More climate e-mails – courtesy the CRU

The Wall Street Journal has published a selection of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. If the tone of these e-mails do not prove the alarmists scientists are trying to destroy the skeptic scientists, I don’t know what will.

The Wall Street Journal has the selection, but here is just one e-mail from 1995 where Phil Jones, director of the CRU and global warming alarmist writes Michael Mann, an associate professor at Pennsylvania State University who is most noted as being one of the authors of the “hockey stick graph” showing a big up-tick in global temperatures.

My emphasis is added, but how much you want to bet these two will be up for a Nobel Prize next year?


I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!

Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz – oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can’t see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer’s series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed.

Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he’s a paleo expert by GRL statndards.



Hey Phil, if your information and data model is going to be used to form global climate policy and implement laws, taxes and regulations on the world’s population, you can bet your ass your data – in it’s absolute raw form with all of your calculations and formulas best be open source so it can be peered reviewed by scientists not on your payroll.

For those interested in some excellent and very detailed (science alert) coverage on the global warming hoax perpetuated by the CRU during the last 20 years or so, AJ over at Strata-Sphere has some very good posts.

Here’s the problem … I’m not a scientist and don’t have the background AJ Strata does when it comes to understanding the climate models used by organizations like the CRU. This subject is just way over the heads of most of the population, especially those who are so enamored with emotion instead of facts/actions/results and can easily be manipulated … which by definition includes all of you who voted for President Obama 😉

12 replies
  1. Lazybum
    Lazybum says:

    We need to back off and stop letting facts get in the way of the Socialist-Environmental Complex's  mission to save us from ourselves. After all, who knows better what is good for us? We the ignorant great unwashed masses or the these pointy-headed intelectuals who have never produced a single farthing whilst living within bubbles in their Ivory Towers?

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    When I was at UCONN Health Center, a lab was caught fudging data, and the feds terminated their funding.  The ENTIRE complement of researchers at UCONN was required to go to a series of research ethics seminars.


    Now it seems that fudging is is not only permitted by the feds, but encouraged.  These aren't scientists, they are mouthpieces for the liberal AGW fanatics (if we are "deniers" then they are, by extension, fanatics).  They should be stripped of their funding and positions, and banned from further federally funded research.


    I guess that isn't the "Chicago way" though.

  3. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Chapter Two of the Gore Tour: “Inconvenient Emails”.??? The “hockey stick” is pointing downward, just like support for the AGW fanatics.?? LOLOL!

  4. Steve McGough
    Steve McGough says:

    Nobody knows how to respond to your comments sammy22. This is not a "win" for climate change skeptics/conservatives or a "loss" for the climate change alarmists. I don't look at it that way.

    I'm all for finding the truth, and the "truth" reported by groups – and the CRU is one of the leaders – sounding the alarm about rising sea levels and extreme weather has not been truth, rather propaganda to brainwash people and kids. It's about the power, control, self-importance of people and vanity. Anything to take away our liberty and freedom. Yes, I think it is all connected.

    I'm not one to dump my used motor oil in the street sewer or leave lights on for no reason, but I personally think it is the ultimate in vanity to think humans can "change" the climate of this great planet.

  5. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I suggets that the argument about propaganda cuts both ways ( Steve, don't you propangandize?). Sources that I have consulted indicate without much doubt that the global temperature has been increasing over the past century or so. There may be other sources  that say different. I rather lean toward believing actual recorded data than politicized arguments. If the planet it getting warmer, there may be consequences and maybe humans have something to do with it.

    • Steve McGough
      Steve McGough says:

      Hah! The difference is I'm not out there demanding carbon taxes, carbon credits and destroying the economy. The problem as I see it is it's not possible to come up with good data to determine what has happened with the world over the past 50 year let alone 1,000 years. Who are we – or any scientist – to say what the "right" temperature is for the earth. Total vanity to think so. The leaders of the AGW movement have just been caught screwing with data to meet a political end. At least you say IF and MAYBE – therefore, I don't think we need to destroy the United States economy on what's best described as a SWAG – swinging wild ass guess.

      Nor am I brainwashing little kids saying polar bears are almost gone.

      • mynoc3
        mynoc3 says:

        I think the argument is irrelevant.  This is too big to fail, and I will prove it.  Let's say this is false.  The belief in this would constitute a religion.  Our congress has passed numberous laws and given funding to many organizations based on this belief.  This is now all unconstitiution as they have been funding and passing laws in favor of a religion.  Jobs would be lossed and many laws can now be reversed.  In the long run it will be easier to pretend the truth never came out.

  6. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I could be mistaken, but it seems to me you are saying everybody who has a different position than your is wrong (regardless of evidence), and that unlike you, others are in the brainwashing business.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Sammy, you are making precisely the argument that the AGW fanatics have been making: if you are a "denier", you are wrong, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.  The presumption that today's climate is the "correct" one is laughable if you look at paleoclimatology.


      Censorship has no place in science.  Peer review is supposed to be analytical, not political.  These emails prove that there is a concerted effort to "fix" the review process the same way they fixed the data.


      Taking government money makes you beholden to the government.

Comments are closed.