Several thousand files from the Britain's Climatic Research Unit *(CRU) at the University
of East Anglia have been placed on line, including about 1000 emails to/from top
climate “scientists” Since these “scientists” are intimately involved with the UN
IPCC, which is a major source of credibility for the climate alarmists, the revelations
potentially destroy the case for claiming that the Earth’s climate has a problem.
If the files are genuine, they are exposing global warming as multi billion dollar
fraud perpetrated by a small group of climate scientists that has succeeded in fooling
most of the world media, many political leaders and citizens.
* This name often is mis-reported as the Climate Research Unit. Their site.
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that
were written in response to this article.
Response:The CRU hack - What a difference an internet makesat Samizdata.net on
November 21, 2009 If you want to see how different the world now is from how it was
before the Internet, look no further than this story (now bouncing energetically
around the world): It is claimed that the Climate Research Unit at the University
of East Anglia has been hacked and there is a ...
Response:Wow. Just Wow.at Winds of Change.NET on November 21, 2009 Is global warming
truly a fake? New evidence suggests it might be...
Response:A list of the more outrageous emailsat Synthstuff - music, photography
and more... on November 21, 2009 A. W. Montford posts a great list of 33 of the more
outrageous emails from the Climatic Research Institute over at Bishop Hill Blog.
Here are the first ten: Climate cuttings 33Welcome Instapundit readers! Hope this
is useful for you....
Descriptions of some of the emails from
Who is behind all this?
Here is one conspiricy claim from an unverified blog posting
Registrant Organization – Environmental Media Services
Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Discover the Networks)
EMS’s founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press
Secretary for Al Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore’s Communications
Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. [...]
EMS officially served as the “scientific” branch of the leftist public-relations
firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address
and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications)
used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including
biogenetic foods, America’s dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. [...]
EMS also produced many stories condemning the Bush administration’s environmental
policies. Among these titles were: “Bush Administration Obscures Truth About Toxic
Cleanups”; “President Bush Signs Fatally Flawed Wildfire Bill”; “Earth Day Event
To Highlight Bush Administration Assault On Environment, Public Health”; “Bush Administration
Report Card: ‘F’ on Protecting Children”; and “National Environmental Groups Launch
Campaign to Defeat President Bush.” EMS claimed that the data contained in its press
releases constituted “the latest and most credible information” provided by “top
scientists, physicians, and other experts.” These “experts” included officials of
Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and the
Union of Concerned Scientists.
Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Activist Cash)
EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications.
Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing
journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate
assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based
on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote
and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit
ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994. [...]
It’s called “black marketing,” and Environmental Media Services has become the principal
reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to
what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic
fringe. In addition to pre-packaged “story ideas” for the mass media, EMS provides
commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated
to win points for paying clients. These “experts,” though, are also part of the ruse.
Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of
which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It’s
a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don’t consider do-gooder
environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous “spin.”
Fenton Communications (Discover the Networks)
Foremost public relations firm of the political left. Past clients have included
Marxist dictatorships in Central America. Represents environmentalist groups, pro-Democratic
political action committees, labor unions, and the anti-war movement.
Founded in 1982 by activist and public relations veteran David Fenton, Fenton Communications
(FC) is the leading advertising and public relations firm for advocacy groups on
the political left, with locations in Washington DC, New York, and San Francisco.
FC serves as an “umbrella” for “three independent nonprofit organizations” which
it co-founded. These include: Environmental Media Services, which manages publicity
efforts for environmental groups; New Economy Communications, a social justice group;
and the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death penalty lobby.
FC expressly refuses to represent “clients and projects that we don’t believe in
ourselves.” Among the clients and projects that FC has worked for are Marxist-Leninist
regimes in Central America and Africa, environmental groups, labor unions, and anti-war
organizations. In addition, FC has offered its services to pro-Democrat political
action committees and law firms, as well as to political campaigns against the death
penalty and gun-ownership rights. [...]
Equally noteworthy has been FC’s business partnership with environmental groups.
In 1988 and 1989, FC helped one such organization, the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), promote misleading claims about the dangers of Alar, a pesticide
then in use by the apple industry. On the basis of NRDC’s study of Alar, itself based
on exaggerated probabilities rather than concrete empirical data, FC launched a media
campaign that stoked consumers’ fears and captured the interest of television news
programs, daily newspapers and daytime talk shows, fueling a backlash against apple
growers. By some estimates, the apple industry suffered $200 million in lost revenue
as a result of the FC campaign.
By contrast, FC and its client prospered. David Fenton subsequently boasted that
his firm had “designed” the media campaign “so that revenue would flow back to NRDC
from the public,” noting that FC had gained “$700,000 in net revenues from it.” Fenton
Communications today cites the Alar campaign as a significant contribution to the
“national debate” on pesticides. [...]
Joining forces with the Environmental Working Group, FC has also engineered media
campaigns exaggerating the dangers posed by pesticides in tap water and baby food.
In 2003 FC created an ad campaign targeting the automotive industry for the Evangelical
Environmental Network. The controversial ads alleged that consumers who bought sport
utility vehicles were, in effect, supporting terrorism by using large amounts of
fuel imported from the Middle East. [...]
Arlie Schardt, a senior consultant at Fenton Communications and Chairman of Environmental
Media Services, served as Al Gore’s national press secretary during his first presidential
David Fenton (ActivistCash)
David Fenton has turned leftist activism into big business with his firm Fenton Communications,
the single most easily identifiable nexus of anti-consumer activism in Washington,
DC. Fenton and his staff masterminded the mad cow scare campaign, the organic marketing
craze, the phony Alar-on-apples food scare, and more. He’s very good at what he does,
and groups like the Center for Food Safety, Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Organic Consumers Association, and SeaWeb are all happy to pony up big
bucks to give their radical messages the Fenton touch.
Fenton started out in the music biz, directing public relations for Rolling Stone.
He entered the activist fray in the anti-nuclear movement of the late 1970s, co-producing
the 1979 “No Nukes” concerts headlined by Bruce Springsteen and Bonnie Raitt. From
there, he went on to found his own activism-centered PR empire, Fenton Communications,
in 1982. Within that umbrella are “three independent nonprofit organizations” all
co-founded by Fenton: the Death Penalty Information Center, New Economy Communications
(an anti-globalism outfit), and Environmental Media Services.
Fenton Communications has been deeply involved in environmental issues since its
founding in 1982. The firm publicized the first reports of the U.N. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, helped environmental NGOs at the Kyoto Global Warming Summit,
and worked with Vice-President Al Gore to publicize the issues.
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S.
Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
“Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public
relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for
the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) created a website,
realclimate.org, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This
time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize
this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for
believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce
their worrying.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
This is for those who you who still doubt there is NO conspiracy.
Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen
using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier
to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing
up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn
Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist
was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it
is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published
at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they
should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that
whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board
to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap"
out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'.
Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean
warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology
(although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity
test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over
a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since
many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal
bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes
or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering
is not possible.(1255523796)
Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use
IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders
and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval
Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence
Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the
kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says
the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word
Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because
it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these
against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he
produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of
what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error
and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate
data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new
editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief
over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor
James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if
Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.
(1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged
refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and
that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry
they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented
warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics
leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI.
They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back
Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series.
Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he
Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of
making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive
and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says
there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and
Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help
for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster
they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global
temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because
it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially
he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the
head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests
it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind
data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory
for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss
AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author
team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government
corruption, announced today that it has obtained internal documents from NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007
when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA's handling of raw
temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature
readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected
the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA's rankings for the
hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top
of the list.
The above link it to the, presumably, original released document. Unfortunately it
DOES NOT have copyable or searchable text (it is just a file of images of text.)
We have fed this file through an OCR program to add text behind the images of the
original pages. Please note that the ORC makes mistakes, so the copied text will
have some errors. Download the NASA file with text.
IPCC uses political lobbying group publications as “peer reviewed” sources
We have been told that the IPCC report is all peer reviewed, yet some of their references
are to WWF & Greenpeace as if they were peer-reviewed, scientifically accurate sources.
This came to light when it was discovered that the claim of the Himalayan glaciers
melting wrong and supported only by a reference to WWF which turned out to be based
on a news magazine interview with a scientist:
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan
glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put
political pressure on world leaders.
Daily Mail The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report
that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included
purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you
know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in
line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely
on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times,
all under Pachauri’s watch.