Exposing the Global
Shocking Pattern of Data Manipulation and the Suppression of All Opposition
Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.
of highly compromising emails and documents, some shocking, were hacked or
leaked in late November from the British Climatic Research Unit University
of East Anglia (CRU). The CRU is one of the world’s leading research centers
on climate change as well as the repository of all surface temperature data
worldwide. It played a key role in the IPCC’s fourth Assessment Report in
2007. The IPCC Assessment provided the scientific basis of policy
negotiations at the Copenhagen Climate Conference last December and the
current cap and trade legislation in the U.S. Senate. The general picture of
the series of emails is one of collusion, exaggeration of warming data,
manipulation of data, conspiracy, possible illegal destruction of data and
embarrassing information, and organized resistance to anyone who defies
Skeptics of man-caused global warming have long suspected that top-level
alarmist scientists were cooking the books to provide the “proof” man was
causing global warming. The only way that the integrity of the data could be
verified is to use the raw data and duplicate the summarization process.
That data is only housed in Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). For
years, dozens of requests by well qualified scientists to obtain a copy of
the data have been refused by the CRU because of alleged confidentiality
agreements. The only data the CRU gave the scientific world was summarized,
harmonized for continuity and cleaned of outlier data (data outside normal
error limits). The shocking revelations of these emails and documents
written by scientists associated with gave proof that skeptical scientists
were partially, if not totally correct in their suspicions.
There are four data sets of global temperatures. British
CRU, the U.S.’s NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency) and NASA
(National Air and Space Administration), and Japan’s JMA (Japan
Meteorological Agency). Data is public.
Independent Data Sources Use Same Source
Data to “prove”
that major global warming has occurred over the last half of the twentieth
century came from four sources, the British CRU (including the Hadley
Center), the U.S.’s NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency) and NASA
(National Air and Space Administration), and Japan’s JMA (Japan
There is good
agreement (Figure 1) between the four data sources. Alarmists and mainstream
media have repeatedly assured us that even if the CRU data has been
corrupted, the other three data sources have not and therefore can be used
as substitutes. Since they show the same dramatic rise in temperature
starting in the 1970s, what happened to the CRU data is irrelevant.
the first major deception.
Dr. Roger Pielke, one the leading climatologists in the U.S., provides
strong evidence that 90 to 95 percent of the NOAA, NASA, and JMA data sets
are derived from the same CRU summarized data set. If the summarized
CRU data is corrupted, all data sources are corrupted in exactly the same
way. This also explains why there is such tight agreement between the four
sources, and why skeptical scientists repeatedly requested only the CRU raw
data and not the others.
Requests for Data
For years the
CRU stonewalled any request by skeptics to obtain the CRU raw data to
validate its summarized data set. This is one of the foundations of science.
Other scientists, especially skeptical scientists, must be able to duplicate
results using the same data. That the man-caused global warming hypothesis
was accepted as accepted theory without this validation is highly unusual.
In 2000 the
British Parliament passed a freedom of information act that took effect in
2005. This caused all kinds of panic within the CRU group as evidenced in
this February 2, 2005 email from Phil Jones, the head of CRU and Michael
Mann, principle author of the totally discredited hockey stick curve:
Just sent loads of station data
to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't
leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling
them. The two MMs [Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who proved Michael
Mann’s hockey stick curve was bogus] 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. Does
your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?
- our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom
Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people
could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he
can hide behind that….
email to Michael Mann clearly shows a pattern of deliberate stonewalling. If
Jones did deliberately delete the raw data, it would be a criminal act. The
CRU’s fears were realized in subsequent years when Stephen McIntyre and
others repeatedly tried to use the freedom of information act to obtain the
raw data. Their attempts proved fruitless, however, when Jones stonewalled
them. Finally, in 2009 Jones notified McIntyre that the raw data was somehow
“accidently deleted.” When that created a firestorm of controversy, Jones
changed the story, now claiming the deletion of the raw data was necessary
because they “needed the computer space.” Again, after a firestorm of
controversy, Jones said that they found it wasn’t all deleted. The CRU, he
said, would shortly release the data that still existed. As of this writing,
massive confusion still reigns. All these machinations suggest that Phil
Jones may have deleted that part of the raw data that blows their man-caused
theory apart, just like he said he would do in his 2005 email to Michael
extremely serious. Raw data is never deleted in science because it would
prevent research results from ever being verified and duplicated using the
original data. This is at the core of the scientific method. This entire
affair tends to discredit every research study that used the CRU
summarized data. It may mean that there is no longer any original empirical
scientific data that even suggests that man is responsible for the twentieth
century warming. Even the computer models used to prove man-caused global
warming are made invalid because they all use CRU data in their models.
Jones may be
facing criminal charges if it is shown he did delete the data. Amazingly,
rather than resigning to protect the CRU from being dragged through a
political and legal nightmare, Jones has refused guilt in doing anything
wrong and has
proclaimed his innocence by yet another email. He was finally forced to
step down the first of December pending an investigation.
There are over
50 emails dating back to the 1990s that clearly show a continuing pattern of
vicious attacks on prominent skeptical scientists. Any science that
disagrees with their man-caused dogma was automatically declared as “crap”
and “junk science.” This is laughable. It was this same CRU group, lead by
Michael Mann, who published the infamous Hockey Stick paper.
Michael Mann’s original hockey
stick graph was the centerpiece of the 2001 IPCC report “proving” that
mankind was responsible for global warming. By 2004, it was
discredited because Mann employed wrong statistics to create it. After
nearly ten years of stonewalling, Mann was finally forced in 2009 to
give the data he used to create the curve to other scientists.
Scientists were shocked to find tree ring data after 1960 was not used
because it showed a decline in global temperature. Instead, Mann and
his coauthors, used CRU data to show the hockey stick. The released
emails showed this procedure was used many times in other research.
Stick curve became the centerpiece of the 2001 IPCC report. The paper and
its respective curve derived from tree rings were later exposed as
fraudulent because inappropriate statistics were applied. Then, after
years of stonewalling, the Hockey Stick authors were forced to release the
raw data they used to construct the curve. Just like their
emails implied, key data were deliberately left out and CRU
surface temperature data substituted when the tree ring data did not show
warming after 1960. When the missing tree ring data was included in the
curve computation, the late 20th century temperature spike
disappeared (Figure 2).
The CRU group
even attack peer-reviewed science publications that publish a skeptic’s
article. In another
series of emails they discussed the need to get rid of an editor they
didn’t like from Geophysical Research Letters, one of the premier
publications publishing scientific papers on global warming. They
another email an editor asked for suggestions as to which reviewers to
send a skeptics paper to in order to get it rejected. Jones responded with
a list of reviewers saying “All of them know the sorts of
things to say…without any prompting.”
In one case
Michael Man and Phil Jones threatened to actually discredit Climate
Research, a science publication that published several of the
skeptic’s papers. In another,
Jones told Michael Mann that he was going to make sure none of the
skeptics peer reviewed papers were used in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report
(AR-4). True to his word, the articles were not used and
Jones requested that all emails concerning this effort be deleted from
the computer of everyone who was involved. Again, this is against the law.
In yet another email,
Jones admitted using Michael Mann’s approach of using CRU temperature
data after 1960 “to hide the decline” of global temperature shown by tree
In an October
2009 email by
Kevin Trenberth, the CRU group even admits to itself that, “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.”
But how can they when
Trenberth also admits that “we are not close to balancing the energy
budget…and whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter.” Yet,
the same group of scientists continues to insist that warming will resume
with a vengeance. This same email also suggests putting pressure on the
BBC not to print stories that even hint that this is not a settled
The Urban Heat
skeptical scientist’s go back to the very first days of the global warming
controversy in the late 1980s. This is a critical issue as passage of cap
and trade legislation in Congress or the ratification of any international
treaty will profoundly affect every person in a very negative way.
commonly understood within the scientific community for the past 50 years
that as cities grew and expanded that the city’s surface temperature would
increase. As grassland and forests were replaced by asphalt roofs and
streets, more of the sun’s energy is absorbed and released in urban areas.
This is called the urban heat island effect and can raise temperatures by
8oC. The heat island effect is highly localized and has nothing
to do with the ambient temperature of the region.
3. U.S. data corrected for the heat island effect show that the
1920s-1940s were warmer than the 1980s-2000s. The data does not show
the spike in temperatures that is in all four global data sets.
surface temperature databases exist at the All show very steep global
temperature increases in the last half of the twentieth century, which
allegedly “proves” man is causing global warming. Skeptics suspect that
all four temperature data sources (CRU, NOAA, NASA, and the JMA) likely
contain significant corruption from the heat island effect. Yet, most of
this data has not had the heat island effect removed. Why? Because a
questionable research studies allegedly showed the heat island effect
was not significant. This led the
IPCC to say in their 2007 report; “Thus, the global land
warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by
increasing urbanization.” It was this report that the IPCC claimed a 90
percent certainty that man is causing global warming.
heat island effect so totally has never passed the smell test to skeptical
scientists. Although some attempts have been made to remove this source of
error from the global temperature record; most of it has been in the
United States’ NOAA and NASA data sets. When the corrected NOAA and NASA
U.S. surface temperature data are used, the resulting graph (Figure 3)
does not show the same late twentieth century record-breaking increase in
temperatures as found in the global temperatures. In complete contrast to
the global temperature data, the corrected U.S. data show the 1930s and
40s to be warmer than the 1980s to 2000s. It is very unlikely the U.S.
data could be so strikingly different than the global data, especially
since the U.S. data is admittedly much more accurate than the global
Even more alarming, when the allegedly
“corrected” U.S. data since 1880 from urban weather stations is
compared to rural data
Even after U.S. temperature data is corrected for the
urban heat island effect, the urban temperature data still show what
is likely a strong heat island effect when compared to rural data.
Source: Adapted from Stephen McIntyre,
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859 by setting the starting
point of each anomaly to zero.
(Figure 4), the urban data still show much
more warming than the rural data after 1950 when U.S. urbanization kicked
into high gear. This strongly suggests that the heat island effect is
still corrupting the “corrected” U.S. data.
This conclusion is supported by U.S. satellite temperature data (satellite
temperatures are not affected by heat island) which does not show extra
urban warming when comparing urban areas to rural areas. It is also
supported by comparing 120 year ocean vs. land data sets. While the ocean
data set is admittedly very sparse, it obviously is not affected by the
urban heat island effect. This temperature data shows the same widening
temperature disparity since the late 1960s as Figure 4.
peer-reviewed global study in 2005 compared population growth,
economic development, coal consumption and other socio-economic indicators
with the temperature trends for the respective areas. If there were no
urban heat island effect, there should be no difference between high
growth and low growth areas around the world. Instead, they found a large
and significantly correlated relationship between population growth (i.e.
land use) and temperature as measured by surface stations in the area.
Like the U.S. urban vs. rural areas, there was no correlation when surface
satellite temperatures were used for the same areas. When the surface
station data was corrected for the heat island effect they found, the
warming since 1989 would be reduced by half
There is other evidence the global
temperature data is badly contaminated with urban heat island effect. One
study supporting the mantra that global temperature data is not
contaminated was challenged by
Dr. Douglas Keenen in a scathing peer-reviewed paper published in
Energy and Environment in 2007. Keenen even accused the work as fraud.
While Phil Jones, the head of the CRU mocked Keenen’s work, the internal
emails that were released by a whistleblower or hacked in November 2009,
clearly showed that
Dr. Timothy Wigley (arguably the leader of the CRU alarmist group of
CRU scientists) admitted Keenen’s attack was valid, “Seems to me that
Keenan has a valid point…someone must have known at the time that they
were incorrect.” Yet, Phil Jones still discounted this compelling evidence
for the urban heat island effect in subsequent reports.
This is not
science; it is possibly the greatest political fraud in the history of the
world; supported by an extremely political IPCC claiming it is a
scientific institution; and led by extremely biased scientists with a
“take no prisoners” mentality. It is readily apparent their own arrogance
has blinded them to any conclusion that disagrees with theirs.
The release of the CRU emails clearly
show that most of CRU’s work and input into the IPCC process should be
seriously questioned. With NASA’s data also being seriously challenged
under the Freedom of Information Act, there is sufficient cause not to
ratify any Copenhagen Agreement, nor pass any cap and trade legislation.
The cap and trade legislation (H. R.
2454) in the U.S. House of Representatives was based entirely on the
results from all the research done using CRU data. This even includes the
computer climate models. The same is true for the pending Senate cap and
trade bill; S. 1733. Years of negotiating for the Copenhagen Agreement
were also based on this data. The entire house of cards supporting
man-caused global warming is collapsing. Yet, this did not stop the
scaremongering coming out the December Copenhagen Climate Meeting. Other
than some peripheral skirmishes, the agenda ground on as if these
revelations never occurred. This meeting and the parallel U.S. cap and
trade legislation are too critical to the creation of world government for
it to fail.
It is critical that we all demand that
our Senators do not pass S. 1733, nor ratify anything coming out of
Copenhagen. Go to
www.nocapandtrade.us and become educated. Pass along the link
(especially the page having the YouTube videos) on to your email list. The
United States will lose its free market system and freedoms that have made
America the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth if either the cap
and trade legislation or the treaty is signed into law.
These and all 3000
emails can be found at
www.eastangliaemails.com. A growing summary and links
to the respective email can be found at
Dr. Michael Coffman is
President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. and CEO of Sovereignty
International, a non-profit education organization. He has led a
multimillion research effort in global warming and has authored several
books. He has produced two DVDs, Global Warming, Emerging Science and
Understanding (emergingscience.us) and Global warming or Global