Debunking the Climate Scam

Billions of Dollars -  Fudged Data  -  Corrupt Scientists

Greedy Green Corporations - Trillion Dollar Prize

No Warming For Two decades - Illiterate Media

Bought and Paid For Organizations

5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores

What Top U.N. Climate Scientists Say

PDF of this Page for printing (2 sheets)  1 sheet version  

Text  version (No formatting)

Light HTML version Blogging(file)   (web page)

Wordprocessor version (copy to email)

Phil Jones - head of the Climate Research Unit

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 - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

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 - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with. (1189722851.txt)

-------------------

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 - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!    (1089318616.txt)

-------------------

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 - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.  (1228330629.txt)

Dec 3, 2008:  About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all. (1228330629.txt)

Nov 24, 2009  Guardian: We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea)

Note: he emails that he has deleted loads of emails and a year later tells the newspaper he didn’t.

Kevin Trenberth

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--so as to avoid precisely that scenario.

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)

Tom Wigley

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 -- and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important. (1257546975.txt)

-------------------

24 Apr 2003: Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.(1051190249.txt)

-------------------

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 -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

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 -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. (1254108338.txt)

-------------------

Oct 14, 2009:  ...there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.  (1255553034.txt)

Tim Osborn

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-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal  (0939154709.txt)

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 - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals. (1237496573.txt)

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)

Keith Briffa

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)

David Parker

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 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. (1105019698.txt)

Edward Cook

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 - (not from IPCC authors)

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 - the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960   (1118866416.txt)

Note: A warmer medieval warm period might make today’s climate look normal.

Soliciting Money From Exxon-Mobile, Shell International and Siemens Corp,

 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 - looking promising,...  (1254832684.txt)

-------------------

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-Mobil.

Financial practices

From: Andrew Manning, Date: 06/10/2009 00:13

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-hards!!).

From: Tatiana M. Dedkova, Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500

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 -0400There are also some snipes at CRU and our funding, but we're ignoring these here. Also Mike comes in for some stick, so stay cool Mike - you're a married man now ! So let's keep this amongst ourselves . (...) I say this as this might come out if things get nasty.

From: Mick Kelly, Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15

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!

www.climatedepot.com

http://wattsupwiththat.com

www.climateaudit.org

Hiding information

From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500

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.

From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400

Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:

AD 1000

AD 1400

AD 1600

(...) 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--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up. (...) p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...

From: Phil Jones, Date:Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM

You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

From: Phil Jones, before 19/06/03 12:33 -0400

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.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004

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.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008

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 - advice they got from the Information Commissioner. (...) The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005

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.

Peer-review interference

From: Tom Wigley, Date: 1/20/2005 04:30 PM

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.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Aug 13 13:38:32 2004

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.

From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500

This was the danger of always criticising 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...

From: Edward Cook, Date: 6/4/03 09:50 AM -0400

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-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please

From: Tom Wigley, Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600

Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009

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.

From: Benjamin D. Santer, Date: 19/03/2009 16:48

If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu 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 - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Is Realclimate.org an Independent Information Source?

10 Dec 2004: Gavin Schmidt on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:

- Gavin Schmidt   - Mike Mann   - Eric Steig  - William Connolley

- Stefan Rahmstorf  - Ray Bradley  - Amy Clement - Rasmus Benestad

- Caspar Ammann

(1102687002.txt)

We would like to thank the many bloggers that posted the email excerpts we used as leads to the above emails. Particularly those at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://joannenova.com.au/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

Other compilation of emails:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf   (local)  VERY EXTENSIVE!

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/04/keep-scrolling-check-out-some-of-these.html

http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=ce35055e-8922-417f-b416-800183ab7272&download=1

http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/

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