Nov. 28, 2009
'Hackers,' Leak Emails From Climatologists, Government
Suggests Hiding Data of Global Cooling; Coal Industry Opponent and Obama’s Science Czar Involved
By Terri Ann Smith
Special to Huntingtonnews.net
Huntington, WV (HNN) -- Last week, computer hackers released thousands of emails chopped from the United Nations' IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) main database in East Anglia, UK. Dominating the email correspondence is apparent collusion between top climate scientists and government officials.
However, Paul Hudson, a BBC climate correspondent and a weather presenter, claimed to have received identical e-mails usurping global warming theories and ultimately the need for Cap and Trade legislation to curtail use of coal. According to an article published by infowars.com, if Hudson’s statement proves accurate “it would provide a strong indication that the source of the leak is an insider at the CRU, rather than an external hacker.” (See link below)
The emails exhibit plans to manipulate weather data, and to manufacture a false "consensus of scientists" that support the human induced, or CO2 induced global warming theory. It appears from the emails that global warming theorists conspired to hide evidence of a recent decline in the earth's temperatures, and it also appears that invitations to the IPCC conferences held at Bern University, Switzerland were purposefully withheld from scientists skeptical of global warming.
Excerpts from Emails:
Kevin Trenberth, head of Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
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.
Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK::
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.”
Mike MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute, Washington, D.C.:
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
Tim Johns, a software engineer at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change Prediction, Bracknell, UK:
Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).
Phil Jones:
Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.
Christoph Kull, Past Global Changes International Project Office, Bern, Switzerland:
Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus [sic] and progress.
Keith Briffa, a Reader at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia Norwich, U.K.:
Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more consensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent consensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.
Michael E. Mann, director of the Penn State University Earth Science Center , and inventor of the discredited “hockey stick” graph that displays a sharp incline in the earth’s temperatures post industrialization:
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.
*****
Another author of hacked emails is John P. Holdren, Science Czar for the Obama Administration. Holdren, who is a staunch advocate of the global warming theory, is also the key policy maker behind Obama's Cap and Trade bill - a bill dependent on the validity of the CO2 induced global warming theory.
Because the coal industry is a big CO2 emitter, Holdren and Obama's bill includes a 50% tax on coal companies for emissions. This tax could increase utility bills up to $1200 annually for the average family, as 51% of power generation in the U.S. comes from coal.
Along with Al Gore, Holdren consistently propagates that there is a "consensus of scientists" confirming that global warming is caused is by CO2. However, excerpts from emails below illustrate Holdren's knowledge of credentialed skeptics, despite his constant rhetoric stating the opposite.
An October 16, 2003 email from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley:
[Note: Bauliunus and Soon are solar physicists who confirmed multiple sources of the existence of the Medieval Warm Period - a time when decadal temperatures were significantly higher than that of the last century:]
“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”
A portion of what Holdren sent to the breakfast group:
“I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”
On Monday, Holdren admitted ownership of the hacked emails, and told The Wall Street Journal, "I'm happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange."
The full correspondence of the emails can be downloaded at:
http://www.wikileaks.com
Related Articles and Media:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/197672-Lawmakers-Probe-Climate-Emails
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69141-inhofe-to-call-for-hearing-into-cru-un-climate-change-research
http://www.infowars.com/bbc-climate-correspondent-was-forwarded-cru-emails-five-weeks-before-they-were-made-public/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
'Hackers,' Leak Emails From Climatologists, Government
Suggests Hiding Data of Global Cooling; Coal Industry Opponent and Obama’s Science Czar Involved
By Terri Ann Smith
Special to Huntingtonnews.net
Huntington, WV (HNN) -- Last week, computer hackers released thousands of emails chopped from the United Nations' IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) main database in East Anglia, UK. Dominating the email correspondence is apparent collusion between top climate scientists and government officials.
However, Paul Hudson, a BBC climate correspondent and a weather presenter, claimed to have received identical e-mails usurping global warming theories and ultimately the need for Cap and Trade legislation to curtail use of coal. According to an article published by infowars.com, if Hudson’s statement proves accurate “it would provide a strong indication that the source of the leak is an insider at the CRU, rather than an external hacker.” (See link below)
The emails exhibit plans to manipulate weather data, and to manufacture a false "consensus of scientists" that support the human induced, or CO2 induced global warming theory. It appears from the emails that global warming theorists conspired to hide evidence of a recent decline in the earth's temperatures, and it also appears that invitations to the IPCC conferences held at Bern University, Switzerland were purposefully withheld from scientists skeptical of global warming.
Excerpts from Emails:
Kevin Trenberth, head of Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
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.
Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK::
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.”
Mike MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute, Washington, D.C.:
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
Tim Johns, a software engineer at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change Prediction, Bracknell, UK:
Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).
Phil Jones:
Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.
Christoph Kull, Past Global Changes International Project Office, Bern, Switzerland:
Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus [sic] and progress.
Keith Briffa, a Reader at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia Norwich, U.K.:
Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more consensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent consensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.
Michael E. Mann, director of the Penn State University Earth Science Center , and inventor of the discredited “hockey stick” graph that displays a sharp incline in the earth’s temperatures post industrialization:
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.
*****
Another author of hacked emails is John P. Holdren, Science Czar for the Obama Administration. Holdren, who is a staunch advocate of the global warming theory, is also the key policy maker behind Obama's Cap and Trade bill - a bill dependent on the validity of the CO2 induced global warming theory.
Because the coal industry is a big CO2 emitter, Holdren and Obama's bill includes a 50% tax on coal companies for emissions. This tax could increase utility bills up to $1200 annually for the average family, as 51% of power generation in the U.S. comes from coal.
Along with Al Gore, Holdren consistently propagates that there is a "consensus of scientists" confirming that global warming is caused is by CO2. However, excerpts from emails below illustrate Holdren's knowledge of credentialed skeptics, despite his constant rhetoric stating the opposite.
An October 16, 2003 email from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley:
[Note: Bauliunus and Soon are solar physicists who confirmed multiple sources of the existence of the Medieval Warm Period - a time when decadal temperatures were significantly higher than that of the last century:]
“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”
A portion of what Holdren sent to the breakfast group:
“I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”
On Monday, Holdren admitted ownership of the hacked emails, and told The Wall Street Journal, "I'm happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange."
The full correspondence of the emails can be downloaded at:
http://www.wikileaks.com
Related Articles and Media:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/197672-Lawmakers-Probe-Climate-Emails
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69141-inhofe-to-call-for-hearing-into-cru-un-climate-change-research
http://www.infowars.com/bbc-climate-correspondent-was-forwarded-cru-emails-five-weeks-before-they-were-made-public/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
