Is This “The Day After Tomorrow” For Climate Science? Massive Fraud Revealed!!! (Maybe) UPDATE – It’s Real!

Share Button

NOTE*** Before you read on, I want to make note that the topic of this post, and some of the data and e-mail info had yet to be verified as completely genuine…. but so far it’s looking authentic.***

UPDATE; BBC confirms hack. Now to confirm that the damning e-mails are not plants. There are so many, and in context, that it would be very hard to keep the consistency of suject matter and writing style of each climate scientist involved.

This is potentially much much worse for the science of climate change than any of the dire predictions they have issued on the fate of our planet, and the integrity of the science may be on the brink of experiencing a total meltdown that will make the melting of the arctic look like an ice cube melting on a summer day. Apparently, Hadley CRU, one of the main data repositories for climate change science has been hacked. The lifted data includes both research data and e-mails between various scientists. Preliminary reports of the e-mail content does not look good for the main scientists who publish papers concerning anthropogenic global warming. Here is one damaging example.

Michael Mann, one of the top climate scientist who became famous for his ground breaking (and maybe rule breaking) tree ring hockey stick graph, has stated over and over again that he, nor any other climate scientists, splices actual temperature records onto the graphs of proxy data:

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

This is a direct quote from Mann, taken from the website RealClimate, the site that is run by Mann and other climate scientists, geared toward refuting skeptics such as Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre. Here is an e-mail from the Hadley data:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,,
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

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.


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone [snip]
School of Environmental Sciences Fax [snip]
University of East Anglia.

Not only is Climate Scientist Phil Jones admitting that Mann HAS spiced the data, but also confirms one of the skeptics complaints that graphs are altered to discard inconvenient data that contradicts the anthropogenic global warming thesis. There are a lot more e-mails that are as damning, and some reveal the manipulation of the scientific journal publishing rules and discredits the entire peer review structure as practiced by the climate science community. If this info is true, this will be a scandal involving the falsification of science the likes and on a scale we have never seen. There is a long history of conflict between the climate scientists and the skeptics. Go to Climaite Audit, Watts Up With That, and RealClimate to get a taste of the feud. All I can say at this moment is that, if this data is genuine, and if this info pan out, this will be a HUGE setback for the entire climate science community, and just about discredit the entire pool of research presented through the IPCC. If this is true, there are a whole bunch of people who will have lots of splainin’ to do.

PS. Many are being skeptical because it seems to good to be true. I also agree we need to be very wary of this. But, for those who are doubting because it seems so bizarre that these smart people would write and have these e-mails saved, remember that most of the big corporations that have gotten into legal trouble, from Microsoft to Enron, have had a heck of a lot of evidence presented in court in the form of e-mail correspondence that, when read, you wouldn’t believe someone would not erase it, much less write it. They only purge the things when they think they might get caught, which no one ever does.