Replies

Australia's Investigate Magazine has it in their print edition, PDF at the link.

From the story, one email:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
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
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding “the decline”, and Jones explained he was not trying to mislead.
“No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.” Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
The other emails are described by skeptic commentators as “explosive”, one talks of stacking the peer-review process to prevent qualified skeptical scientists from getting their research papers considered.

one talks of stacking the peer-review process to prevent qualified skeptical scientists from getting their research papers considered

This type of academic fraud should be prosecuted.....

.....The motive is money for research, to push a political agenda (socialism), and prestige.

Real economic harm has been done and will continue to be done in the future.

All of us have been harmed economically by this.

Where are the "Class Action" lawsuits?