Friday, November 20, 2009


As I reported earlier, Britain's pre-eminent climate change pseudo-scientific propaganda outlet - the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit - has had its computers hacked. And what has come forth is a torrent of lies and deception about the nature of this so-called "climate change" that has been wielded as a weapon to turn the West backwards from an industrial society to something more akin to Frodo Baggin's Shire.

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.


From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
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.***

Trying to use
smoke and mirrors to hide the truth:

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

See attached note.



Manipulating the data:

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, 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). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Click on the links; there is more, so much more. This might be the biggest scientific scandal in modern times; I cannot recollect an instance where scientists reported false results, manipulated information, and possibly "fixed" peer review of their data.

What was the poison here? Government money. Money that only showed up if you provided the "data" that fit into a premeditated result; one that was part and parcel of the ruling class. The liberal ruling class, mind you, the same ones who have always accused the right of "politicizing science".

Well, far from politicizing it, they've corrupted it, perverted it, and have created a crisis in confidence in the scientific method that can harm the entire future development of mankind.

Well, I'm sure that doesn't bother them too much. Liberals only care about intentions, not results, and if millions die because of their policies, it's not their fault, because their intentions were good!

After all, we only wanted to save the we lied to the world, wasted billions of dollars, and altered economies in a disastrous fashion. You can't blame us! We meant well!

And somewhere, why do I think Barack Obama - if he's as smart as everyone claims - is currently breathing a huge sigh of relief?


Unknown said...

This is such a great and unexpected development! Now if the same thing could happen in the health care debate, we'd be free!

Anonymous said...

You're too optimistic. The media will ignore it and Congress will pass Cap & Trade early next year. It never had anything to do with the truth , it was all about additional control. They'll do whatever they have to in order to move this along; the possibility of graft with the whole "carbon credit" thing is too lucrative for the Democrats to pass up.
They're like drug addicts who even though they know the next hit may kill them, do it anyway.

Jkw said...

I'm afraid Anonymous is right,
this well make the 6 o'clock news.