Sensitive Documents Lifted from Hadley Climate Center

[Tamas]

Stolen from Paradox:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/

The Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain was hacked yesterday, apparently by Russian black hats, and thousands of sensitive documents, including emails from climate scientists dating back a decade, were posted online. More here.

Officials at Hadley, a leading global-warming research center, have apparently confirmed to an Australian a Kiwi publication that the documents are genuine.

The whole affair has much of the blogosphere alight. Blogs skeptical of man-made global warming see blood in the water.

Some of the old emails from scientists made public apparently make references to things like "hid[ing] the decline," referring to global temperature series and different ways to slice and dice climate data.

In all, it seems there are more than 3,000 files in the hacked folders, which have been reposted in various places on the Internet.

The big Copenhagen summit had lost a lot of its appeal in recent days, as world leaders kept dialing down expectations for the climate talks. Maybe this will spice things up. 

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary

You know this is what I hate in the whole global warming business: I am treated like a heretic for voicing DOUBTS, and here is yet more proof of these fuckers twisting the research to make end's meet.

[Tamas]

lol here is another good one, where apparently one of them bullshits around to avoid publishing data which they gathered and obviously did not prove their point, but around the end he does sort of admits this:

To: Keith
Subject: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="————090305040400060007010009″
Dear Keith – I do hope your recovery continues apace, in spite of the recent nonsense. I
really have had no intention to bother you with work stuff, and had strongly encouraged
Mike and Gavin to contact Tim and/or Tom putting a response on RlCl. So, I'm really
reticent to raise something else, but must.
What's going on? 21st September I got an email from Tom M that contained the following
para, among other more general discussion:
"Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking and not using your
long Indigirka River data set. Not used because we did not have the data. Please, could
we have the data? We will make proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data."
I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom – please find the Esper article in
question attached. The so-called Indigirka River data set is not yet available because
it has not been published. I am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and
was indeed in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on specifically
this. All being well, there will be an accepted manuscript before next summer, and at
that point I will make the data freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let
you know, of course. Cheers, Malcolm" .
So far, no direct response to this email from Tom.
This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you had asked him for
the "Indigirka data". I've waited a couple of hours before writing this email so as to
try to be constructive. To be sure that you understand what that dataset is and is not,
please read the attached 2006 Moberg corrigendum.
Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been discussed in the
Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large proportion of the raw data are not yet in
the public domain, and so you would not be able to critically evaluate the chronology as
a possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said – adequate metadata not available,
please see Moberg corrigendum? By the way, a 600-year reconstruction is available
(Hughes et al 1999, also attached), and all those raw data are at the ITRDB.
As you know, it is my intention to friendly, cooperative and open, but I'm determined to
get some scientific value from all the years of work I've invested in the Yakutia work,
and in cooperation with Russia in general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
Cheers, Malcolm
–
Malcolm

[HisMajestyBOB]

Good enough for me! Let's go ditch our nuclear and "alternative energy" plants for some dirty coal, and remove the environmental standards from cars!

[Fate]

Irrefutable proof of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Super-Duper Major-Mega International Socialist Conspiracy!

[Fate]

Good enough for me! Let's go ditch our nuclear and "alternative energy" plants for some dirty coal, and remove the environmental standards from cars!

We don't need the EPA to dictate environmental standards. The free market can do that just fine, thank you very much.

[Tamas]

Good enough for me! Let's go ditch our nuclear and "alternative energy" plants for some dirty coal, and remove the environmental standards from cars!

see, that is the problem: why debate in extremes? I have no problem with finding alternative energy sources, I have problems with an entire new industry and religion growing out of the collective guilt we are so fond of but lost when most of us realized that the New Testament is just a fantasy novel.

[Tamas]

Good enough for me! Let's go ditch our nuclear and "alternative energy" plants for some dirty coal, and remove the environmental standards from cars!

We don't need the EPA to dictate environmental standards. The free market can do that just fine, thank you very much.

True enough, without a free market we would not even be using steam machines. Look at post-medieval China to see what faboulous results an overgrown state produced.

[saskganesh]

has the source material been verified, or is Tamas and his ilk just being hoaxed?

... I am not sure where the "guilt" thing comes from. Tam, you are projecting again.

[Ed Anger]

Fuck the planet.

[Syt]

Fuck the planet.

I have a book for you.

[Tamas]

has the source material been verified, or is Tamas and his ilk just being hoaxed?

... I am not sure where the "guilt" thing comes from. Tam, you are projecting again.

lol no. Look at the over-the-top dark greens and their ideas of humaniy ruining the world and living in sin, and point out major differences from similar christian ideas. You can't

And as you see, my link is from the Wall Street Journal, and supposedly the Guardian and the Telepgraph also reported on it, so did, lastly and definetly least, so did Fox News

[Warspite]

has the source material been verified, or is Tamas and his ilk just being hoaxed?

... I am not sure where the "guilt" thing comes from. Tam, you are projecting again.

lol no. Look at the over-the-top dark greens and their ideas of humaniy ruining the world and living in sin, and point out major differences from similar christian ideas. You can't

However, in this case we are not talking about the over-the-top dark greens. We're talking about climate scientists.

[Hansmeister]

Oh there are so many beautiful emails indicting the leadership of the church of global warming:

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 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 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

There's evidence of widespread fraud, discussions of how to circumvent FOIA requests in order to hide said fraud, discussions on how to surpress dissent as well as casual fantasies of wishing violence on dissenrters.  In short, the leadeship of the global warming church are a bunch of unethical and deranged crooks.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Good enough for me! Let's go ditch our nuclear and "alternative energy" plants for some dirty coal, and remove the environmental standards from cars!

see, that is the problem: why debate in extremes? I have no problem with finding alternative energy sources, I have problems with an entire new industry and religion growing out of the collective guilt we are so fond of but lost when most of us realized that the New Testament is just a fantasy novel.

Putting on my "serious hat" for a moment - at this point I really can't care less whether Global warming exists, if it's man-made, etc. It's been politicized all to hell and back, which means rational discourse is now out of the question. Personally I prefer cleaner technologies and methods, even if they're slightly more expensive, because I like a clean environment and I dislike pollution (and currently living in a city who's pollution hangs over it in a haze on some days, I can definitely say environmental controls are a good thing). The problem is that as a result of the aforementioned politicizing, environmentalism is now an "issue" dominated by binary, black and white thinking and extremes, and global warming is a part of it.

Anyway, that rant doesn't have much to do with my trollish post or the thread, it's just what's was on my mind.

[Fate]

Oh there are so many beautiful emails indicting the leadership of the church of global warming:

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 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 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

There's evidence of widespread fraud, discussions of how to circumvent FOIA requests in order to hide said fraud, discussions on how to surpress dissent as well as casual fantasies of wishing violence on dissenrters.  In short, the leadeship of the global warming church are a bunch of unethical and deranged crooks.

I assume there's clear evidence that none of these emails have been altered what so ever. We can trust unnamed Russian hackers to be above aboard in this respect, correct?