The code documentation and write read me files releaseed last week are so incredibly unprofessional to be almost unbelieveable.  They raise big red flags about what was transpiring.  Didn’t anyone ever look at the code?!

As reprinted by Watts Up With That from Ecotretas:

To say that the CRU code might be “buggy” would be…well I’ll just let CRU’s programmer tell you in his own words.

• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon1.pro
  FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon2.proFOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_jones.pro;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
;
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that
a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key
output from the debug statements:
(..)
forrtl: error (75): floating point exception
IOT trap (core dumped)
..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the
sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software
suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtgetting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a
cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with
references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with
one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have
it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtI am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt28. With huge reluctance, I have dived into 'anomdtb' - and already I have
that familiar Twilight Zone sensation.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not
being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt
to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWell, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I
immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for
completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead
of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting
THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the
bloody station files!!
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtBack to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by
Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station
counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented
sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps?
Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding
procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtHere, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWell, it's been a real day of revelations, never mind the week. This morning I
discovered that proper angular weighted interpolation was coded into the IDL
routine, but that its use was discouraged because it was slow! Aaarrrgghh.
There is even an option to tri-grid at 0.1 degree resolution and then 'rebin'
to 720x360 - also deprecated! And now, just before midnight (so it counts!),
having gone back to the tmin/tmax work, I've found that most if not all of the
Australian bulletin stations have been unceremoniously dumped into the files
without the briefest check for existing stations.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtAs we can see, even I'm cocking it up! Though recoverably. DTR, TMN and TMX need to be written as (i7.7)./code>
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtOH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.proprintf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’
printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
  FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.proprintf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet_col.pro;
; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
;
kl=where((yrmxd ge 1402) and (yrmxd le 1960),n)
sst=prednh(kl)
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are “manually” removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_decline.pro;
; Plots density ‘decline’ as a time series of the difference between
; temperature and density averaged over the region north of 50N,
; and an associated pattern in the difference field.
; The difference data set is computed using only boxes and years with
; both temperature and density in them – i.e., the grid changes in time.
; The pattern is computed by correlating and regressing the *filtered*
; time series against the unfiltered (or filtered) difference data set.
;
;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_correctmxd.pro; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_correctmxd.pro; No need to verify the correct and uncorrected versions, since these
; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
; was corrected onwards from.
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree5\densplus188119602netcdf.pro; we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines
(...)
; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)

Incredible!

As all of this was funded by US, UK, and other tax dollars, who had oversight and audit responsibilities?  A few heads need to roll…

Can anyone seriously deny that they need to simply start from scratch and, for transparancy, put the real data out for everyone to access and analyze? 

A lot of folks are looking at the CRU Code that lays the foundation for the fraud of global warming.  Bishop Hill has a growing list of findings  (below).  Bore Patch offers another take (above).

Here is a snapshot of the list from Bishop Hill (Visit for updates):

My earlier post, About the Commented Code Released by the Alleged Hacker, in hindsight does not offer much.

There are several notes about 1960.  Similar were in the email discussion declines after 1960.  One thing is clear from both is that there is a lot of subjective tweaking of the data and worse that enabled the global warming proponents to reach any conclusion they wanted.

Picture: Bore Patch.

First, take a look at what George Monbiot writes on his blog:

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.–(Click to open and read the entire post) [The numbers refer to footnotes in Monbiot’s blog post.]

Anthony Watts calls this an apology in a new post headlined “Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation”.  He writes:

From Andrew Bolt, my “mate” down under at the Herald Sun, comes this surprise. I’ll have to say, it is to George Monbiot’s credit to do this. I embrace his first statement, because it succinctly sums up the situation:

“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.” — George Monbiot on his personal blog

George seems to realize that, “it’s worse than we thought”.

Andrew Bolt tries to write an apology for Monbiot in “Even Monbiot says the science now needs “reanalyising””:

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

But these are only Bolt’s words and nothing in Monbiot’s statement supports this conclusion.

Where’s the apology?  I’ve reread his statement here and directly on Monbiot.com but I cannot find an apology.  What I do find are several admissions, some damage control, and then an attempt at humor to toss it all aside.

Monbiot’s effort is focused on admitting several points, offering out a fall guy and “three or four scientists,” and a recheck of one or two record sets.  He’s simply attempting CYA for himself and the religion of global warming.  I do not see this working.

First, I’ve seen several references in recent days to 42+ and even as many as 75 scientists intimately involved with Jones and the email released so far clearly offer up at least a dozen regularly sharing email and many others intermittently.  Elsewhere I recall reading or hearing that there may be 500 leading global warming scientists around the world.  The core group is likely much less with most being just followers and wannabes.  Anyway, my point is that a significant percent of the leading global warming scientists are likely involved in Jones’ and company shenanigans.  As a whole, they should no longer have any credibility.

Second, Monbiot admits to some data problems and suggests (hopes) that only a couple are suspect enough to require rechecking.  I’m guessing the bad data is very widespread as data is reused and manipulation appears from the email to be common practice.  Who can be trusted to say without rechecking that data A is good and data B is bad?

Monbiot’s statement that this is not the final nail in the coffin of global warming theory is about like Nixon saying he wasn’t a crook.

Note:  This is an expansion of my comment written at Watts Up With That.

Updated with correction from yonasan.  Thanks!  Also, thank you Andrew.  Yes, Monbiont’s apology was buried in a comment reply, which I noted in my own comments at Watts Up With That but ommited mention here.

I earlier saw the statement: “I apologise…” above and in Andrew Bolts blog but it was NOT in either Monbiont’s blog or in his article at the Guardian. After seeing your reply earlier to my query about this I went back to both. It is still NOT in his blog but is a comment reply to his article at the Guardian. The full context of my reply comment is:

Sabraguy writes:
George, congratulations for having the decency to write about this.

But now I suggest you review your file of correspondence and articles, and figure out who you need to apologize to.

You can start with your readers.

And to this Monbiont writes:
Sabraguy:
But now I suggest you review your file of correspondence and articles, and figure out who you need to apologize to.

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely

Matthew writes:
Okay, but this still does not reconcile with the sarcastic article and blog he wrote. Will he now update both his blog and the article to state his apology or leave it buried in the comments? Overall I do not yet sense much contrition on his part. Time will tell…

The theft of 1,000 private e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) shows that deniers have learned lessons from dirty politics and are running a new campaign to undermine public trust in climate scientists. The feeble response from the UEA and the climate science community shows that scientists are still totally underestimating the fragility of that trust and the crucial role it plays in building public belief.

He concluded his post by writing:

Sadly, due in part to the lackluster response, I am sure that these wretched e-mails have now entered permanently into the mythology of climate denial. Scientists are going to have to be a lot more savvy and on the ball in future.

Marshall completely ignores the overall gist of these email that suggest the leading purveyors of global warming may have violated the public trust and commited scientific fraud.  Further, that they may, themselves, be in denial as they promote the near fanatical religion of global warming.

I obliged myself of the the comment section to write that following comment, now in moderation at Climate Change Denial.  (Update:  Still in moderation hours later and since many other comments are now listed, it is likely not to get released, which isn’t surprising seeing that the Web site is sister of Climate Outreach and Information Network and Climate Solidarity), at Climate Change Denial, both Kool-Aid drinking global warming sites.)  Anyway, my comment to George:

You know, for most of us, the terms swiftboating and deniers is a lot of unnecessary theatrics. While hacking the email was wrong (with a caveat), the records are for publicly funded organizations and were subject to FOIA requests. Further, however the records got into the public domain does not lessen the reality of their content. In reading these 1,073 email (I’ve now read through several hundred myself), it doesn’t take any stretch to agree with Tony Lake (Climate Change Examiner) that

The emails point to a number of questionable actions by the scientists including the modification of data, destruction of data and evidence, collusion, admissions of errors in data and resistance to having their analysis scrutinized by outsiders.

And my caveat:  What if the release of the records is the result of a whistleblower? Such action is generally protected and, while embarrassing, is not a crime. It might even warrant cheering.

In any case, the records are out, you cannot re-hide them, and it is too late for Dr. Jones and company to erase them.

Consider, too, that the person who released these records indicated these are only a selection of the material, suggesting that more are potentially pending release. Maybe some spelling out in undeniable language the worst that many already accuse Phil Jones and company of perpetrating? Maybe timed for Copenhagen?

I like what Tom Wigley wrote earlier this year in an email to Phil Jones on May 4 apparently in regards to falsified data by Phil Jones,

Why, why, why did you and W-C W [Wei-Chyung Wang] not simply say this right at the start? Perhaps it’s not too late?

Yes, maybe it is time for Phil Jones, and the rest to come clean, tell us what they did and did not do, release everything, and stand accountable, if for no else than their personal reputation and legacy in the court of public opinion.

And back to the topic of global warming, maybe it is time for a fresh look at it. Personally I don’t doubt that mankind has impacted the environment, but let’s not destroy civilization to fix it. I’ve traveled to 46 countries and am confident in saying based on my travels that the US and Europe are generally the cleanest around. The real problem is the filth and pollution in the third world and developing countries (like China, India, and Mexico).

And finally, what about influences outside of mankind? Solar cycles, for example, that everyone is so quick to dismiss to instead blame mankind? Even in 1996, John Daly wrote in an email amongst those released that solar cycles impact temperatures. Our current solar minimum is defying all solar models out there (e.g., David Hathaway and others) as well as global warming models (see Kevin Trendberth’s email on October 12 where he writes “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t….[data] shows there should be even more warming.”

I’d like to see all the emotional theatrics, professional secrecy, and possessiveness set aside to allow for some real science. Eugene Gordon wrote an email on October 4 (again amongst the released email) that directly addresses this:

The global warming contingent has substantial motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations are increased and continued grant funding, university advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and other motivating factors.

Yes, maybe now is a good time to clean house. As a taxpayer, I demand it.

Like so many others I have downloaded the hacked files and have begun perusing the emails. First, I’ve got to suspect the scientists involved feel very violated to find their emails now on the Internet for everyone to read. Interesting to note that they are admitted as genuine from several media reports (Phil Jones admits files taken, defends content;  Gavin Schmidt says his are genuine). Second, they should be concerned about repercussions, whether they should have attorneys, and maybe whether it might be time to quietly retire.  For Al Gore and others making a career out of global warning, this has to be a bone chilling moment as their entire religious crusade is exposed as fraud. What do they do? Admit it? Explain it away? Or, try to ignore it?

It is well known that the basic research data that global warming is based upon has never been released for peer review or critique.  Maybe now it will be, else those holding it risk also being tainted by the guilt of fraud. Then again, maybe they are.

The emails point to a number of questionable actions by the scientists including the modification of data, destruction of data and evidence, collusion, admissions of errors in data and resistance to having their analysis scrutinized by outsiders–Tony Hake, Climate Change Examiner

Herald Sun (Australia) offers a selection they and others have reviewed. The email, to say the least, are damning and need to be read directly. For example:

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. (Phil Jones, November 16, 1999)

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. (Kevin Trenberth, October 12, 2009)

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. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! (Tom Wigley, November 6, 2009) (And, as Andrew Bolt notes, this destruction of government data is in apparent response to a Freedom of Information request for the data.)

Bishop Hill offers a lengthy list of noteable email with with active links to an online searchable database of the email at An Elegant Chaos.  I’ve separately looked at most of these email email in the copy of the hacked email I downloaded.  Bishop Hill’s list, published in Climate cuttings 33 on his blog (see it directly for updates), offers the following:

• Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
• Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
• Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
• Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
• Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
• Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
• Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
• Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
• Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
• Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ’”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
• Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
• Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
• Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
• Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
• Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
• Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
• Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
• Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
• Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
• Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
• Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
• Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
• Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
• Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
• Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers — Saiers was subsequently ousted]
• Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
• Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
• Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
• Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
• Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
• Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
• Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
• Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
• Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
• Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
• Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
• Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
• Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
• Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
• Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
• David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
• Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
• Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
• Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

And what about the solar cycle influencing temperatures?

Against the “dissmissive” responses by N. Nicholls, Barrie Pittock, and others, John Daly writes that he tested data and found that “it would appear that the solar cycle does indeed affect temperature” and in further tests that ” the 11-year pulse” of solar cycles is evident in the temperature data. (John Daly, August 9, 1996)

In my own query of the 1,073 email I found some very recent ones suggesting the continued rigging of data to achieve desired results:

One final thing — don’t worry too much about the 1940–60 period, as I think we’ll be changing the SSTs there for 1945–60 and with more digitized data for 1940–45. There is also a tendency for the last 10 years (1996–2005) to drift slightly low — all 3 lines. This may be down to SST issues. [Earlier email in this email discuss which sets of data show temperature change and others that do not, suggesting a clear effort to filter out inconvenient data.] (Phil Jones, November 10, 2009)

Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations are increased and continued grant funding, university advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify. (Eugene I. Gordon, October 4, 2009)

By the way, just what are the “pay­offs from car­bon con­trol advo­cates such as Gore”?

In regards to apparently falsified data by Phil Jones, “Why, why, why did you and W-C W [Wei-Chyung Wang] not simply say this right at the start? Perhaps it’s not too late? (Email to Phil Jones from Tom Wigley, May 4, 2009)

There are 1,073 email and too little time to read and cross-reference them. While I am just a lay person on the topic of weather and scientific research, it is clearly evident in the emails alone that these folks have and are conspiring to create and sustain the myth of global warming.