Well, what anyone with half a brain has suspected is all but confirmed now. Global warming is a huge hoax, and most scientists backing it have been engineering data to get the results they want. Global warming cultists like James Hansen (director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Michael Mann (creator of the infamous and now disproven) “hockey stick” graph), Gavin Schmidt (NASA climate modeler), and Steven Schneider (Al Gore crony) have all been implicated, among others.

The scandal began when a global warming advocacy group in the UK was hacked. Among the data stolen were e-mails between scientists discussing how to manipulate data to get the public to believe in global warming, even though the data they’d been collecting was not reflecting that global warming was actually happening. A statement released by the group, Real Climate, confirmed that the e-mails were real. Over 1,000 e-mails were stolen.

Newsbusters has most of the info, like some of the e-mails.

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: //’;l[1]=’a’;l[2]=’/’;l[3]=’<';l[4]=' 110';l[5]=' 114';l[6]=' 111';l[7]=' 98';l[8]=' 115';l[9]=' 111';l[10]=' 46';l[11]=' 88';l[12]=' 88';l[13]=' 88';l[14]=' 64';l[15]=' 97';l[16]=' 102';l[17]=' 102';l[18]=' 105';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 98';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 107';l[23]='>‘;l[24]='”‘;l[25]=’ 110′;l[26]=’ 114′;l[27]=’ 111′;l[28]=’ 98′;l[29]=’ 115′;l[30]=’ 111′;l[31]=’ 46′;l[32]=’ 88′;l[33]=’ 88′;l[34]=’ 88′;l[35]=’ 64′;l[36]=’ 97′;l[37]=’ 102′;l[38]=’ 102′;l[39]=’ 105′;l[40]=’ 114′;l[41]=’ 98′;l[42]=’ 46′;l[43]=’ 107′;l[44]=’:’;l[45]=’o’;l[46]=’t’;l[47]=’l’;l[48]=’i’;l[49]=’a’;l[50]=’m’;l[51]='”‘;l[52]=’=’;l[53]=’f’;l[54]=’e’;l[55]=’r’;l[56]=’h’;l[57]=’a ‘;l[58]=’<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> 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

Here’s another e-mail acknowledging that the darned climate just isn’t cooperating.

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.***

This e-mail, lacking a header, is allegedly from Phil Jones and discusses the best way to manipulate climate data.

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.

Here’s one allegedly from a Dr. Tom Wigley to Jones:

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 the land 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 blips — higher 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 NH — just 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.

Newsbusters has even more e-mails, so be sure to go check it out.

Now, it’s unknown if any of these e-mails have been tampered with or not. However, I think they’re probably real. After all, Jones did confirm that they were real. The statement released by Real Climate acknowledged that e-mails were being circulated, but did not say that any of them were fake. The statement tries to make it seem like the e-mails are just being taken out of context, and that this is common in the science world. I’m not a scientist, so that very well may be true. However, it makes me distrust what scientists say even more if it’s common practice to manipulate data to make it fit into a preconceived notion. Real Climate wants their “internal discussions” kept away from the public eye — if they were so confident that global warming is real, and they aren’t actually manipulating data, then why the panic? Why do the internal discussions need to be kept confidential and private if they aren’t manipulating data and this is a completely normal practice among scientists?

Now, I don’t know that I believe that this is a conspiracy. I think that many of these scientists are believers of the global warming cult, and because they believe so fanatically, will do anything to make the data fit into their theory. Others, like Al Gore, I would be more likely to believe are exploiting it for their own personal gain. Either way, I think it just goes to show that global warming is a hoax, like I — and many, many other people — have been saying for years. Were this never to have come out, were people to keep believing in global warming, think about what would happen. Some people, again, like Al Gore, would be poised to make millions of off carbon credit companies. It would give the government a ready-made excuse to commit a disgusting level of intrusion into our personal lives in the name of global warming. Think of the Kyoto Treaty. Think of cap and trade. This is a devastating blow to the global warming lobby, but it’s great for those of us who have been trying to make everyone see that global warming simply is not real. Global temperatures have stopped rising over the last ten years. Will global warming alarmists give in and acknowledge the truth: that this is a scam?

Despite all of the evidence, I wouldn’t hold your breath.