Do thousands of hacked personal emails of scientists deflate denialist conspiracy theories?

Question

The illegal nature of hacking and unethical nature of posting private correspondence without permission aside, is the fact that deniers can't find anything more than a few out-of-context quotes over more than a decade of personal emails deflating to their conspiracy theories?

"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

Answer 1

It should, but it won't.



It's pretty funny to visit some denialist blogs right now and read what the blogger claims the illegally-obtained emails say/imply, and then read what they actually say. They're totally benign, and the bloggers claim they're evidence of a massive conspiracy. This blog is a good example:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657



Deniers have a tendency to read things through denial-colored glasses. We see this all the time, where deniers will cite some article or study which says the exact opposite of what they're arguing. When you read things under the assumption that they say something, odds are you'll come out of it believing it said what you assumed.



There was an example of this where Eric quoted Sherwood about the tropical troposphere hot spot, but completely misunderstood what he was saying. We tried to explain this to him for months, but only when Roy Spencer confirmed it did he accept he had misinterpreted the quote.

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20091016130726AAzSb2n



While this email hack should put the conspiracy theories to rest, it won't. Deniers will take a few sentences out of context and misrepresent them to convince themselves that these emails actually confirm their conspiracy theories (i.e. see the past several questions, Eric's answer, and blogs). That's the nature of denial - nothing will convince you that you're wrong.

Answer 2

Bucket, you sure this isn't data falsification? Second paragraph involving adjusting the "blip":



"From: Tom Wigley [...]

To: Phil Jones [...]

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Santer [...]

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 theland 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."



If these emails are true, these people tricked you into believing something and putting your heart into it. While I know that you care about the environment, I'm sure almost everyone here does, this doesn't embarrass you at all?



All I know is there better be an investigation into whether these emails are true. If they are, people should be held accountable and punished accordingly. If they aren't, then the hacker should be found and punished accordingly.

Answer 3

this is completely relevent to the question i just asked. There's thousands of scientists and hundreds of groups supporting AGW



but someone can drum up a phony email to try and DISprove it and it's like..as damning as the word of Jesus himself. I think stuff like this is just what you skeptics want to hear honestly.



Someone could say that aliens communicated with us and told us that planet 5FR in the nubulan system MAY have been warmer ten million years ago and you'd still accept that over the words of our own scientists

Answer 4

I am guessing when the ACORN videos came out you were most outraged by the film makers. You should be outraged by what is in some of the emails. I frankly don't condone accessing people's email accounts. That is something more typical of the left. They try and go back and find anything damning that they can use to attack someone instead of arguing the issues. However, when you use people's own words, they don't have much of a comeback. I am still surprised they were that stupid and careless. It probably has to do with their arrogance.

Answer 5

I think the most serious aspect of this is Phil Jones apparently blocking/ducking/manipulating Freedom of Information Act requests (presumed from Steve McIntyre). I don't know how much the British covet that act but I know in Canada we take that sort of stuff very seriously.



The overall impression I get is that this band of bozos is doing work on which my own government is contemplating making serious policy decisions. That doesn't sit well with me at all. And my MP is going to hear about it (presuming of course these files are authentic).

Answer 6

But there is damming evidence:



I have downloaded the files and have read many of them. There is one theme that emerges. These are not people behaving as real scientists. They are scientists who are working on ways to prove that global warming is real. There is an utter contempt of scientists who disagree with them. They are looking at ways to avoid releasing information, and thus violating the freedom of information act.



There is more scandalous items.



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



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.***



From: Phil Jones

To: “Michael E. Mann”

Subject: IPCC & FOI

Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008



Mike,



Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?



Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.



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.



I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!



Cheers



Phil



From: “Michael E. Mann”

To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa

Subject: update

Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500

Cc: Gavin Schmidt



guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).



Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold

comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.



You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…



Here is more data manipulation:



From: Tom Wigley [...]

To: Phil Jones [...]

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Santer [...]

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 theland 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.





Manipulation of the peer review process



At 03:52 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote:



I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can

>>do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick

>>turn-around time (he didn't quantify this) and he will also "ask

>>(the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online

>>asap after the authors have received proofs". He genuinely seems

>>keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible.

>>He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I

>>emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the

>>hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et

>>al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could

>>appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process.

Answer 7

I do hope this is legitimate so I can offer a lot of Crow meals to Richard the P, Dawei, Dana, Gwen, you know the libs of liberals with a capital L.



Edit: there is a flock of crows around my neighborhood all the time waiting for some poor innocent rodent I suppose. Dinner time is coming up.



Edit: Dana, you are a card. The rose colored glasses are usually reserved as a statement to left wing college kids who have not experienced life yet, but think they know a lot based on their book readings or lectures from left wing professors.



I love it.

Answer 8

After reading some of these claims, I'm not sure what the brouhaha is al about. Looks like more conspiracy theories based on emails without context.

Answer 9

Sorry Bucket but the farse is now exposed. Time to run back to your moms basement and hide in your DND game!

Answer 10

Nice spin control. It shows how nervous you and your ilk have become.



Say yes to objective science.