Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Popular Technology > The Sciences > Climategate Resource

Posted by: Andrew Nov 20 2009, 08:45 PM (Maclean's, December 13, 2009) - [] (The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009) - [] (The Weekly Standard, March 15, 2010) - [] (The Weekly Standard, December 12, 2011) - [] (NRO, May 24, 2012) - [] (Canada Free Press, November 30, 2009) (Canada Free Press, December 14, 2009) (National Post, Canada, December 19, 2009) (National Post, Canada, December 21, 2009) (American Thinker, December 20, 2009) (Big Journalism, January 8, 2010) (Big Journalism, January 10, 2010) (Big Journalism, January 12, 2010) (Benny Peiser, National Post, Canada, March 13, 2010)

Reports: (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)

The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process (PDF) (168 pgs) (The Lavoisier Group) (PDF) (43 pgs) (Science & Public Policy Institute) (PDF) (22pgs) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, May 16, 2010)

Books: (Steven Mosher, Thomas W. Fuller, 2010) (Fred Pearce, 2010)

Data: (Watts Up With That?) (Watts Up With That?)

Gatekeeping: (Climate Audit) (Climate Audit)

Hide The Decline: (American Thinker) (Video) (5min) (Climate Audit, November 20, 2009) (Watts Up With That?, November 20, 2009) (Climate Audit, November 26, 2009) (Watts Up With That?, November 26, 2009) (Watts Up With That?, November 26, 2009) (Watts Up With That?, November 28, 2009) (Climate Audit, December 10, 2009)
...the version of the Briffa reconstruc­tion shown in the subsequent proxy diagram in the IPCC “First Order Draft” (October 27, 1999), presumably prepared under the direction of IPCC section author Mann, deleted the inconvenie­nt portion (post-1960­) of the Briffa reconstruc­tion, together with other modificati­ons that had the effect of not “diluting the message”. [...]

Contrary to claims by various climate scientists­, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values. Nor did it discuss the “divergenc­e problem”.

Scientist Responses: (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology) (Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA) (Roger Pielke Sr., Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science) (Hans Von Storch, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology) (Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Emeritus Reader in Geography) (Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science) (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology) (Eduardo Zorita, Ph.D. Senior Scientist, Institute for Coastal Research) (Christopher Monckton, Former Science Advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, UK)

Timeline: (Climate Audit, January 12, 2010) (WUWT, January 13, 2010) (The Guardian, February 9, 2010) (DeSmogBlog, March 30, 2010)

Various Media: (Watt Up With That?, November 19, 2009) (The Daily Telegraph, UK, November 20, 2009) (Herald Sun, Australia, November 20, 2009) (Wired, November 20, 2009) (The Register, November 20, 2009) (The Daily Mail, UK, November 21, 2009) (BBC, November 21, 2009) (The Times, UK, November 21, 2009) (The American Thinker, November 21, 2009) (American Thinker, November 22, 2010) (The Wall Street Journal, November 23, 2009) (The Wall Street Journal, November 24, 2009) (Fox News, November 24, 2009) (The Times, UK, November 29, 2009) (The Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2009) (Fox News, December 1, 2009) (Fox News, December 3, 2009) (Daily Mail, UK, December 6, 2009) (Daily Mail, UK, December 13, 2009) (Daily Mail, UK, December 27, 2009) (The Times, UK, January 28, 2010) (The Guardian, UK, February 1, 2010) (The Times, UK, February 27, 2010) (Daily Mail, UK, March 2, 2010) (Daily Mail, UK, March 31, 2010) (Spiegel Online, May 14, 2010)

Posted by: Andrew Nov 24 2009, 07:26 AM (YourVoiceMatters.Org) (EcoWho) ( (Di2.NU),_data,_models,_1996-2009 (WikiLeaks) (Google Search)

"I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say '1000 scientists signed' or '1500 signed'. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story." - Joseph Alcamo, Lead Author, IPCC (2001, 2007)

"But the current diagram with the tree ring only data [i.e. the Briffa reconstruction] somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly." - Chris Folland, Lead Author, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1996, 2001)

"everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this [the Briffa reconstruction] was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. [Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard] Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!" - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann's without showing alternates. [...] It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses that Mann is an outlier" - Curtis Covey, Research Scientist, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

"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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years." - Mick Kelly, Visiting Fellow, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

" would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago" - Keith Briffa, Lead Author, IPCC (2007)

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has..." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"If you think that Saiers [GRL Editor] is in the greenhouse skeptics camp ...we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - Tom Wigley, Former Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!" - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"The two MMs 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." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. ...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." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, ...I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc." - Ben Santer, Lead Author, IPCC (1995)

"If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals." - Ben Santer, Lead Author, IPCC (1995)

"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." - Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author, IPCC (2001, 2007)

Subject: John L. Daly [Skeptic] Dead
"...this is cheering news!" - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted." - Ben Santer, Lead Author, IPCC (1995) (Warwick Hughes)

Posted by: Andrew Dec 1 2009, 07:34 PM
Videos: (Video) (8:05) (11-23-09) (Video) (11-23-09) (5:11) (Video) (4:24) (11-24-09) (Video) (5:43) (11-25-09) (Video) (4:52) (11-27-09) (Video) (5:42) (12-01-09) (Video) (5:28) (12-01-09) (Video) (3:54) ( (12-03-09)!49FF105A-EB20-4BCD-A0F1-FFE48154E5F4 (Video) (2:47) (12-2-09) (Video) (7:36) (12-03-09) (Video) (6:00) (12-04-09) (Andrew Watson, Marc Morano) (Video) (2:06) (12-04-09) (Andrew Watson, Marc Morano) (Video) (8:08) (12-04-09) (Video) (5:54) (12-07-09) ( (Bill Nye, Patrick J. Michaels) (Video) (8:15) (12-07-09) ( (Chris Horner, Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen McIntyre) (Video) (5:24) (12-07-09) ( (Chris Horner, Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen McIntyre) (Video) (2:20) (12-09-09) (Video) (7:48) (12-09-09) ( (Gavin Schmidt, John Christy) (Video) (3:38) (2-26-10) (Roger Pielke Sr.) (Video) (6:36) (4-23-2010)

Humor: (Video) (Video)

Posted by: Andrew Dec 2 2009, 08:11 AM
Source Code: (WattsUpWithThat?) (WattsUpWithThat?) (American Thinker) (American Thinker) Thinker) (BBC)
- (BBC) (Video) (Video)

Posted by: Andrew Aug 29 2010, 09:44 AM
Whitewash Investigations: (Financial Post, Canada, September 17, 2010) - [] (PDF) (55 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation) (PDF) (50 pgs) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (U.K.)
  • Finding: Comments made by Phil Willis suggest that he was not a neutral chairman.
  • Finding: With the general election looming, the scope of the Select Committee's work was extremely limited.
  • Finding: The Select Committee appears to have accepted that scientists can leave out important information about the reliability of their results when presenting findings to policymakers.
  • Finding: The Select Committee appear to have been confused about the nature of the divergence problem and the Scientific Appraisal Panel failed to investigate the issue.
  • Finding: The Select Committee did not consider the important issue of ad-hoc bodging of data by CRU scientists.
  • Finding: The Committee did not consider the issue of cherrypicking of data despite having several examples put to them.
  • Finding: The Committee appears to have exonerated Jones of the charge of fabrication without any evidence to justify such a conclusion.
  • Finding: The Committee dismissed allegations of threats to journals on the basis of explanations provided by Jones. No attempt was made to obtain evidence from the journal editors themselves.
  • Finding: The Committee failed to consider or publish a submission of evidence containing allegations of fraud.
  • Finding: The Committee misunderstood Peiser’s evidence and failed to investigate Keenan’s fraud allegation made against Jones.
  • Finding: The Select Committee does not appear to have investigated a serious allegation of a breach of scientific standards.
  • Finding: Although the Committee are clear that the law of freedom of information was flouted, no attempt seems to have been made to identify the individuals responsible.
  • Finding: Despite concerns that some of the appointed CCE Panel members were unsuitable, the Committee accepted Russell’s vague expressions of hope that they would act in an objective fashion.
  • Finding: The Committee chairman refused to reveal how decisions had been reached. (Spiked, UK, March 31, 2010) (U.K. House of Commons)

Science Assessment Panel (U.K.)
  • Finding: The Panel appears to have been deliberately selected to have a majority who would not address the review objectively and to exclude sceptical views entirely.
  • Finding: UEA appointed Oxburgh as chairman of the Panel in the full knowledge that he had conflicts of interest.
  • Finding: Kerry Emanuel appeared to have prejudged the inquiry findings.
  • Finding: UEA restricted the scope of the Oxburgh inquiry to published papers only, avoiding the serious allegations related to the IPCC activities of CRU staff.
  • Finding: The scope was further restricted to the conduct of the scientists. UEA had led the Science and Technology Committee members to believe that the quality of CRU’s scientific work would be re-assessed. The Committee’s chairman, Phil Willis, felt that UEA had misled them.
  • Finding: The papers examined by the Panel were selected by UEA and appear to have been cleared with Jones himself.
  • Finding: Lord Oxburgh’s report misled the public by stating that the papers were chosen 'on the advice of the Royal Society'.
  • Finding: Lord Rees said that he had consulted with experts about the papers. In fact he had only discussed them with Sir Brian Hoskins, who had said he did not know CRU's work.
  • Finding: Many of the papers examined were obscure and had not been questioned by critics. Many of the papers that had been criticised were not examined.
  • Finding: Contrary to the strong recommendation from the Science and Technology Committee, the inquiry did not carry out its interviews in public, nor did it make notes, recordings or transcripts of interviews.
  • Finding: The Oxburgh Panel commended CRU for continuously updating their chronologies, but failed to report on CRU’s failure to update the Polar Urals chronology, an issue that had long concerned critics.
  • Finding: The Panel’s conclusions that criticisms of CRU were 'selective' and 'uncharitable' appear to be baseless since there is no record of these criticisms having been examined.
  • Finding: The Panel do not appear to have examined Keenan’s serious allegation.
  • Finding: The Panel upheld one of the chief complaints of the IPCC’s critics, noting that the IPCC report overlooked caveats and statements of uncertainty in the scientific literature. It is important to note however, that the panel failed to note the role CRU scientists had in downplaying uncertainty in the IPCC reports.
  • Finding: At least one panellist had serious concerns over CRU science and how it was used in the IPCC reports. There was no word of these concerns in the Oxburgh Panel report. (The Daily Telegraph, UK, March 22, 2010) (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 3, 2010) (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, April 5, 2010) (American Thinker, April 14, 2010) (Investors Business Daily, April 15, 2010) (Financial Post, Canada, April 15, 2010) (The Daily Caller, April 15, 2010) (National Post, Canada, April 16, 2010) (Toronto Sun, April 18, 2010)

- Failed to transcribe or take notes of those they interviewed.

Independent Climate Change Email Review (U.K.)
  • Finding: Several members of the Panel were unsuited to be panellists, having strong connections to UEA or having a tendency to make alarmist statements on the impact of manmade global warming.
  • Finding: No known critic of CRU was on the Panel.
  • Finding: Only two interviews were held with key CRU staff. The majority of the Panel, including the chairman, Sir Muir Russell, did not attend.
  • Finding: No interviews were held with critics of the CRU.
  • Finding: The Panel correctly noted that hiding the divergence problem in the WMO report was misleading but failed to investigate similar issues in the IPCC reports.
  • Finding: The Panel appear to have exonerated CRU staff of undermining the peer review process without any evidence beyond unrecorded statements from Phil Jones. The Panel themselves acknowledge that such uncorroborated testimony is inadequate.
  • Finding: The possibility of improper approaches having been made to another journal was not investigated.
  • Finding: The Panel ignored the recommendation of their own advisor that they investigate the possibility that CRU staff had breached the confidentiality of the peer review process.
  • Finding: No substantive defence against McKitrick’s allegation of fabrication has been made.
  • Finding: The Panel misunderstood the nature of the IPCC process, almost certainly affecting their conclusions as a result.
  • Finding: The Panel refused to publish the evidence of one of the most important witnesses.
  • Finding: The Panel did not address the question of whether Briffa chose to ignore the problems with the Wahl and Ammann paper or to break the IPCC rules by using a preliminary version.
  • Finding: The Panel did not publish David Holland’s evidence that the change to the IPCC timetables was unauthorised and did not mention it in the report.
  • Finding: The Panel did not discuss strong third party evidence that Briffa acted outside IPCC rules, preferring to rely on submissions from scientists at the centre of the allegations.
  • Finding: The Panel failed to ask Jones whether he had deleted emails, but said they had not seen anything to suggest he had, despite having evidence to the contrary.
  • Finding: The Panel failed to consider important evidence of breaches of Freedom of Information legislation.
  • Finding: The Panel failed to investigate allegations of cherrypicking.
  • Finding: It is not possible to question the Panel's findings on the issue of 'bodging' since they rely on unpublished research. (Canada Free Press, July 3, 2010) (Prison Planet, July 7, 2010) (CEI, July 7, 2010) (Canada Free Press, July 8, 2010) (The New American, July 8, 2010) (WorldNetDaily, July 9, 2010) (The Register, UK, July 9, 2010) (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 12, 2010) (The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2010) (The Atlantic, July 14, 2010) (Business & Media Institute, July 14, 2010) (Master Resource, July 26, 2010)

- Failed to ask Phil Jones of the CRU whether he actually deleted any emails to defeat FOI requests.

Pennsylvania State University (U.S.)
  • Finding: By failing to interview Mann’s chief critics, the inquiry failed to notice clear falsehoods in the evidence presented to them. (Fox News, February 5, 2010) (The Daily Caller, July 14, 2010) (The Atlantic, July 14, 2010)

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
  • The Environmental Protection Agency is not an independent committee but a partisan run U.S. government agency where director (Dem. Lisa Jackson) was appointed by President Obama.
  • The EPA chose to ignore the conclusions of reports, peer reviewed papers, and testimony which differ from the EPA findings.
  • The EPA ignored peer reviewed research that shows a discrepancy between the surface and lower tropospheric temperature trends.
  • The EPA chose to ignore documentation of the deliberate successful attempt to exclude viewpoints in the CCSP and IPCC reports which differ from the EPA findings. (Climate Audit, October 18, 2014) (Roger Pielke Sr. Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, July 29, 2010)


Inspector General of the Department of Commerce (U.S.)
  • The Department of Commerce is not an independent committee but a partisan run U.S. government agency where the Secretary (Dem. Gary Locke) was appointed by President Obama.
* (PDF)

National Science Foundation: (U.S.)
  • The National Science Foundation is not an independent committee but a partisan run U.S. government agency where the director (Subra Suresh) was appointed by President Obama.
  • Suresh's ability to run large organizations is questionable. He quit the NSF after serving less than half of his 6-year term to become President of Carnegie Mellon University only to later resign in just four years making his tenure the shortest in the school’s 117-year history.
  • The National Science Foundation OIG neglected to consider obvious and fundamental questions about Michael Mann’s participation in Phil Jones’ document destruction enterprise and arrived at empirical conclusions that were unsupported by the inadequate record that they had collected.
  • The National Science Foundation OIG report states that it interviewed various parties, but does not give any information on those interviews.
  • Stephen McIntyre who was one the most prominent skeptic involved in Climategate was interviewed by the NSF Inspector General but the report makes no mention of the issues that they discussed in their meeting. (Climate Audit, September 2, 2011)

* (PDF)

Posted by: Andrew Apr 23 2011, 08:26 PM
Rebuttals: (Mother Jones, April 21, 2011)

- (Climate Audit, April 22, 2011)
- (Climate Audit, April 23, 2011)

Posted by: Andrew Nov 26 2011, 01:25 AM
Climategate 2.0 (The Weekly Standard, December 12, 2011) (Forbes, November 23, 2011) (Fox News, November 22, 2011) (Watts Up With That?, November 22, 2011) (The Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2011) (Forbes, November 23, 2011) (The Register, UK, November 23, 2011) (The Telegraph, UK, November 23, 2011) (The Telegraph, UK, November 24, 2011) (Daily Mail, UK, November 25, 2011) (Daily Mail, UK, November 27, 2011) (Watts Up With That?, December 4, 2011) (Fox News, December 16, 2011)

Posted by: Andrew Dec 1 2011, 06:30 PM (Tom Nelson)

"...there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC." - Tom Wigley, Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

"I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests [...] I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them" - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she think's she's doing, but its not helping the cause" - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones" - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause." - Joseph Alcamo, Lead Author, IPCC (2001, 2007)

"So to state boldly that trends agree and therefore all is well is again our living in a fools paradise." - Peter Thorne, Met Office

"I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it..." - Peter Thorne, Met Office

"I'm sure you agree--the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year 'reconstruction'." - Ray Bradley, Contributing Author, IPCC (2001)

"Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level clouds. Problem will be with us for years," - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"[T]hey should fire him [Steve McIntyre] as a reviewer of IPCC - I can't believe they included him in the first place!" - Rosanne D'Arrigo, Research Professor, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

"I must say in fairness that, considering the photographs of how not to observe temperature on Anthony Watts’ blog, Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position." - Thomas Peterson, Lead Author, IPCC (2007)

"We are getting blogged all over for a cover-up of poor global station and US stations we use. They claim NCDC is in a scandal by not providing observer's addresses. In any case Anthony Watts has photographed about 350 stations and finds using our criteria that about 15% are acceptable. I am trying to get some our folks to develop a method to switch over to using the CRN sites, at least in the USA." - Thomas Karl, Lead Author, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995)

Posted by: Andrew Dec 1 2011, 06:52 PM
Videos: (Video) (1:22) (Video) (4:07) (11-25-2011) (Steve McIntyre) (Video) (3:12) (12-6-2011) (Lord Monckton)

Posted by: Andrew Mar 18 2013, 07:59 PM
Climategate 3.0 (The Telegraph, March 13th, 2013) (March 15, 2013)

"Analyses like these by people who don't know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes work." - Tom Wigley, Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Powered by Invision Power Board (
© Invision Power Services (