Climategate 2.0


Climategate 2.0. Uudet vuodot. Samat hahmot. Uudet hupailut ilmastotieteilijöiden sanomisista. Taas tekemistä pimeiksi illoiksi. Popcornit esiin.

/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such

Tällä palstalla on hupailtu moneen otteeseen ilmastouskonnon asian puolesta taistelevien tiedemiehien motiiveista. Climategate 2.0 paljastaa tiedemiesten ottaneen itse samat termistöt käyttöön:

// The Cause ///


By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.


They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Climate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a


I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause.

Jones harrastaa avoimmuutta IPCC:n AR5:n synnytysprosessissa:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the

Jones on tyytyväinen adjusteeraustensa tuloksiin:

"This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary."

Pientä epäilyä ilmastomallien toiminnasta - Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer

Ja Jones samasta aiheesta:

"Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds."

Jones ritarina avoimmuuden puolesta:

"Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data."


Kommentit (50)

Kysymys: mitä vaikutusta yksityisten sähköpostien varastamisella ja niiden julkaisemisella netissä on maapallon keskilämpötilaan?

Vastaus: sillä ei ole mitään vaikutusta.

Kysymys: Miksi pitäisi olla?
Vastaus: Ei miksikään

Toisekseen, nuo eivät ole yksityisiä vaan sekä Iso-Britannian että USA:n julkisuuslain (FOIA) -alaista tietoa (verovaroin kustannettua) eli pyydettäessä julkaistava. Eivätkä ole julkaisseet, vaikka on pyydetty.

On olemassa 10:n tyyppisiä ihmisiä: Niitä, jotka ajattelevat binäärisesti ja niitä, jotka eivät.

Kysymys: mitä vaikutusta yksityisten sähköpostien varastamisella ja niiden julkaisemisella netissä on maapallon keskilämpötilaan?

Vastaus: sillä ei ole mitään vaikutusta.

Ihmetyttää miten agressiivisesti alarmistit suhtautuvat asiaan - ja samalla ovat täysin välinpitämättömiä mitä ilmeisimmistä tutkimustulosten vääristelystä ja julkisuus- yms. lakien rikkomisesta. Taidatte olla varsinaisia tieteenvihaajia?



Huvitti yksi posti jossa muuan kollega oli testaillut Mannin lätkämailan tuottaneita menetelmiä satunnaisdatalla. Tuloksena aina lätkämaila

Onhan se vakuuttavaa kun sama tulos saadaan uudelleen ja uudelleen....

Too many protest singers, not enough protest songs...


Tämä on jokseenkin oksettavaa (0332.txt - jakelu Mann, Jones ja kaverit):

> >>At 16:19 17/04/03 +1000, Barrie.Pittock@xxx wrote:
Dear all,

I just want to throw in some thoughts re appropriate responses to
all this - probably obvious to some of you, but clearly different
from some views expressed. This is not solely a reply to Phil
Jones, as I have read lots of other emails today including all
those interesting ones from Michael Mann.

1. I completely understand the frustration by some at having to
consider a reply to these nonsense papers, and I agree that such
replies will not get cited much and may in fact draw attention to
papers which deserve to be ignored.

2. However, ignoring them can be interpreted as not having an
answer, and whether we ignore them or not, there are people and
lobby groups which will push these papers as 'refereed science'
which WILL be persuasive to many small or large decision-makers who
are NOT competent to make their own scientific judgements, and some
of whom wish the enhanced GH effect would turn out to be a myth. In
our Australian backwater for example, such papers WILL/ARE being
copied to business executives and politicians to bolster anti-FCCC
decisions, and these people do matter. There has to be a
well-argued and authoritative response, at least for private
circulation, and as a basis for advice to these decision-makers.

3. I see several possible courses of action that would be useful.
(a) Prepare a background briefing document for wide private
circulation, which refutes the claims and lists competent
authorities who might be consulted for advice on this issue. (b)
Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the
offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied
to refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or
privately may not matter so much, as long as it happens. It could
be through boycotting the journals, but that might leave them even
freer to promulgate misinformation. To my mind that is not as good
as getting the offending editors removed and proper processes in
place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or
concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors. (c) A
journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and
embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of
being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for
Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as "rogue
editors", in line with current international practice? Or is that
defamatory? (d) Legal action might be useful for authors who
consider themselves libelled, and there could be financial support
for such actions (Jim Salinger might have contacts here). However,
we would need to be very careful to be moderate and reasonable in
our reponses to avoid counter legal actions.

4. I thoroughly agree that just entering in to a public slanging
match with the offending authors (or editors for that matter) on a
one-to-one basis is not the way to go. We need some more concerted

5. One other thought is that it may be worthwhile for some authors
to do a serious further study to bring out some statistical tests
for the likelihood of numerous proxy records showing unprecedented
synchronous warming in the last 30+ years. This could be, somewhat
along the lines of the tests used in the studies of observed
changes in biological and physical systems in the TAR WGII
report(SPM figure 1 and related text in Chapter 19, and recent
papers by Parmesan and Yohe (2003) and Root et al. (2003) in Nature
421, 37-42 and 57-60). Someone may already have this in hand. I am
sure the evidence is even stronger than for the critters. That is
of course what has already been done in fingerprinting the actual
temperature record.

Anyway, I am not one of the authors, and too busy (for a retired
person), so I hope you can collectively get something going which I
can support.

Best regards to all,


Dr. A. Barrie Pittock
Post-Retirement Fellow, Climate Impact Group
CSIRO Atmospheric Research, PMB 1, Aspendale 3195, Australia


BOMin työntekijöiden rukouksiin on vastattu vähän samaan tyyliin kuin Suomalaisten vihervasemmistolaisten "lunta ja heti"-hiihtomarssin osallistujille:


cc: "Shoni Dawkins"
date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +1000
from: "David Jones"
subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
to: "Phil Jones"

Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the
Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.
Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don't need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse - across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations - numbers that will just about see the death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don't get good spring rain).
The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average, which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.


Olipa Makin teksti aika karmaisevaa luettavaa noista metodeista, missä on yrjö hymiö?

Ja miten kohdeltu kiinalaisten tutkimusta UHI-ilmiöstä jota on vähätelty lähes täysin merkityksettömänä:
In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990 period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be more representative for the baseline change.
We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.



Täällä on vitsailtu moneen kertaan ilmastotiedemiesten "lätkäjengistä". Phil Jones tunnustaa sellaisen olevan olemassa ja toivottaa uudet jäsenet tervetulleeksi lätkäjengiin!

Samalla keskustellaan Venäjän datan historian viilauksista viileään päin.

cc: "Pasha.Groisman" , Neil Plummer , wang@xxx, Russell Vose , Thomas C Peterson
date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:42:16 -0500
from: "Thomas.R.Karl"
subject: Re: Climate Audit and our paper from 1990
to: Phil Jones

Thanks Phil,
We are struggling a bit with a new adjustment scheme to USHCN w/r to indirect vs direct adjustments for urban heat islands. GHCN is another issue still, but all this is clearly in the noise. An important correction we are working on is the cool bias introduced by a greater percentage of bouys lately compared to just a decade or two ago. This effect is at least comparable to the urban effect in my view. Dick Reynolds is working on that one. I am hopeful that Russ Vose and Tom Peterson can work to develop a strategy for us soon. I will ask them to send you a copy for you comments.
Regards, Tom
Phil Jones said the following on 2/20/2007 4:01 AM:

Dear All,
Remember this paper !
Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. and Karl, T.R.,
1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over
land. Nature 347, 169-172.
Well on this web site, the work is being hotly debated!
Their renewed interest seems to stem from modifications NCDC are
making to USHCN and as I hear from Tom Peterson to their global and
hemispheric averages. Ridiculous statements are being made about the
NCDC work modifying data to make recent warming greater - and more
like the CRU data! On the Russian part of our study, the old chestnut of
temperature data being modified in Soviet days to make the data cooler
during the 1930s and 1940s! Also the Russian network failing apart when
the Soviet Union came to an end.
No doubt this will surface somewhere when the Chapter from AR4 comes
out. We still refer to this paper, but there are more recent studies by
Tom Peterson and David Parker. These studies and some earlier ones by
Tom Karl are still the only ones to look at the issue over large scales.
Anyway, I'd just thought I'd warn you all in case they ever get their act
together (and stop their diatribes).
I'd thought I'd also welcome you to the Hockey Team (but you're all
reserves) - to get onto the ice, you have to do some paleo work!
Wei-Chung therefore has a good chance of playing some day.
It's also good that we're all still working hard in the field, most of us
writing less unfortunately as we're higher up the ladder!
1990 seems a long time ago ! By the way, I do have the data
from the study on disk! I was wise even when Steve McIntyre first
requested the data many years ago. I think I could replicate the
study if I had that rare commodity - time.
The penultimate paragraph of the 1990 paper was mainly written by
Tom - thanks. It even has pre-IPCC definitions of likelihood!
Neil - can you pass this on with my best wishes to Mike.

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out


In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I critcized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...]
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

Ei halua aiheuttaa vahinkoa ilmastotie.... anteeksi, ilmastopolitiikalle...

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year

Raymond Bradley on yksi lätkämailatutkimuksiin osallistuneista henkilöistä....

So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.

Eiks tää mallinnus nyt olekkaan puhdasta VYSIIKKAA?

Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.

Oli tuolla paljon muitakin hyviä/hauskoja. Suuri osa tapetille nostetuista viesteistä näyttäisi vahvistavan, että myös "tiimissä" ollaan havaittu samoja asioita sekä IPCC-prosessista että tieteen tekemisestä, kuin mitä skeptikotkin ovat jo aikaa sitten havainneet.

On olemassa 10:n tyyppisiä ihmisiä: Niitä, jotka ajattelevat binäärisesti ja niitä, jotka eivät.


Argo-data aiheuttaa ongelmia - typerä lämpökäyrä kääntyy alaviistoon mokomien poijujen takia:

cc: "Folland, Chris" , Phil Jones , Richard W Reynolds , Gavin Schmidt , Stefan Rahmstorf
date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:01:29 -0400
from: Michael Mann
subject: Re: heads up
to: "Thomas.R.Karl"

thanks Tom--yeah, the ARGO floats are a problem and almost certainly contribute artificially to the downturn, though much of it is certainly real (La Nina). The thing that is somewhat disturbing is that the UK Met Office essentially pads the Jan/Feb (anomalously cool) average out 10+ years if I understand what's been done, before the smoothing is applied. this presents a very misleading view of the recent trend, and is being quite predictably seized upon by contrarians. especially problematic is the fact that it plays right into the bogus "global warming and stopped" mantra. they are of course aided here by the fact that the UK Met Office is an unimpeachable source--Chris, I think this needs some attention (if you're back from travels?)
I've copied in Stefan and Gavin who brought the issue to my attention in the first place.


Kaveri tukee kaveria-tiedettä. EAR-40-uudelleenanalyysi on oikea, koska se tuottaa saman tuloksen kuin CRU. Molemmat jättävät käyttämättä maa-asemien datan pohjoisessa, mutta ei se haittaa.

date: Thu Jul 8 16:10:37 2004
from: Phil Jones

subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd: Re: edits to page 3-23 NRC Report (fwd)
to: "Michael E. Mann"

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.


Ei niillä mitään salaliittoa ole eikä lätkäjengiä. Nää on jonkun kirotun denialistin väärentämiä sähköposteja. M. Mann on mailman rehellisin ja pyyteettömin teologi eikun siis tiedemies . . . oikeesti . . . älä naura mä olen tosissani.

On paljon parempi tietää kaikesta jotakin, kuin jostakin kaikki. Pascal

Ja muutoin olen sitä mieltä, että Petteri Taalas pitää erottaa!


Daily Mail vetelee jo otsikoita briteissä:

[size=150:12fcnhcn]New leak of hacked global warming scientist emails: A 'smoking gun' proving a conspiracy - or just hot air? [/size:12fcnhcn]
Last updated at 5:10 PM on 22nd November 2011

'We're choosing periods to show warming'
'Science is being manipulated - it might not be too clever in the long run'
'Climate change is a "better label" than global warming'
'Many thanks for your paper - and congratulations for reviving global warming'

Read more: ... z1eSxYD8Gv

Too many protest singers, not enough protest songs...


2226, Phil Jones suggests going “over the top” to encourage acceptance at Nature:

Rather than go through the doc file, I’ll make a few points directly by email.
1. I’ll reckon you’ll have to go over the top to get Nature to send this out for
One way of doing this would be to add in some quick analyses of the
residual global mean series. for recent years. Only a few sentences.
Basically to show that years like 2005 and others in the period 2002-2007 are
after extraction warmer than 1998. Maybe also over 1997/8 to 2007 show
the trend. I know this is somewhat silly, but there is a lot of rubbish on
web sites about global warming stopping. Maybe just rank the top ten
years in the residual series. This might give it more appeal, but not detract
from the main 1945 message.