Debunking the Climate Scam
Billions of Dollars -
Greedy Green Corporations -
No Warming For Two decades -
Bought and Paid For Organizations
5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores
What Top U.N. Climate Scientists Say
Phil Jones -
Draft Contributing Author to the Summary for Policy Makers, and Coordinating Lead
Author of Ch3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4)
Jul 5 2005: The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant. (1120593115.txt)
Note: in 2012, it is now 14 years of cooling.
2/2/2005: 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. (1107454306.txt)
Thu May 29, 2008, Subject: IPCC & FOI: Can you delete any emails you may have had
with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. (1212073451.txt)
Note: Destroying information subject to a FOI request is a crime.
September 12, 2007: Ammann/Wahl -
Jul 8 16:30:16 2004: I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -
16 Nov 1999: 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. ( 0942777075.txt)
Note: this is an extremely important admission: the “decline” he is hiding is the temperature decline since 1961, in the tree ring data, while the actual temperature rose. The existence of this decline suggests that tree ring data can’t be trusted for any period, since it deviates from measured temperatures in one period (after 1961.) This is crucial as much of the IPCC case rests on tree rings.
11 Mar 2003: I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. (1047390562.txt)
Dec 3, 2008: When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions -
Dec 3, 2008: About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little -
Nov 24, 2009 Guardian: We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.
Note: he emails that he has deleted loads of emails and a year later tells the newspaper he didn’t.
Draft Contributing Author for the Summary for Policy Makers,
contributing author to Ch 1, a lead author for Ch 3, and
contributing author to Ch 7 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4.)
12 Oct 2009: ...we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. (...) and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. (...) 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. (. . .) Our observing system is inadequate. (1255352257.txt)
Oct 14, 2009: 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! (1255523796.txt)
Michael E. Mann
Creator of the famous “hockey stick” shaped temperature curve
prominently featured in the UN’s third climate report (tar) used by Al Gore.
04 Jun 2003: 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 (1054736277.txt)
Note: Elimination of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) makes today’s temperatures look unusual.
27/10/2009, 16:54: As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations. (1256735067.txt)
15/11/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote: The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have "Climate Research" and "Energy and Environment", and will go there if necessary. (1132094873.txt)
May 1999: Trust that I'm certainly on board w/ you that we're all working towards
a common goal. That is what is distressing about commentarys (yours from last year,
and potentially, without us having had approprimate input, Keith and Tim's now) that
appear to "divide and conquer". The skeptics happily took your commentary last year
as reason to doubt our results! In fact, your piece was references in several commentaries
(mostly on the WEB, not published) attacking our work. So THAT is what this is all
about. It is in the NAME of the common effort we're all engaged in, that I have voiced
concerns about language and details in this latest commentary-
Please understand the above to be a complete and honest statement about the source of my concerns. It really doesn't have anything to do about who did what first, etc. I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we're doing here. (0926010576.txt)
Contributing Author to Ch 10 of of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change.
06 Nov 2009: We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has
been twice the ocean warming -
24 Apr 2003: Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not
27 Sep 2009: So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this
would be significant for the global mean -
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -
Oct 14, 2009: ...there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. (1255553034.txt)
Contributing author to chapters 6 & 8 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4
05 Oct 1999: Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure: The data are attached
to this e-
Note: This appears to be another “hide the decline”
Benjamin D. Santer,
contributing author to Ch 1, 9 & 10 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change
19/03/2009: If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available -
09 Oct 2009: I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. (1255100876.txt)
Lead author for Ch 6 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4
Apr 29, 2007: I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . (1177890796.txt)
Sep 22, 1999: I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. (0938031546.txt)
Note: There is that troublesome decline again, that needed to be hidden.
Sep 22, 1999: I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years... (0938031546.txt)
Lead author of ch 3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4
05/01/2005: There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-
Contributing author to Ch 6 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4
6/4/03: I got a paper to review (...) that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. (...) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. (1054756929.txt)
Note: Reviewers agree to be impartial and independent.
More CRU Emails -
From: Tom Crowley, Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005: I have been fiddling with the best way
to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period -
Note: A warmer medieval warm period might make today’s climate look normal.
Soliciting Money From Exxon-
06/10/2009, From: Andrew Manning: (I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens
Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a
little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK -
11 Sep 2000, From: "Mick Kelly: Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation... (0968691929.txt)
24 May 2000, From: John Shepherd: I gather you're going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike's analysis : i.e. there's room for some constructive dialogue...
(. . .)
19/05/00: Mike Hulme wrote: I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. (0959187643.txt)
Note: Esso is a subsidiary of Exxon-
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below?
(I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million
employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments
here in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling
into question (again) observed temperature increases – I thought we’d moved the debate
beyond this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-
Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.
From: Phil Jones, before 19/06/03 12:33 -
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN. How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious. Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:
(...) But basically, you'll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2
cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case-
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed
since the IPCC close-
Keith and I have discussed the email below. I don't want to start a discussion of it and I don't want you sending it around to anyone else, but it serves as a warning as to where the debate might go should the EOS piece come out.
I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through GCOS.
Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers
have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond -
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.
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.
I'd rather you didn't. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie's email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR. Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that
claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse
regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon
as the main whipping boy. (...) If published as is, this paper could really do some
damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with
a lot of Box-
Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -
I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.
If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available -
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will
keep them out somehow -
Is Realclimate.org an Independent Information Source?
10 Dec 2004: Gavin Schmidt on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
We would like to thank the many bloggers that posted the email excerpts we used as leads to the above emails. Particularly those at:
Other compilation of emails:
Here are some email excerpts from the the world’s leading climate scientists who control much of the UN’s IPCC climate reports. (A note to Americans: many of these emails were written in Europe where the date format and spelling are a bit different.) Google the number in () to see the full text.
This Video explains Mike’s Nature Trick (below): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
|Past Was Warmer|
|NASA: 30's Hotter|
|CRU Emails - html formatted|
|CRU Emails Simple Format|
|CRU Emails UnFormatted|
|Hockey Stick Links|