Friday, 20 November 2009

Leading Hadley Centre Climate Scientist Said: "Hide the Decline"

Hide the decline in global temperatures, that is.

I don't usually write about climate change because there's no future in it - at least that's what I used to think, until now. This astonishing revelation, made possible by braver souls than I, has changed my mind - forever.
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.

Phil Jones has admitted this is genuine.

Download the hacked Hadley documents here, start reading (it'll take you a while - there's 168MBs of explosive stuff) - and stop believing in AGW. Immediately.

I have.

Hat-tip: Old Holborn


  1. There are a whole load of companion pieces to the document "RulesOfTheGame.pdf" available at this publicly accessible site:

    (I used Firefox and the DownloadThemAll plugin)

    Not as damaging as the emails but still an interesting/sickening insight into the 'sales pitch' mindset of swivel-eyed AGW moonbateers.

  2. Honestly, BHS, I think this is an example of those potentially genocidal thought diseases of which history reminds us.

    But I still can't bring myself to care. I'm very busy and I believe, in any case, this particular example of human folly will eventually work its way through.

    It has to - because they're wrong.

  3. Couldn't agree more Mr D. Hysterical fear mongering has provided the opening chapter to mankind's atrocities, and little else, ever since records began.

    There is something deeply sinister in the manner and style of one particularly well-known Climate Change demagogue that, I can't help but conclude, speaks volumes about those who work behind the scenes.

    The worst of it appears to have been confirmed =)

  4. I'm slightly surprised that noone seems to care, apart from you.

    Are the nation's people that stupid?

    If they are, then goood luck to them. I'm too tired to care - and I have a dissertation to prepare.

    See you then.

  5. Blimey, sorry about that, won't keep you from it.

    Very best of luck with the work!!

  6. All this climate change crap will end soon...because the simple fact it is unnafordable. Yes, people will expect less air pollution (we do all have to breathe after all) but AGW will go the way of the Dodo.

  7. Unaffordable. Third times a charm.

    I'm never drinking least not for a few weeks anyway!

  8. lol. Know what you mean, UB!

    Incidentally, BHS, sorry for sounding cranky last night. But the lack of interest in this story does get my goat somewhat.

    As for the dissertation - that's not due for a year so I think I'm just about on top of it :)

  9. Just want to quickly point out, this e-mail is about standardising two different data sets which, if not standardised, showed a decline during a period which should have shown a rise. Rationalising data sets is a very common problem in all scientific disciplines, this is not evidence of conspiracy.

    Probably best not abandon your belief in AGW just yet!

  10. OK, Jonnie, I won't. I'll just abandon my belief in scientists.

    This is about the integrity of people, not science, mate. Without the former you cannot ever even hope for the latter.

    Don't you get that?

  11. There's an interesting post here on what is meant by the phrase "Mike's Nature trick" (it appears that Jones is mistaken when he attributes the method he used to Michael 'Mike' Mann).

    Also included is a response from Jones minself as to what he meant by "to hide the decline". Some, myself included, will find Mr Jones's claim of poor memory as to the meaning of his own professional lexicon, especially in relation to supposedly significant academic work, hard to take at face value.

    The obstruction, now documented in their own words, of the efforts by others to reproduce and critique their 'findings' is, in a scientific context, completely and utterly beyond the pale, Mr Marbles.

    Although, you are free to rationalise as you see fit.


Any thoughts?