Hacked Emails Expose Global Warming Conspiracy

Computers at a major global warming alarmist center in the United Kingdom were hacked the other day, resulting in private emails being posted on the internet. What was found contained within those emails has set the internet ablaze.

The organization in question is the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, considered a leading organization in the promotion and “study” of anthropogenic global warming. So what was so damaging in those emails? This:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
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 [sic] from1961 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 NH 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

That correspondence dates back to 1999 and it shows a scientist for the organization, who happens to still work there, admitting to forging data and manipulating results so as to hide declines.

Other emails talk about deleting data that’s considered inconvenient for the global warming alarmists:

From: Tom Wigley […]
To: Phil Jones […]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer […]


Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

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.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.

So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.


In yet another email the scientists admit that they can’t even locate the global warming they’ve been warning the world about.

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

Hi all

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 weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

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.***

In other words, they can’t account for the fact that the world is experiencing some of the coldest days on record even as they’re warning about impending doom from global warming.

The last email is from last month, the first is from 1999. That establishes a ten-year conspiracy to manipulate data, forge results, and mislead the public — all in the pursuit of spreading the word about global warming and trying to get people to believe them.

As I said before, the center has already confirmed that the emails are authentic. There’s no suggestion that the correspondence printed above was faked. We’ve been lied to, plain and simple.

Global warming can’t be found, and scientists can’t account for its non-presence. It’s a sham.

Jon Huntsman: Of Course I Believe in Global Warming!

Actually, Huntsman’s remark is dumber, because he says he believes in “climate change”. As Ed Morrissey says, that’s a meaningless term. The climate is always changing and always has been changing. Which is why we’ve had ice ages and then, you know, not.

The question is whether the climate is changing because of human activity. Huntsman seems to believe that it is, at least judging by his previous support for the job-killing cap-and-trade legislation that even many prominent Democrats can’t bring themselves to support.

Explaining his belief, Huntsman says:

This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.

First, he provides absolutely no evidence to back up his 90% claim, and I can quickly and easily provide evidence to the contrary. In fact, ClimateGate came about because scientists couldn’t back up their claims so they needed to twist data to “hide the decline”. Huntsman doesn’t address ClimateGate or what it demonstrated, either.

In fact, just last week we learned that a prominent man-made global warming alarmist has become a skeptic. David Evans, who holds six university degrees and has advised governments on global warming, was once an alarmist. Now:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

In the article announcing his conversion, Evans — a scientist himself — goes about destroying the twisted climate models and claims of the alarmists. One excellent aspect:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

Let’s face it: Most global warming climate scientists are no longer scientists primarily. They’re fearmongers who need to keep people scared in order to keep the grant money flowing.

Tell people that everything is going to be okay and governments will stop sending you tons of money. Tell people that everything is going to be okay and the gravy train will come to a halt. Keep the fear going — pump it up even — and governments will spend whatever it takes to stop something you created in the first place.

Icebergs Melting, Seals Disappearing, Arctic Warming

This just in from the Washington Post:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Wait a second…Huh. Upon further review, that article is from November 2nd…1922. Yeah, as in 86 years ago and counting.

That was one of the original alarms, before people decided the problem was actually global cooling, then all of a sudden again decided the problem is warming. How long before the next man-made global warming/cooling scare changes?

“No, seriously! We’re sure this time…uh, we think.”

1922. Must’ve been the year of the SUV.

Less Than Half of Published Scientists Endorse Man-Made Global Warming

I guess there’s no “scientific consensus” as one former Vice-President would like us to believe.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

Emphasis mine. The “consensus” they’re referring to is man-made global warming. In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes looked into peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science site. A majority endorsed the so-called consensus view that “humans were having at least some effect on global climate change”. Well, that research and those papers became outdated, some being 15 years old. That’s where Schulte came in.

The papers published between 2004 and 2007 show that just 7% gave an explicit endorsement of that “consensus”. Only a total of 45% came to the conclusion that man has a significant impact on climate change. The largest category of scientists don’t accept or reject the “consensus view”. As the column say, there is no consensus among scientists.

But we haven’t reached the most surprising point, yet. This is it:

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Be sure to catch Leonardo DiCaprio’s “11th Hour” documentary. In it, the actor shows how much of a significant impact humans have in global warming, and how the end of the healthy planet is very near. He apparently knows better than scientists. VOA News has this quote from a scientist, regarding Leo’s alarmist film:

“We (climatologists) know, I think to a pretty small range of error, how much it’s gonna warm in the next 20 to 50 years or so,” he says. “It’s not that much. It will be about eight tenths of a degree Celsius or so. To spin that into the end of the world story is absurd. It stands history on its head,” he notes.

Of course, to simply go after Leo wouldn’t be fair. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth quoted erroneous NASA data which previously had 1998 as the hottest year on record. After a revision of its data, NASA found 1934 to hold that honor. 5 of the 10 hottest years on record weren’t in the last 50 years, a couple coming during times of recession.