Re: [asa] Hadley files stolen and published on the internet...

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Mon Nov 23 2009 - 08:00:00 EST

Thanks, Murray. posted an analysis of the hacking
incident yesterday. I'll be looking at it later this week.

I read with interest Janice's parting barbs at you (and me). I guess
in some cases a person's character is determined by the character of
their detractors! <G>

I appreciate your insightful posts, even when I may not entirely agree
with them.


On 11/20/09, Murray Hogg <> wrote:
> Hi John,
> This is really quite interesting and it should make for some interesting
> discussions not only on global warming itself, but on issues of scientific
> method (and/or lack thereof!)
> Personally, I wouldn't jump immediately to the conclusion that that the
> e-mails show global warming to be a conspiracy/hoax/swindle. Indeed, I
> wouldn't even conclude that the Hadley guys have acted improperly - let
> alone that they have acted dishonestly.
> After all, we already know that advocates on both sides of the debate have
> to try to make sense of a welter of quite complex data. In which case I make
> very little of the fact that the Hadley guys (or anybody else) have engaged
> in selective presentation of data. Indeed, I would have expected that they
> had, and the revelations in that respect come as no surprise.
> The real question is, as always, whether the selectivity in question is
> justified - and to answer that question, one needs to go back to reasons
> which lie behind it. I'm sure the Hadley guys will have a story to tell - on
> which people will make up their own minds.
> On that score, it's probably worth making a comment about Andrew Bolt, who
> happens to be a very well-known staff columnist on social and political
> issues for one of the two major daily papers in the city where I live.
> On social/political matters Bolt's leaning is avowedly right wing. And while
> nobody should conceive of him a mindless right-wing apologist of the Janice
> Matchett sort, he is invariably critical of left-wing political and social
> policy in general and of the environmental lobby in particular. Yet, as I
> say, he isn't mindless - he is generally able to put up a quite cogent
> argument for his views, and as such he is regularly sought out to give a
> well-informed opinion with a conservative slant.
> For current purposes, the important thing to be aware of is that he is
> nowhere near a neutral in the global warming debate and has, over a number
> of years now, offered regular denunciations of global warming theories in
> his press columns.
> The relevance of this is pretty simple: I personally think the Hadley
> e-mails still leave quite a bit of room for interpretation - and it's pretty
> obvious where in the spectrum of possible interpretations Bolt is going to
> come down. Be assured that he will - as is his custom - speak in very
> decisive terms about the subject at hand. But nobody should be fooled by the
> certainty of Bolt's pronouncements into believing that there is only one
> possible reading of a situation.
> This doesn't mean that he is necessarily wrong in his reading of the Hadley
> e-mails. Only that his position was well and truly set long before they came
> to light, and that his is not a self-critical or sympathetic reading of the
> data - by which I mean he is unlikely to give the Hadley people the benefit
> of the doubt but rather to read their comments in the most negative terms.
> For Bolt these e-mails will be ammunition to be fired rather than data to be
> analysed.
> Blessings,
> Murray
> John Walley wrote:
>> Wow. This story seems to be a real shocker.
>> The Herald Sun in Oz is reporting on their blog that a bunch of
>> confidential emails have been hacked (stolen) from Hadley Climate
>> Reseach Center and some of them are not that flattering. Below are
>> some excerpts that are floating around. Also here is a link where you
>> can dl all 69M of the original files.
>> John
>> Herald Sun
>> Files:
>> From: Phil Jones
>> To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
>> Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
>> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
>> Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn <mailto:k.briffa@XXX.osborn>@XXXX
>> 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.
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich
>> .
>> 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.***
>> 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.
>> Comments?
>> Tom
>> From: Phil Jones
>> To: “Michael E. Mann”
>> Subject: IPCC & FOI
>> Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
>> Mike,
>> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
>> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family
>> crisis.
>> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his
>> new email address.
>> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
>> paper!!
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit
>> From: Phil Jones
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
>> Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
>> From: Timo H‰meranta
>> To:
>> Subject: John L. Daly dead
>> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
>> Importance: Normal
>> Mike,
>> In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC
>> paper – just found another email – is that McKittrick says it is
>> standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and
>> codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>> “It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the
>> sudden death of John Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email
>> account (daly@XXXX)
>> “
>> Reported with great sadness
>> At 14:09 -0600 13-09-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>> thanks David - lets see what others think. I agree, that we don’t
>> want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that
>> all the TAR said was “likely” the warmest in the last 1000 years.
>> Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is
>> unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years.
>> But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not
>> have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete
>> that second sentence.
>> any other thoughts team?
>> 0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
>> 1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
>> 0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
>> 0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent
>> years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
>> 0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
>> 1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
>> 1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
>> 1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
>> 0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
>> 0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
>> 0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
>> 0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
>> 0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get
>> “distinguishable results”
>> 0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of
>> published science but production of results”
>> 1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
>> 1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
>> 1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small
>> difference” (factor 1.29)
>> 1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
>> 1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different
>> proxy combinations
>> 1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so
>> that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4
>> Options appear to be:
>> Send them the data
>> Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries
>> who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and
>> also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some
>> other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could
>> extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes
>> in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we
>> coded up in the 1980s.
>> Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How
>> could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees
>> with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy
>> them.
>> From: “Michael E. Mann”
>> To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
>> Subject: update
>> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
>> Cc: Gavin Schmidt
>> guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue,
>> so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty
>> McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website
>> (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).
>> Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any
>> way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful
>> about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to
>> answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other
>> hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself.
>> We can hold
>> comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you
>> think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any
>> comments you’d like us to include.
>> You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as
>> a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
>> forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use
>> our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
>> comments as a megaphone…
>> “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to
>> tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails unless this was ‘normal’
>> deleting to keep emails manageable!""Yes, I am aware of the
>> confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did and why. It is even
>> messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets (more than one!)
>> from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers yougave in your
>> email!!""Ed to be really honest, I don’t see how this was ever
>> accepted for publication in Nature.""Mike,I’d rather you didn’t. I
>> think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew
>> Conrie’semail 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.Cheers""we are
>> having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions -
>> being scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still
>> getting the crux of the information across clearly.”
>> UPDATE 10
>> From: Tom Wigley [...]
>> To: Phil Jones [...]
>> Subject: 1940s
>> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
>> Cc: Ben Santer [...]
>> Phil,
>> 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 blips­higher 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 NH­just 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.
>> Tom.
>> UPDATE 11
>> 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. K and I will keep them
>> out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
>> literature is !
>> UPDATE 12
>> > After asking Anjuli I can confirm that government employees
>> cannot receive funding besides travel reimbursement. So for those of
>> you that are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, the only thing that remains to do
>> is to go through the document once again, make sure your work (past
>> and future) is not misrepresented, and then send me a note with an
>> “OK” or your new comments, specifying that you are a government
>> employee (please don’t let me guess it).
>> For those of you that are ACADEMICS WITH 12 MONTHS SALARY all that
>> we can budget is a small amount of consulting fees, up to 2 weeks’
>> worth.
>> If you belong to this category please respond saying that you are or
>> you are not interested. If you are, then include in the document at
>> the end in the place already arranged for it a statement of work
>> referring to specific tasks as they stand in Section 3 of the
>> narrative, and a bio-sketch (see end of this email for specific
>> instructions).
>> For THOSE OF YOU THAT CAN GET FULL SUPPORT, please say if you want
>> it or > not, and if you do, then do as I requested above: include in
>> the document at the end in the place already rranged for it a
>> statement of work referring to specific tasks as they stand in
>> Section 3 of the narrative, and a bio-sketch (see end of this email
>> for specific instructions).
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 23 08:00:36 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 23 2009 - 08:00:37 EST