Climategate Update

Battle of graphsContinued analysis of emails and reports leaked from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England, which have been confirmed as real by CRU, show not only an effort to manipulate climate data, but that their computer database is in disarray. Both the IPCC and the EPA have relied heavily on these databases to form their policy decisions.

At the very least, Congress should thoroughly investigate the state of the science before passing any Cap & Trade system and before the EPA promulgates rules about carbon dioxide “pollution.”

The following is from a CBS News report including their embedded links.

The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week’s leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field’s most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data (“have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots”), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.’s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.” Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics “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.” (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.’s IPCC report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.”)

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including and include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named “Harry” — possibly the CRU’s Ian “Harry” Harris — was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added”

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation – apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective – since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn’t coded up in Fortran I don’t know – time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn’t enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it’s too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that’s unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country’s met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!


  1. When you connect the dots on the climate change agenda it sends chills up and down the spine.  Never before in history of this country has there been such a concerted effort by outside and internal forces to destroy the American dream, aided and abbetted by the same regulatory institutions that were formed to help protect it.  If EPA does not immediately stop its suicidal rush to regulate CO2 and do what it should have done in the beginning and solicit input from a balance panel of qualified US scientists to properly make their endangerment analysis, then EPA should be immediately stripped of its authority and an emergency commission set up to reorganize the agency.  They have abandoned science and the procedures mandated by congress and the people in charge have declared publically that they do not intend to weigh economic impacts, as required by law.  Time to clean the hen house, I believe.  Better bring an ax.

  2. Your charts tell the whole story.    Amazingly, the global warming crowd has fabricated the data to support a straighten line when the history is clear that there have been ups and downs of temperatures throughout the centuries.

    If they had to work with the correct chart, then they would have to explain WHY the temperatures went up and down in the earlier periods without the higher levels of carbon dioxide present in the atmospher. Clearly, carbon dioxide is the the determining variable in global temperatures.

    More plausible are natural variations, and solar activity.

    However, they needed some chart which would tend to imply that one variable has such a massive influence on temperatures.  

    These scientists now qualify as environmental terrorists for the efforts to hijack the science and bend mankind to their cap-and-trade will. Future generations are going to laugh at you.       .

  3. I knew it all along but to read those smug bastards makes me wanna punch them in the face.. Left wing liberal filth doing their moral duty FRAUD.. To think they held our children down and poured this vile shit in their ears.. A decade lost in some anti GW Bush crusade.. Al Gore should be charged.. Hanson fired from NASA.. This is the greatest scandal (and most expensive) the world has ever seen..
    Nothing short of a offical Senate and Public Inquiry will restore the public faith..

  4. I realize that most of you are not programmers but I think most people understand the meaning of the terms “ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION” and “fudge factor”. This is from the source code that was in the leaked information. It is its own context. It is an unambiguous set of directions to a computer to perform some operations. It can only be interpreted by the computer in one way, the way the author wrote it! Computers do not tell the truth, they only say what they have been told to say. Forget the emails, look at the code, note the ‘fudge factor’ From FOI2009/FOIA/documents/ ; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff ; standardised datasets. ; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion ; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the ; “all band” timeseries ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE********* ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’ Some code removed here for brevity. ; ; Now normalise w.r.t. 1881-1960 ; mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd Some code removed here for brevity. ; ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x) densall=densall+yearlyadj ; ; Now plot them

  5. Excellent find, Andrew.  I saw your comment at wattsupwiththat and was searching for this file you referenced.  Can you say where I can find this code for download?

  6. I don’t see this story as gaining much traction yet in the MSM, Jonathan.  Any explanations for that?

      1. An example of MSM denial is the L.A. Times
        “On November 22, while responding to the growing scandal about alleged proof that global warming is a hoax, the Times brushed it off with a puzzling claim that science should have no bearing on climate legislation.
        What a difference a few leaked e-mail messages could make: just over a month ago, the exact same paper had insisted science was behind the push for regulation. Now with the validity of that science in doubt, the Times was quick to find a different angle.”

      2. Again Jonathan, nobody outside of the already converted is going to pay attention to a website that has this on its banner: “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”.  When a non-conservative or non-global-warming skeptic sees this, he or she thinks “bias” and does not assign much credence to the writer.

        That aside, I look forward to seeing what I hope is coming – some deeper investigation, whether from sources with a conservative or liberal bias. 

      3. How can you question the objectivity of a site that denies climate change and warns us that the gay agenda is destroying the country ?

      1. Thanks for the links, Mark.  They all seem to be variations on the initial reporting of the hacking though; sometimes quoting different climate change backers or skeptics.  What I’m wanting to see is the next round of interest by the press with some more in-depth investigative journalism.  Perhaps more time is required for that to be accomplished. 

      2. You may well be right.  On the surface, at least, this is a story that would seem to be huge.  Unfortunately, the whole issue has become so politicized that it has become a proxy war between the right and left in which the truth is very difficult to ferret out.

      3. Investigative journalism is rare these days. Seems the only time it happens is when someone blows the whistle or some schmuck makes a critical mistake and let’s the cat out of the bag. Who wants to know about this stuff anyway, when we have American Idol and Dancing with the Stars to keep up with…

      4. Blogging about breaking events is easy – requires little reporting and is mostly opinion and speculation.
        Investigative reporting is hard. While we would all love for reporting to be instantaneous, it takes a lot of effort, time and most of all, care. If the MSM is going to look at what happened in England in depth, it needs to read all of the e-mails, not just the ones that have content that serves a particular point of view, interviewing all of the researchers involved, acquiring, or attempting to acquire all of the e-mails from the Centre, not just the ones that were hacked, seeking out credible experts to give context to the scientific issues in play, examining the backgrounds of the scientists and officials whose e-mails are in question, examining the Centre, its reputation, its role in climate research and the debate about it, its funding, and examining the politics and motivations of its principals and so forth.
        I’m sure stories such as the one I describe above are in the works but it will be several more days or weeks before a story like that is published.
        In the meantime, much of that can be done piecemeal, some by the MSM, and some by the blogosphere, but for a coherent, well-reported story that puts it all together and gives all of it meaning and context, you’ll have to wait.

      5. Doesn’t said reporting, unless you are freelance, require editorial approval? Lotta legwork, time and digging involved. (i.e. money) Not to mention outside pressure to keep a lid on it or spin it in another direction. It’s gotta be damn hard and possibly dangerous to do this kind of journalism. Perhaps some of the fourth estate have less backbone than their predecessors, what I call the go with the flow generation.
        I’m no expert on the MSM, but is seems to me that these stories are becoming harder and harder to find. Lord knows there are enough waiting in the wings…

      6. That’s why it’s hard, it takes a lot of time, resources and money. Only large institutions with significant revenue streams can do it on a regular basis. Some bloggers can do it on their own, but their production is maybe one or two stories a year and then they have to find a media outlet willing to buy it.
        Nevertheless, there is still a lot investigative reporting going on in this country. Some of it is by the MSM (see the IRE and Pulitzer links) and some by new media outlets funded by grants.
        See these web sites for examples of investigative reporting:
        Center for Investigative Reporting
        Investigative Reporters and Editors

        Pulitzer Prizes
        Open Secrets
        The Center for Public Integrity

  7. Nevermind, I found the file on megaupload (<a href=””>here</a>).

  8. I personally am excited to be able to go back to driving my Hummer and burning down that annoying rain forest.
    This is great news

  9. The crooks admitted that they only have the cooked (“manually adjusted”) temperature data. They have destroyed the original incriminating them in fraud evidence.

    “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.”

    Why would they destroy the original data?

    The whole idea of scientific discovery is for other independent scientists to be able to reproduce the results (to verify the claims).

    “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.

  10. Just found this gem in HARRY_READ_ME.txt:

    This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect
    nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option –
    to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other
    words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to
    become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ’em, and it’s the main reason the
    project is nearly a year late.

Comments are closed.