Skip to comments.Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable ( Global Warming Hoax exposed....)
Posted on 11/20/2009 2:45:41 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.
As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. It is here just as a curiosity!
You can either search using the keyword search box above, or use the links below to browse them 25 emails at a time.
(Excerpt) Read more at anelegantchaos.org ...
Updated March 25, 2009
While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.
In 2000 and 2001, while Barack Obama served as a board member for a Chicago-based charitable foundation, he helped to fund a pioneering carbon trading exchange that is likely to fill a critical role in the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme that President Obama is now trying to push rapidly through Congress.
During those two years, the Joyce Foundation gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself "North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide."
One of those gases is carbon dioxide, the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas and the focus of the most far-reaching -- and contentious -- efforts to combat "climate change." On Monday, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency declared carbon dioxide a public health threat.
The President of the Joyce Foundation in 2000, when the foundation made its first grant to the Climate Exchange, was Paula DiPerna, who is now executive vice president of the Chicago Climate Exchange in charge of corporate recruitment and public policy, as well as president of CCX International.
DiPerna left the foundation in November 2001 and joined the Exchange. It was the same year in which the foundation gave its second and much larger grant to the exchange. The Exchange finally launched in 2003.
Reached at her office in New York, DiPerna said President Obama, who in 2000 was a candidate for Congress, was involved as a director of the foundation and voted on the proposal but declined to detail that involvement other than that "he read the proposal and voted on the grant."
She referred subsequent questions to the exchange's communications office.
In response to questions from FOX News about Obama's relationship to the project a White House spokesman said "the President has long believed that a market-based cap-and-trade system is the best way to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and to promote our energy security. The success of the cap-and-trade approach in reducing acid rain demonstrates that providing incentives for companies to reduce their emissions is effective."
Obama's espousal of cap-and-trade, a system that is intended, among other things, to increase the price of fossil fuels and force their replacement by energy sources that produce less greenhouse gases, has drawn fire from many economists as a huge energy tax that will weigh heavily on an economy that is already in steep recession. The price tag has been put high as $2 trillion dollars over eight years. That figure, nearly three times higher than originally projected, was given in a White House briefing to Senate staffers last week and reported by US News and World Report and the Washington Times.
The scheme has also drawn attacks from 28 U.S. Senators, including West Virginia's Robert Byrd and Michigan's Carl Levin, both Democrats, who have criticized Obama for floating the idea that he would attach the measure to the current budget reconciliation process, to avoid a filibuster in Congress.
An open letter signed by the dissident senators declared that "enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy. Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate, something the budget reconciliation process does not allow."
Obama served as one of 12 directors on the Joyce Foundation board from July 1994 until December 2002, according to a Joyce foundation spokesman. But it was only in 2000 and 2001 that the foundation gave money to the Climate Exchange -- funds deemed by the exchange itself to be fundamental to its successful launch, and in fact to its early survival.
Somewhere in every family there is a treasured, ancient tool that has passed down from generation to generation; this is sometimes referred to as the ‘legacy hammer;’ although in all these years of use and handing down this treasured tool, it remains in use, having had, at various times the necessary replacement of the occasional broken handle or lost head.
So it seems, is the case in the current saga...
Section 4 , end. years 1997 and onwards were the warmest in the millennium. I see here also potential problems with this claim, and I do not see the need to make our lives more complicated. The NAS report expressed that the uncertainties are too large for this type of conclusion and certainly this conclusion would attract some attention from the reader.
The other line of criticism could be that the calibration period has been, as in all reconstructions, a priori truncated -data after 1980 are not considered as the proxies are known to not follow the temperature. Strictly speaking this truncation can be only justified by a credible physical explanation about the cause of this divergence. Statistically, I think it is not correct to a priori ignore some data because they do not fit.
Translation: Let's kill all the breathers.
Looking at some of the links in the emails...they have pulled them!
“CRU has these pages under review” comes up before the 404 message., LOL.
DUDE: THIS ONE:
Know anything about the “divergence problem” in tree rings? R D’arrigo >>>talked to the NRC yesterday. I didn’t get to talk to her afterward, but >>>it looked to me that they have redrilled a bunch of the high-latitude tree >>>rings that underlie almost all of the high-res reconstructions, and the >>>tree rings are simply missing the post-1970s warming, with reasonably high >>>confidence. She didn’t seem too worried, but she apparently has a paper >>>just out in JGR. It looked to me like she had pretty well killed the >>>hockey stick in public forum—they go out and look for the most-sensitive >>>trees at the edge of the treeline, flying over lots and lots of >>>trees that are >>>lesss sensitive but quite nearby, and when things get a little warmer, the >>>most-sensitive trees aren’t anymore, and so the trees miss the extreme >>>warming of the recent times, and can’t reliably be counted as catching >>>the extreme warmth of the MWP if there was extreme warmth then. >>>Because as far as I can tell the hockey stick really was a >>>tree-ring >>>record, regardless of how it was labelled as multiproxy, this looks to me >>>to be a really big deal. And, a big deal that may bite your chapter...
Interesting here is this exchange. I would read the entire string of correspondence but this brief excerpt made me double take!
“”””””I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my
grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children
will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and
carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly
in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE
WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
Here is a scientist completely calling out carbon credits as merely a game!!!!!!
The entire string though is truly fascinating! http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1037
I found Phil....
From: Phil Jones To: “Niklaus Zimmermann” Subject: ECOCHANGE budget available to UEA Date: Thu Aug 13 10:46:04 2009 Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
Apologies if I’ve asked you this before, but I’m being asked about
the ECOCHANGE budget that appears to be available to UEA.
With the UEA budget there is money in categories that UEA has not
had money in before (in other EU projects). Do you know what this money
is supposed to be for? We understand the budget for personnel and also
travel, but it is the other categories - which seem to relate to more travel
and costs for capital equipment.
Keith is still off work, but is recovering well from his operation.
I’m off in the next few hours for 2 weeks away.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email email@example.com
Travel, more travel, and capital costs?
How are capital costs associated with the study of climate?
Maybe Phil can tell us when he gets back from his two week vacation.
Keep this quiet also, but
this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim
have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way
I can’t wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what
that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on.
The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report.
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Prof. Phil Jones
This is good.......
I also think we had to protest when erroneous data like the claim that winter temperature in Abisko increased by 5.5 deg C during the last 100 years. The real increase is 0.4 deg C. The 5.5 deg C figure has been repeated a number of times in TV-programs. This kind of exaggerations is not supporting attempts to save fossil fuel.
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
Must be nice to work for the taxpayer./s
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don’t know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.
I just posted that same e-mail on another site. It is extremely dismaying, although I suppose not surprising, that these people seem to spend as much time trying to spin the media and set up “campaigns” as they do researching.
Been checking some pro-GW sites. They`re laughing their heads off about this. Not concerned in the least.
Well,...not surprised...but we will see...
From: "Curt Covey"
To: "Christopher Monckton"
Subject: Sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:05:51 -0800 (PST)
Dear Dr. Monckton,
Thanks for copying me on your correspondence with Fred and prompting me to look again at IPCC sea level rise estimates for 2100. I agree you are comparing like-for-like. The 2001 report has an upper limit of 0.7 meters for the A1B scenario. If the 2007 report lowers this to 0.43 meters (or if the number gets raised again before the report is made final) it will certainly be appropriate to ask why. After reading Hansen's recent papers, I don't see how to justify such small upper limits. It also seems obvious to me (and apparently to you but not to Fred) that the A2 scenario would entail more sea level rise than A1B. Regarding the relative likelihoods of scenarios, I don't agree with you that it's "almost certain" that world population will "plummet" in the second half of this century.
Regarding the issue of recent vs. earlier global warming, when I look at the totality of data compiled by North et al. this year for their NAS / NRC report (see attached graphic), it seems clear that most of the warming since about 1850 (or 1900) occurred in recent decades. Going farther back in time, the data are of course more uncertain and estimates vary, but it appears that the warming rate for the 20th century was unusually high compared with the past 2000 years. This conclusion follows whether or not one includes Mike Mann's data. For the record, I must add that I do not share your characterization of Mann's work as "rubbish" or "useless." Nor do I see a situation of "flagrant dishonesty in which the UN and the scientific journals persist long after the falsity of their absurd and extreme claims has been properly demonstrated."
Christopher Monckton wrote:
Dear Fred, - Many thanks for sending me this exchange. Some comments:
Temperature: This question, like so many others to do with supposed "climate change", is bedevilled by the recency of reliable, instrument-based observations. Nevertheless, some conclusions can be attempted. The Dalton Minimum is generally considered to have come to an end in 1910. The five-year mean global land and sea surface air temperature anomaly for 1908-1912, calculated from NCDC annual figures, was --0.3579K. By 1940 there had been a rapid increase of 0.4700K to +1121K. By 2004 (again taking the five-year average, including 2006) there had been a further increase of +0.4413K to +0.5534. The mean annual increase in the 30 years 1010-1940 was thus 0.0157K more than two and a quarter times greater than the 0.0069K mean annual increase in the 64 years to 2004. Mean global temperature has hardly risen at all in the five years since the IPCC's last report. And the fact of the 20th-century temperature increase tells us nothing of the cause. It is interesting, for instance, that the polar icecaps on Mars are receding, inferentially in response to increased solar activity. At any rate, it is certain that anthropogenic planetary warming is not responsible. It is possible, therefore, that most of the warming both before and after 1940 was heliogenic.
Sea level: Your correspondent does not disagree with my statement that the IPCC has revised its upper-bound estimate of sea level rise to 17 inches (0.43m). He says, however, that this upper bound is based on the A1 scenario, by which world population will peak in mid-century at ~9bn and fall thereafter. So was the 2001 report's upper bound of 0.88m. I was correctly comparing like for like. The Sunday Telegraph, which reported these figures, has been told that the revisions arise from "better data" now available to the IPCC, supporting skeptics' conclusions that the IPCC's figures are little better than exaggerated guesses. Morner (2004) concludes firmly that there is little evidence for sea level rising any faster now than it has in geologically-recent times. Your correspondent says that the A2 scenario is "business-as-usual": in fact, it is an extreme scenario regarded by very nearly all serious demographers as absurdly unrealistic, in that it posits an increase in world population to 15bn by 2100, when it is now almost certain that rising prosperity and the consequent decrease in birth rates will cause population to peak somewhere between 9bn and 10bn in mid-century, and plummet thereafter.
Reliability of the IPCC's reports: I understand that the IPCC's 2007 draft does not contain an apology for the defective "hockey-stick" graph, which the US National Academy of Sciences has described as having "a validation skill not significantly different from zero". In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus". The supposed scientific "consensus": Your correspondent seems unaware of the letter written by 61 Canadian and other scientists in climate and related fields to the Canadian Prime Minister. At the end of the attached commentary on Al Gore's recent attempt to rebut my articles on climate change in the Sunday Telegraph, beneath the references, I have appended the full text of the letter and the names, qualifications and then-current affiliations of all 61 scientists. Al gore and others tend to lean rather more heavily than is wise upon a single, rather bad one-page essay in Science for their contention that there is a scientific consensus to the effect that most of the warming in the past half-century was anthropogenic. The essay was by Oreskes (2004), who said that she had analyzed 928 abstracts mentioning "climate change" published in peer-reviewed journals on the Thomson ISI database between 1993 and 2003, and that none of the 928 had expressed dissent from the "consensus". Dr. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University subsequently made a more careful enquiry. Science had been compelled to publish an erratum to the effect that the search term used by Oreskes had not been the neutral "climate change" - which returned some 12,000 articles, but the more loaded "global climate change", which returned 1,117 articles. Of these, Dr. Peiser found that only 1% had explicitly endorsed the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes"; that almost three times as many had explicitly expressed doubt or outright disagreement; and that less than one-third had expressed explicit or implicit agreement with the "consensus". He wrote a paper for Science pointing out these serious defects, which pointed to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of Oreskes. Science at first asked him to shorten his paper, and then said that, because conclusions like his had been widely reported on the internet, his paper would not be published. As far as I can discover, Science has not published any corrigendum to this day, providing further confirmation of what I have long suspected: that the leading peer-reviewed journals, having unwisely taken strongly-political editorial positions on the question of climate change, are no longer objective. The need for honest science: It was only after years of increasingly-public pressure that Nature was induced to oblige Mann et al., the authors of the useless "hockey-stick" graph that starred in the IPCC's 2001 report, to publish a mealy-mouthed, partial and unsatisfactory corrigendum. In such an environment of flagrant dishonesty in which the UN and the scientific journals persist long after the falsity of their absurd and extreme claims has been properly demonstrated, it is in my view unreasonable to expect China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and other fast-polluting countries to deny to themselves the fossil-fuelled economic growth which we in the West have been fortunate enough to enjoy. Until there is honest science, no one will believe either the UN or the journals to the extent of adopting the expensive and (on my calculations) probably futile remedial measures which they and their supporters so stridently advocate. - Christopher
And here is the awesome followup email:
Curt, I can't believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What ib earth are you thinking? You're not even remotely correct in your reading of the report, first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you've done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior!
Mike Mann -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology
Some real courage there....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.