr. Wang need to produce his hard data when the CRU doesn't need to?

Original data at NOAA and NASA

You can get all the original data your little heart desires at NOAA and NASA. Knock yourself out.

That the emails don’t

That the emails don’t change the consensus view on climate change is obviously true. It’s not like respected scientists are going to suddenly change their positions. No new papers have been published based on anything revealed in the emails which really should be the judge of what the consensus is anyway. In addition there is also no “smoking gun” here that shows any one study was wrong.

What the emails have revealed to me is that the consensus view has never been what the IPCC and other politicians like May report. These scientists are the top in the field and reading the emails shows just how divided they are and how few actually believe Mann, Jones, etc. My view of the consensus:

The planet has undergone a general warming trend over the last few hundred years. The causes of this are a mixture of natural variation and human influences. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by humans is known to contribute to the greenhouse effect which increases global temperatures. This effect may have been a significant factor in the recent 20th century warming but there is no way to tell for sure based on our current understanding of the global climate.

Claims of unprecedented warming based entirely on CO2 are just politics.

ps there were 1073 emails not 3000

You could not be more wrong

The conduct shown in the email is outrageous and totally unacceptable. If that conduct had related to corporate financial manipulation, a criminal investigation would ensue, and if the conduct was found to be true, people would go to jail. Enron executive used tricks to hide declines and tried to rig the peer-review process (financial auditors). But Enron was child's play compared to this stuff. These emails relate to something far more important (and expensive) than the value of one corporation's stock.

Tricks and Hide Declines

You have no idea what your are talking about in science. Science is NOT a business. Ask a scientist to explain what a trick is to you.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options