Global Warming: Is the Obama Administration prepared to side-step Congress on cap-and-trade?

Global Warming: Was "hacked" data release a hoax to mislead the public from a more troubling truth: the original raw climate data was destroyed?

In the scientific community integrity and honesty is taken for a given – but what happens when imperfect human beings and underfunded institutions are tempted by the prospects of both fame and self-sustaining fortune?

It is almost a certainty that institutions will do or say anything to protect their institution first, their leadership second and their source of continuing funding third. Along with the propensity of an artist to produce works pleasing to his patron, many institutions overtly and covertly direct the inquiries of those working on government, industry and foundation-funded projects.

As reported by London’s TimesOnline …

Climate change data dumped

“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.”

“It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.”

Apparently this news comes, not from the widely-publicized leaks, but a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request …

“The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.”

It is inconceivable that anyone would destroy such valuable original data which forms the historical record of the world and imparts prestige to the organization as its curator …

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”

Was the allegedly “leak” of hacked data and e-mails a preemptive public relations ploy to dilute the real shocking news in a wave of Internet stories?

“The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.”

The smoking gun …

“In a statement on its website, the CRU said: ‘We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.’”

If true, this shocking revelation needs criminal and civil investigation along with severe criminal sanctions …  

“The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.”

Trust us?

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. ‘The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,’ he said.”

Are we to spend billions of dollars and subvert our essential freedoms based on computer models which we now know were fed “manipulated data” and that the original data apparently no longer exists?

Remember the name Pielke when you read the e-mail excerpts below!

Protecting the leadership? 

“Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.”

He must of known – even though he was not in charge of the Climate Research Unit. And he did little or nothing to alert the world which was relying on the fundamental data produced by himself and his institution.

Can you trust the computer models which do not correspond to the reality of historic records – even with their manipulated numbers?

“He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is ‘unequivocally’ linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.”

Bottom line …

I call bullshit. Not only were the original model results woefully deficient, we now find that the data to produce the outputs were manipulated in ways that we can no longer measure.

Are you willing to bet your future and the future of your children on nothing more than computer models designed and operated by key institutions and scientists in which self-interests may have overridden science?

I am not willing to pay additional taxes, change my lifestyle and sacrifice my freedoms based on a political philosophy of Marxist wealth redistribution – supported by suspect science and scientists.

I now suspect that the release of so-called “hacked” records may be nothing more than a ploy to dilute the impact of the real news: science has been subverted by corrupt or complacent scientists for their own self-interest reasons.

Why has Phil Jones not been investigated and sacked?

Here is an e-mail from Phil Jones, the head of the CRU and you must ask yourself, does this single e-mail tend to suggest that Jones is not only manipulative and protective of the CRU, but intellectually dishonest? Perhaps the reason why so much of the science is actually speculative hypothesis being sold as scientific fact by the politicians bent on perusing their Marxist “redistributive” political agenda?

From: Phil Jones 
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Date: Thu Jul  8 16:30:16 2004

   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.

The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !



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. It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong because the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't happen with ERA-40.  ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.

I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit    School of Environmental Sciences    University of East Anglia 

   I'd rather you didn't. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie's email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.

Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.

At 08:11 13/08/2004 -0400, you wrote: 

Thanks a bunch Phil,
Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair of our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the case against MM??
let me know...

And it appears that Roger Pielke is more concerned with science than self-protective appearance and manipulation like Phil Jones …

From: Roger Pielke     To: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors   

Hi All

I requested to Ming Cai and Eugenia Kalnay that they respond to the comments regarding their work. The response is forwarded to you in this e-mail.

This debate, of course, should really take place in the literature. There has been, however, in my view an unfortunate change over time where reviewers who disagree with already published work recommend rejection of subsequent work rather than letting the community view and assess the different perspectives on a science issue. Our report has to make sure it   is inclusive, in order to avoid this pitfall.

An unbiased discussion of the K&C results, and ways to resolve the disagreement through hypothesis testing, should be included in the appropriate chapters.

And the real nail in Phil Jones’ coffin …


I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any more about it since agreeing a week ago.

As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.

I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get   used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.  I'll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.


Phil Jones, what a dishonest asshat …

Ben and Tom,

Congratulations on the paper coming out on Aug 12. I did talk to Nature about the three papers. Last week seems to have been a good one to have had off. I did this because of the IPCC submission deadline of Aug 12.

As you said Tom, there were some stupid messages going
around. If only these people would try and write peer-review papers, provided they get proper reviews. The one from Sonia should be kept as it proves that E&E is not a proper journal.

I almost missed the one with Pielke's resignation in. Is this going to make your CCSP task easier or harder? Presumably now you'll get all his comments to officially deal with. Maybe you'll be able to ignore them?


About Pielke’s resignation …

Commissars of Climate Change Strike Again

Another Prestigious Scientist Resigns Due to Theology of Global Warming

DALLAS (August 22, 2005) – Another prominent and respected scientist, Roger Pielke Sr., has resigned from an important government panel citing political bias built into the process of researching climate change. Pielke is also the Colorado state climatologist and professor at Colorado State University.

“Just like the Commissars of the old Soviet Union, activists in the scientific community brook no dissent in the ranks,” said NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett. “They suppress findings that are at odds with their dogmatic view of climate science.”

Pielke resigned in a letter to the head of the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), citing a recent article in The New York Times as the “last straw.” He complained not only that certain aspects of a CCSP report had been leaked to The Times, but also that another committee member was surreptitiously circulating a chapter to replace the one for which Pielke was lead author.

Referring to other CCSP members in an entry on his blog, Climate Science, Pielke noted that “…they, inappropriately, vigorously discourage the inclusion of diversity of perspectives on the topic of the CCSP report in order to promote a narrowly focused topic which has a clear political agenda.” <Source>

Diluting the real news: critical raw data necessary to research global warming has been missing for years and that some members of the scientific community were complicit in hiding this important news.

And there is much, much more contained within the so-called “leaked” or “hacked” e-mails – all of which seems to dilute the news that the original research data has been destroyed and only the manipulated data currently exists.

We need to keep our eye on the ball: the basic data which is necessary to deal with the matter of global warming is GONE – how ‘effing convenient for the corrupt scientists and politicians whose prestige, power and profits rely on believing man is more powerful than nature.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS