Watch out, Al Gore. Run for the hills, Obama. Better stick your head back in the sand, Suzuki.
It is being reported that Hadley Climate Research Unit has been hacked and a ton of revealing files and personal emails have been released by the anonymous hacker. The files contain data which shows just how the alarmist “scientists” have been, and continue to, distort climate science to further their agendas.
If these turn out to be real and accurate files, it will be a massive blow to the alarmists and a major victory for all of us realists. It confirms much of what we’ve been saying all along and already know, but will likely become viral and widespread knowledge quite quickly.
Here is a sample of what was said in the emails between these scientists:
– From Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, three U.S. scientists who have produced the controversial “hockey-stick graphs” that purport to show rapidly increasing temperatures in recent decades. Nov, 16, 1999.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i. e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
– From Kevin Trenberth, a lead author with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to Michael Mann, on Oct 12. 2009. The email, titled “BBC U-turn on climate,” laments a BBC article that reversed its long-held position on man-made global warming.
“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. … Our observing system is inadequate.”
– From: Michael Mann, Oct 27, 2009
“Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post… As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”
– From: Edward Cook, June 4, 2003
“I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. … If published as is, this paper could really do some damage … It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (…) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review — Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”
– From: Tom Wigley, Sep 27, 2009
“So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 C, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).”
– From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005
“The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”