Man Made Global Warming exposed as the Big Lie!


"The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)."

"Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

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."

"As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average subject/resident of the United Kingdom. The document suggests that it is a precis of a longer document housed at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs."

Ooop! :D

Taita said:

Searchable :)
Cheers!!!!! :D :D
Oil_Slick said:
Well well:

Manipulation of evidence:

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

Suppression of evidence:

squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

Now where have we seen such behaviours before?
Oh my sainted aunt. That's got to be embarrassing. I can't say I'm surprised though. Cue the usual suspects saying its all a conspiracy by the oil companies.
"No, hush, keep quiet, don't forget the taxes we're making..............." an anonymous Treasury official was allegedly heard to mutter.
The emails make interesting reading. Whenever they make a ridiculous remark or comment the backwards and forwards emails seeking to hide it and dismiss contradiction is shocking.

I don't have time to go through them all tonight and link them together, but I'm pretty sure some one will.

A few reputations about to go west I think.
All over the US media tonight and the emails are confimed as genuine…

"…In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.…",2933,576009,00.html
Ord_Sgt said:
The emails make interesting reading. Whenever they make a ridiculous remark or comment the backwards and forwards emails seeking to hide it and dismiss contradiction is shocking.

I don't have time to go through them all tonight and link them together, but I'm pretty sure some one will.

A few reputations about to go west I think.

Don't worry Ord_Sgt, our American cousins who in general haven't bought into the Man Made Climate Change religion are devouring this stuff as we speak… :twisted:
I'm beginning to think this is a bit of a hoax, because if this is what the climate change lobby have to offer then they are on a hiding to nothing.

The emails are so full of ifs, buts, maybes and that doesn't fit so lets change it so it does.

I don't know the names involved, and all their details are in the emails, but lets see how this washes out tomorrow.

An example of the chasing of grants, if its true...

From: Trevor Davies <>
To: c.flack@uea,c.bentham@uea,p.jones@uea,j.palutikof@uea,p.liss@uea, m.hulme@uea,r.k.turner@uea,a.watkinson@uea,k.brown@uea,j.darch@uea,
Subject: Discussion document for Tues/Wed
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:21:08 +0100

Attached is a discussion document. It incorporates material provided by
Simon Shackley (UMIST) & Mike Hulme. Jean has commented on it. It is
intended to circulate this to consortium partners on Monday. if you have
chance to read it & comment on it before it goes, that would be good; but I
recognise that - in practice - time is too short. My apologies for that.
(However, I do think there is a danger in presenting our partners with too
'final' a draft application at this stage. And we do need their bright

CHRIS - please will you liaise with Jean to:

1. Get this document out to outside attendees.
2. Send out a list of attendees
3. Give outside people details of where to get the Research Councils'
document 'Information for applicants to run the Centre' (web), if they
don't already have it.
4. Send out an agenda (Jean is doing this)
5. Send out Kerry's diagram (Jean has)

CHRIS - will you also please fax copies of the ICER document (in your
tray) to John Shepherd (Southampton 596258) and Nigel Arnell (I don't have
fax number). [For info to others - we didn't send Soton a copy of the ICER
bid earlier, because they were sitting on the fence].

Very many thanks.

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Climate Change Centre.doc"

Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom

Tel. +44 1603 592836
Fax. +44 1603 507719
++++++++++++++++++++++++++From ???@??? Fri Sep 24 13:44:11 1999
Received: from [] (
by with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
id 11UUP8-0001QM-00; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:24:46 +0100
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:21:45 +0100
To: n.adger@uea,j.alexander@uea,g.bigg@uea,k.briffa@uea,p.brimblecombe@uea,
From: Trevor Davies <>
Subject: Outline bid for new Climate Change Centre (CCC)
Cc: c.bentham@uea,p.jones@uea,j.palutikof@uea,p.liss@uea,m.hulme@uea,
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


The research councils want a 5000 word outline bid by mid-October. The
councils are putting up 2 million pounds per year for 5 years are NERC,
EPSRC and ESRC. The research councils are putting the emphasis on
"solutions" to climate change. They are clearly not looking for another
version of CRU, the Hadley Centre, or any other existing centre in the UK.
The focus is "downstream" of these existing centres.

Much of what they appear to want we anticipated in our JIF ICER (Institute
for Connective Environmental Sciences) bid and, indeed, we made a
provisional early strike for the CCC in that bid, although the research
councils' intentions were not known at that point. Even if the JIF ICER bid
is unsuccessful (& at this stage we are still optimistic), then we will
still be able to take advantage of this "early" thinking in the final CCC bid.

We are aware of 3-4 competitors, which are mainly consortia of some form.
Our consortium includes UMIST (number of departments), Southampton (number
of departments), Cambridge (Dept of Econometrics), Sussex (Science Policy
Research Unit), Cranfield (Ecotechnology Unit- Complex Systems Modelling),
and Leeds (Institute for Transport Studies). There will also be a number of
institutes associated with us, including Inst. Hydrology, BAS, Inst.
Terrestrial Ecology, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Building Research
Establishment, John Innes Centre, and possibly other Institutes such as the
Plymouth Marine Lab & the Proudman Oceanographic Lab. The hub of this
consortium will be UEA. Visiting fellows etc will work in the Centre (&
possibly also at 'secondary' centres like UMIST).

Business/industry links are important, as are links with relevant
institutes abroad. We anticipate writing in some industrial/business partners.

Our philosophy is not to seek to maximise the input of resources to UEA, or
to the consortium, in the short term, but to build a Centre which has the
credibility and the authority to identify, initiate, orchestrate research
programmes, and to include the best people available. We see this as the
likeliest way to attract long-term funding & to ensure the long-term future
of the CCC.

We have a fairly clear idea of the "science framework" of the CCC and,
together with our partners, are now agreeing the "research challenges". At
the moment the research challenges look something like this:


Given that the Centre's starting point is to take advantage of the best
research internationally (extant, on-going, and planned), it will be
necessary to apply, refine, and develop methods of 'integration'. Much
science and engineering research is focused on specific disciplinary
issues. This has to be brought together with critical analyses of social
and economic factors, to design more adaptive and effective policies, and
more effective and appropriate engineering/technology. The best aspects of
'integrated assessments' will be applied with a UK focus. An important part
of such assessments will be isolate emerging opportunities (for
business/industry) afforded by climate change - in order to identify
competitive opportunities it will be necessary to consider global pressure
points. Existing models need to be linked. Reduced complexity modelling has
a significant role.

The Toolkit can also be developed and tested via geographically-focused
studies. For example, integrated coastal (incl. estuaries) management which
will include: risk analysis; valuation of coastal environments; effects of
adaptation (soft/hard engineering solutions) on coastline;
ecological/economic models; etc.

Methods to characterise/measure vulnerability and adaptive capacity.

The Toolkit will also include some of the consultation/inclusion techniques
outlined in UEA's JIF bid for ICER.


'Climate' research on abrupt/non-linear changes (in 'underlying' climate)
and on changes in extreme event frequency (some of the Tools will need to
be applied - or adapted for - this Challenge: for example,
vulnerability/adaptation, risk analysis, reduced complexity modelling). Of
particular importance is how the possibility of abupt/non-linear change
should be assimilated into decision-making frameworks (perception/risk
analyses, etc.).

It will be necessary to consider the implications of non-climate 'shocks' -
political and economic shocks; or combinations, for example,
climate/weather extremes influencing perceptions (amongst business
community and politicians) leading to sudden shifts of policy, investments,


Adoption of clean technology (includes 'alternative' energy sources, and
removal of C from emissions). In particular, clean technologies and
solutions for developing countries link into identifying business
opportunities. The impacts of clean technologies - landscape/lifestyle
valuation. Incorporation (technological) into existing
infrastructure/supply networks.

a. Carbon 'sequestration' - options, waste C recycling, use in building
materials, long-term storage, etc. Oceans. Ambitious bio-engineering?
(discussions with Norwich's John Innes Centre on-going).

b. Energy efficiency (technological), including control systems, especially
when concentrated on one of the scale 'foci' (e.g. the household).


Factor 4 and beyond 1. We will need to go well beyond Factor 4 to stabilise
the climate system. This programme would analyse and assess different
emission trajectories, and look at how we would in practice achieve Factor
4+. It would include assessment of tools such as: C trading, domestic
tradeable carbon quotas, regulation and taxation, voluntary agreements,
opportunities for win-win scenarios through resource use minimisation,
etc. Also, it would look at changes to a low-C economy at different
scales: households, SMEs, large firms, MNCs; local to regional to national
to global, etc., to sectoral: transport, energy supply, heavy & light
manufacturing, services & finance, etc. Techhnology uptake. This includes
reducing transport emissions and exploring low-consumption (water, energy,
carbon) households. What about air traffic?

The research challenges above are not intended to be all-inclusive. We
intend to use Research Challenges such as these 4, as "examplars" of the
sort of thingw we will expand upon in the final bid.

The research councils have emphasised the importance of attracting a
top-rate international scientist as Research Director. They also wish us to
name the Executive Director at this point. We believe it should be someone
with a reputation in climate research in their own right, good links etc
with the "impacts" people and with funders, as well as being a good
manager/organiser. We anticipate naming Mike Hulme. From what we have
heard, that will give us an additional advantage over other bids.

At this point, we will welcome your comment, input, suggestions.


Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
i was going to black out names etc, but I got it from the internet, so plenty of others can as well.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
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 [sic] from1961 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.

Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
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.

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

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

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.***
I can't find the attachments right now, but the comments at the end are damning.

From: Tim Osborn <>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <>
Subject: Re: reconstruction errors
Date: Fri Aug 1 14:24:35 2003

Thanks very much for helping me out with this Mike. Rest assured that the data won't be
passed on to anyone else. I'll let you know if I use them to compute uncertainties at
different time scales.
At 16:18 31/07/2003, you wrote:

Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the
residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the
3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig
them up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear
that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the
notably larger uncertainties farther back...
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the
files. I can't even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify
on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted
colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This
is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who
might potentially try to distort things...
So Oil Slick are the yanks crawling all over this then?
Ord_Sgt said:
An example of the chasing of grants, if its true...


Climate Change zealots fixing the figures to help them and the Goobermint gain the big bucks?

Unpossible! :wink:
Australias running with it…

The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones
2 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt
Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 08:19am

These are the emails that should have Professor Phil Jones most worried about his future.

Jones, head of the CRU unit whose emails were leaked, has been under most fire so far over one email in particular in which he boasted of using a ‘“trick" to “hide the decline” that would have otherwise spoiled his graph showing temperatures soaring ever-upward.

But far more serious - at least in a legal sense - may be his apparent boasting of destroying data to stop sceptics from checking this alarmist work. If, as some emails suggest, he destroyed it to thwart FOI requests from Professor Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, who’d already exposed as fake the Michael Mann “hockey stick”, Jones, one of the most active of the IPCC lead authors, could even face criminal charges.

(Note: in saying that, I should add that these emails may simply be poorly worded, out of context or even altered by the whistleblower who leaked them. Jones may also not knowingly have done anything wrong.)

Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by anyone not of their “team”.

The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM - McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

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 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. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre - or anyone:

From: Phil Jones

To: santer1@XXXX

Subject: Re: A quick question

Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008


Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails - unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

Anyway requests have been of three types - observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter - and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these - all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business - and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

Makes you wonder very strongly what Jones is trying to hide, doesn’t it?

And in1212063122.txtm, Jones urges another colleague, Michael “Hockey Stick”, Mann, to join in the deleting - at least of emails about the IPCC’s controversial ARA report on man-made warming which Jones co-authored, and which claimed warming was “unequivocal” and “most likely” caused by humans:
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008


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!!



For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics:

From: Phil Jones To:
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !

Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !

Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !



PS 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 !

And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he considers ways to may checking it more difficult or annoying:

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
Oil_Slick said:
Ord_Sgt said:
An example of the chasing of grants, if its true...


Climate Change zealots fixing the figures to help them and the Goobermint gain the big bucks?

Unpossible! :wink:
Some of these emails are shocking, that Michael E Mann bloke will be looking for a new job come Monday if this turns out to be even remotely true.

From: "Michael E. Mann" <>
To: "Jim Salinger" <>, Phil Jones <>,,, "Neville Nicholls" <>
Subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Research
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:05:47 -0400

Dear Jim,
Thanks for your continued interest and help w/ all this. It's nice to know that our friends
down under are doing their best to fight the misinformation. It is true that the skeptics
twist the truth clockwise rather than counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere?
There was indeed a lot of activity last week. Hans Von Storch's resignation as chief editor
of CR, which I think took a lot of guts, couldn't have come at a better time. It was on the
night before before the notorious "James Inhofe", Chair of the Senate "Environment and
Public Works Committee" attempted to provide a public stage for Willie Soon and David
Legates to peddle their garbage (the Soon & Baliunas junk of course, but also the usual
myths about the satellite record, 1940s-1970s cooling, "co2 is good for us" and "but water
vapor is the primary greenhouse gas!").
Fortunately, these two are clowns, neither remotely as sharp as Lindzen or as slick as
Michaels, and it wasn't too difficult to deal with them. Suffice it to say, the event did
*not* go the way Inhofe and the republicans had hoped. The democrats, conveniently, had
received word of Hans' resignation, but the republicans and Soon/Legates had not. So when,
quite fittingly, Jim Jeffords (you may remember--he's the U.S. senator who was in the news
a couple years ago for tilting the balance of power back to the democrats when he left the
republican party in protest) hit them with this news at the hearing, they were caught
completely off guard. The "Wall Street Journal" article you cited was icing on the cake.
Inhofe, who rails against the liberal media, will have a difficult time doing so against
the WSJ!
Also of interest to you (attached) might be the op-ed that Ray Bradley, Phil, and I have
written and submitted to the "Seattle News Tribune" in response to an op-ed by Baliunas
(also attached) that some industry group has been sending around to various papers over the
last week. Only two (Providence Journal and Seattle NT) have thusfar bitten...
There is a rumour that Harvard may have had enough w/ their name being dragged through the
mud by the activities of Baliunas and Soon, and that "something is up". Baliunas and Soon,
as alluded to in the WSJ article, are now no longer talking to the media. Will keep you
posted on that...
Discretion is a word he needs to look up. What idiot doesn't know people can read his emails.
The BBC are reporting the hacking, but not it's contents. I would have thought that from a story point of view it is the contents that are explosive, even if the allegations are unproven at the moment. The actual hacking is about as important as a local burglary. Could it be that the Beeb (read Establishment) want to underplay the enormity of the revelations?

Edited to add .... if these documents are genuine, and everyone seems to think they are, the victims at the CRU will be on very thin ice if they try to deny them. They already suggest in the leaked papers that they are shitscared of a FOI request, so I expect a few dozen journalists will be filing those first thing Monday morning.

Similar threads

Latest Threads