Climategate 2, more emails released "Basic problem is that all models are wrong"

The blogosphere is alive this morning with the news that many more emails regarding the inner workings of the IPCC and associated anthropogenic global warming proponents have been released by a still unknown agent.

See blog articles at Air Vent, and Watts up with that for samples.

Following are some examples of email excerpts posted on the Air Vent site.  Keep in mind that these excerpts are without context. These excerpts purport to show that a small group is trying to manipulate the data and the public perception:

4443> Jones:

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

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

 Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical  troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a  wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the  uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these  further if necessary […]

 <3066> Thorne:

 I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it  which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Presumably this one refers to Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph:

2884> Wigley:

 Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of  dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

1611> Carter:

 It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much  talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by  a select core group.

0714> Jones:

 Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about  the tornadoes group.

 1790> Lorenzoni:

 I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and  governmental opinion […] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s  daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and  evolving phenomenon

1485> Mann:

 the important thing is to make sure they’re losing the PR battle. That’s what  the site [Real Climate] is about.

2428> Ashton/

 Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn  this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to  one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. […] the most  valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as  possible

1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]

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.

The British newspaper, The Guardian, has more on the story.  Initially there had been a question about the authenticity of the purported emails, but the Guardian story quotes Michael Mann as saying they look genuine.

This new release of additional emails comes just a week before the big United Nations climate change conference in Durban, South Africa.

Searchable database of Climategate 2 emails:

See my post on the original Climategate of two years ago here.

A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

An eight-part series of articles from the German online newspaper, Spiegel Online, examines the state of climate science and how it has been affected by the “climategate” scandals. This is a fairly balanced report (in English) and should make a good weekend read. Each article is one page long.

It begins: “Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?”

Read the series starting here:,1518,686697,00.html

Climategate Update Feb 18, 2010 Phil Jones and the NASA files

In an interview with the BBC, Phil Jones, the head of the British Climatic Research Unit at the heart of ClimateGate, told the BBC: the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not statistically different from two other planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented. Jones also explained why he manipulated the data to “hide the decline.”

The BBC interview:


Chris Horner, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed a freedom of information request to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), in August 2007. Finally on Dec. 31, 2009 NASA complied with the request and released emails and other documents.

According to Horner, “The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.”

Horner article part 1 here:

NASA emails here:

Climategate Analysis

The Science and Public Policy Institute has published an analysis of the leaked climategate emails. This 149-page document takes the emails in chronological order and shows, with comments on each message, how science was perverted.

In the introductory material the report says:

The entire industry of “climate science” was created out of virtually nothing, by means of a massive influx of funding that was almost universally one-sided in its requirement that its recipients find evidence for man-made climate change—not investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate change.

Many “climate scientists” built their entire careers on this funding; and so it is not surprising that they became so completely reliant on this conditional lifeline, that they became single-mindedly focused on achieving the ends for which they were commissioned—and viciously attacking any intruders who may threaten that lifeline.

The PDF file may be download from either of these links:

Click to access climategate_analysis.pdf


Climategate: Conflicts of interest and corrupted science

As the climategate story unfolds from the leaked emails and documents from the British Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and now from other organizations, we are learning about conflicts of interest and even more data manipulation.

Several stories revealed that Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has conflicts of interest because of his involvement with companies that benefit from the contention that carbon dioxide emissions pose a danger. From the U.K. Telegraph: “Although Dr. Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as ‘the world’s top climate scientist’), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics, he has no qualifications in climate science at all. What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr. Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.”

See story:

EUReferendum, a British blog, tells a tale of alleged money laundering by Pachauri:


India Today also has a story on Pachauri’s conflicts of interest:


More data manipulation revealed:

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, said in a blog on KUSI TV, San Diego, “It has been revealed that a ‘sleight of hand’ was used in the computer program that rated 2005 as ‘The Warmest Year on Record.’ Skeptical climate researchers have discovered extensive manipulation of the data within the U.S. Government’s two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina, and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. These centers are being accused of creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based. The two investigators say the system has been distorted in other ways as well. They have documented their findings in great detail in a scientific report that has been posted online. These findings are presented as a part of my television special report “Global Warming: The Other Side” telecast Thursday night, January 14th at 9 PM here on KUSI TV.” See full blog article here:

See the TV show here:

See the report referred to here:

We are seeing, more and more, that Congress’s proposed Cap & Trade legislation and the EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide are based on faulty data. Both campaigns should cease while the situation is being investigated.

See my previous blogs on climategate:

Climategate, the plot thickens:

Climate Data, Fact or Fiction:

More Climate Skullduggery:

Feedback from a vested interest:

Climate industry meets reality:

Climategate Update:


Climategate The Plot Thickens

Here’s some of the news that our Main Stream Media didn’t report.

Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations

“On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.”

Source: Scroll about half way down the page.

Global weather dataset being systematically corrupted

“For the past six days, several climate scientists have discovered an alarming trend: clear evidence of alteration of historical data at weather stations around the world, in order to support the contention of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The changes appear to affect the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), a project of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center.”


Antarctic GHCN uses single warmest station instead of whole dataset

“Of all the stations available in the antarctic, GHCN has chosen to use a single station on the Antarctic Peninsula to represent an entire continent of the earth for the past 17 years. But it’s not just any station, it’s a special one. Rothera Point has the single highest trend of any of the adjusted station data.”


Computer programmer makes case that release of files from CRU was an inside job.


How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles


Politicians take note: It could be that all the sound and fury over climate change is based on bad data. For traders in carbon credits: the house of cards is beginning to fall and your market may be the next multi-billion dollar bubble to burst.

More Climate Skullduggery

The unauthorized release of data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., has made news world wide (except on CBS, NBC, and ABC television world news reports). Much of the attention has been on emails between scientists. Now, with more scrutiny, researchers are looking at the computer code used to provide temperature data that formed the basis of climate modeling and alarmist IPCC reports.

The computer code, both in the coding itself and in the programmer’s comments, show a deliberate effort to massage the real data into something that falsely showed increased warming in more recent times. See one analysis here: As the analyst said, “That is not science, that is religion with math equations.”

In the U.S., NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies keeps an official surface temperature record. Last year, Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre, and others, noticed that NASA made some “corrections” in the record which magically lowered pre-1970 temperatures and raised post-1970 temperatures. (See article: To see the difference, click on the video about half way down in the article. Note: I suspect that “Steven Goddard” the article’s author is a pseudonym. ) (See also: )

Is NASA hiding data? Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s. CEI has filed a notice of intent to sue NASA. CEI also filed an emergency petition with EPA to re-open the Endangerment Finding which the EPA is using as an excuse to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In New Zealand, the official National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), keeper of the official temperatures, has been caught misrepresenting the data.


In Australia, Scientist Clive Spash has resigned from the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO ) and called for a Senate inquiry into the science body following the censorship of his controversial report into emissions trading. Story here:

Following the money:

Denmark is the center of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas, in which the cheats exploit a so-called ‘VAT carrousel.’ Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries. – Copenhagen Post

East Anglia CRUnit director Phil Jones collected $19 million for his climate modeling between 2000 and 2006 according to the Wall Street Journal.

Michael Mann of hockey stick fame has collected $6 million for research according to his own accounting. (I had a Penn State link for this but it mysteriously became inactive.)

Global Warming Industry Meets Reality

FlyingMoneyIt seems that there really is “Mann”-made global warming. It is made of fraud, data manipulation, collusion, squelching dissent, hiding data, deleting data, and punishing scientific journals that dared to publish papers challenging the carbon cabal.

The global warming industry is very big business and there is a huge vested interest in maintaining the myth that human carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” George Orwell, 1984.

The upcoming Copenhagen meeting sponsored by the United Nations had hoped for a global redistribution of wealth over the next 20 years of between $6 trillion and $10.5 trillion, according to the draft treaty, to “Compensate for damage to the less developed countries’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees.” Third world governments see dollar signs.


In the U.S., the Treasury Department estimates that the president’s cap-and-trade approach would “generate federal receipts on the order of $100- to $200 billion annually.” The Congressional Budget Office reports that a 15 percent CO2 reduction would cost an average household $1,600 a year.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a bureaucrat’s paradise that exists solely to perpetrate the myth, while enjoying frequent meetings at exotic venues throughout the world.

Many governments maintain bureaucracies just to “study” the myth. In the U.S., it’s the Global Change Research Program. NOAA, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Climate Change and Wildlife Center of the USGS, and the EPA are just a few other federal agencies feeding at the trough.

Over the last 20 years, the US government spent $32 billion on climate research, yet has failed to find any evidence that carbon dioxide emissions significantly affect temperature or represent a danger. Government agencies, the private sector, and universities were the recipients of this money. These organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.

The feds also spent another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Solar and wind-power generation of electricity can be a supplemental supply, but these methods could not compete with fossil fuels without a subsidy. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.

The ethanol industry is founded solely on the myth that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, even though the U.S. has abundant supplies.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Bailout bill) contained $3.4 billion for research and experimentation in the area of carbon sequestration – burying carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel plants. There are also, really wild schemes for geoengineering, schemes to block the sun with mirrors, or seed the atmosphere with sulfur to produce more clouds.

On the world commodities market, trading carbon credits generated $126 billion in 2008, and big banks are collecting fees, and some project a market worth $2 trillion. Al Gore’s venture capital firm, Hara Software which makes software to track greenhouse gas emissions, stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation. If the myth is destroyed, this market will evaporate.

Back in 2007, a coalition of major corporations and environmental groups formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to lobby for cap & trade. The companies planned to profit (at least in the short term) from either the cap-and-trade provisions or from selling high-priced, politically-favored (if not mandated) so-called “green” technology to the rest of us — whether we need it or not, and regardless of whether it produces any environmental or societal benefits.

Corporate USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, Exelon, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, John Deer & Co, PG&E Corporation, and PNM Resources.

Has science been co-opted by greed and ideology; has government been co-opted by scientific elitists?

In his farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave this warning:

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

The Obama administration, which promised to “restore science to its rightful place,” is ignoring events and sailing its ideological titanic to Copenhagen.

The vested interests are strong and many. Is the global warming industry “too big to fail?” It remains to be seen whether those interests, and political ideology will triumph over truth and common sense.

We should suspend any further consideration of cap & trade schemes and carbon taxes until there is a thorough investigation and re-analysis of the science, costs, and benefits. We also need the government to re-examine energy policy. We need to examine our system of research grants to universities which seems to have been biased toward the politically correct, rather than seeking scientific truth.

The global warming industry is predicated on manipulated computer modeling rather than observational data. The touted “consensus” has been shown to be the result of suppression of dissenting voices, and fueled by greed, power seeking, and the perversion of the scientific method.

If the “warmists” have their way, the result will be suppression of freedom and a criminal waste of resources.

For more information, see my blogs on Climategate at the Tucson Citizen:


For more stories on the climate scandal see:

Climate Audit explanation of the “trick”:

Bishop Hill selected emails:


Searchable index of emails:

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!