The main computer over at the United Kingdom's Climate Research Unit in Hadley, England was hacked into and the records released onto the internet. Dr. Phil Jones is a major proponent for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and his reports have been a key part of the IPCC's recommendations to curtail CO2 production.
The file that was dumped onto the internet was large, about 61 megabytes, and so far appears to be legitimate.
As an example:
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.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
Well, it is dirt indeed. Still, it remains that CO2 levels have risen over the past one hundred and fity years, and there is a plausible theory with broad based support that ties the global climate to CO2 levels, whose conclusions predict disastrous consequences for our planet. The proponents of this theory have advanced as a solution the restriction of industrial activities and massive transfers of wealth from the industrialized nations to the third world nations, all overseen by a large bureaucracy managed by the UN. All this, even though it is unlikely that such a program would have any affect on CO2 levels, except perhaps by its ability to strangle economies and decrease industrial activities.
There is no empiric data defining the effect a changing CO2 level has on the climate. We are unsure if CO2 is a weak forcing agent or a negligible forcing agent. We are confident that it is not a strong forcing agent. The basic problems with the situation remain. The difference is that it is now clear the scientists whose theories and measurements we have been relying upon to guide our discussion on policy decisions have not been entirely honest in their presentation of the facts.
That’s a problem.