- Text smaller
- Text bigger
University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit
Officials at a key global-warming research center in the United Kingdom have authenticated a series of e-mails and other documents apparently taken from their computer system by a hacker, but they cannot explain what scientists in internal exchanges meant by references to a “trick” that would “hide the decline” of global temperatures nor by instructions to delete contrary data.
Author James Delingpole writes in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have “manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.”
According to the Australian Investigate magazine, the 62-megabyte Zip file with documents, e-mail exchanges and other
information from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit
apparently was posted by an unidentified hacker on a Russian web
One e-mail said: “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 (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Another expressed internal doubts: “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 (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.”
“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” Delingpole writes, “a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer-review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with (anthropogenic global warming) can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.”
He cites an e-mail: “This was the danger of always criticizing 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. … What do others think?”
Myron Ebell, of the GlobalWarming.org website where “cooler heads prevail,” said the e-mails are “shocking.”
“It’s kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community,” he said.
The documents, he said, “raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community.
“What I’ve seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It’s very improper,” he said. “One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate.”
Delingpole observes the world “is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly
reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive
regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning
against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called
‘skeptical’ view is now also the majority view.”
Phil Jones, head of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, confirmed to Investigate magazine the documents appeared authentic.
“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and e-mails,” he said.
“It’s completely illegal for somebody to hack into our system,” he told the magazine.
But Jones denied there was any attempt to mislead or conceal.
“They’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a
thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years,
because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and
ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years,” he said.
Jones said he could not recall what he meant when he wrote about a plan to “hide the decline.”
In the e-mail, dated 10 years ago, Jones wrote: “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
[sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the
annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for (Northern Hemisphere)
land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for
1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999
with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the
comments, Ray. Cheers, Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit.”
The documents also included a message dated last month from Kevin Trenberth to Michal Mann about the “U-turn on
climate” by Britain’s BBC News.
“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
Despite the advocacy of a financially vested former vice president, Al Gore, and others, public opinion about whether mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in global temperatures is shifting.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any “global warming.”
The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.
But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” the campaign has been reinvigorated.
“Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary moviegoers and to public-school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.
Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, cofounded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later cofounded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Paul cited the petition results in his statement to Congress.
“Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas,” Paul said. “They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.”
The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequences of assuming “global warming” results from mankind’s actions.
“The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded,” he said. “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries,” he told WND.
Warned Paul, “Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.
“While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people’s freedom,” Paul said.
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll.