Leaked Climate Research data

[Sean]

Ok, so someone hacked into Hadley Climate Research Unit and dumped all their data onto wikileaks. There is a LOT of reading to get through, but already 'climate skeptics' are saying its proof that global warming was all a big lie.

All stats are messed around with no matter who makes them but the global warming deniers are trying to scream about this as loudly as possible knowing that almost noone will ever actually go and look for themselves.

Anyone fancy going through this info too to see where the jiggery pokery happened and to what extent? I think it needs as much analysis as possible quickly.

Grab a copy here: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C _1996-2009

[Sean]

Here's one email set where they are talking about not releasing info via the Freedom of Information act. This is quite reassuring actually:

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" <[email protected]>
Subject: See below
Date: Fri Jul 31 08:59:22 2009

Peter,
Don't know if you got this. There is a link below to something Tom P said.

Keith is fine - seems as though there nothing malignant or cancerous
in the post op tests. Just needs to ensure the scar heals OK, then
he can come back to the madhouse.
Cheers
Phil

X-Failed-Recipients: [email protected]
Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
From: Mail Delivery System <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:31:08 +0100
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
[email protected]
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk [139.222.131.184]:
554 5.7.1 Message rejected because of unacceptable content. For help, please quote
incident ID 3442835.
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from [139.222.104.75] (helo=crupdj2.uea.ac.uk)
by ueams02.uea.ac.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
id 1MWma3-0007wd-KH
for [email protected]; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:31:07 +0100
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:31:19 +0100
To: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" <[email protected]>
From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: did you get a chance to see
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_1878687==.ALT"
--=====================_1878687==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:50:57 -0400
>From: [email protected]
>Subject: did you get a chance to see
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
>X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.01 (built Aug 26 2004)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>Priority: normal
>X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
>X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
>X-Spam-Score: 1.00 (*) [Hold at 5.00]
>APOSTROPHE_OBFUSCATION,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(none,0)
>X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
>X-Canit-Stats-ID: 26983044 - 2dc0798c114f
>X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
>[1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=f
>X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
>[2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=n
>X-Antispam-Training-Spam:
>[3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=s
>X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
>
>[4]http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you
-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <[email protected]>
>Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 pm
>Subject: Re: This and that
>
> > Hi, Phil,
> >
> > Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
> > interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of
> > sympathy, but
> > I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday
> > morningand flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston
> > airport on my way
> > home.
> >
> > Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC.
> > Periodically,Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would
> > violate agreements
> > and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you
> > don'tspecifically cite me or NCDC in this.
> >
> > But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
> > Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All
> > thoseworkshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
> > peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data
> > would be
> > released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
> > agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
> > data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for
> > SouthAmerica, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern
> > data,Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia,
> > Enricagain for central Africa, etc. The point being that such
> > agreements are
> > common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative
> > insightsinto climate change in many parts of the world. Many
> > countries don't
> > mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
> > Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
> > data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?
> >
> > Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what
> > rolewould be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs
> > in my
> > old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
> > different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
> > job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
> > delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
> > the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I
> > get an
> > opportunity, I would say yes.
> >
> > But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would
> > be or
> > even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on
> > extremes and
> > impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
> > nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
> > notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
> > asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the
> > details).
> > Regards,
> > Tom
> >
>
>> Tom,
> If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
> Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
> a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
> for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
> quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
> went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
> Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
> going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
> wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
> I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
> The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
> containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in
> GHCN). Presumably
> this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
> data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
> have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
>
> On something positive - attached is the outlines for the
> proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
> Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
> only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between
> some of the
> data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
> I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2
> if I decide. At the
> moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
> from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you
> considering
> getting involved?
> I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
> the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
> is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last
> time, and others in
> the US have had.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich Email [email protected]
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--=====================_1878687==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:50:= 57 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: did you get a chance to see
To: [email protected]
Cc: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.01 (built Aug 26 2004)
X-Accept-Language: en
Priority: normal
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 1.00 (*) [Hold at 5.00]
APOSTROPHE_OBFUSCATION,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(none,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 26983044 - 2dc0798c114f
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[5]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3D26983044&m=3D2dc0798c114f&c=3Df
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[6]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3D26983044&m=3D2dc0798c114f&c=3Dn
X-Antispam-Training-Spam:
[7]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3D26983044&m=3D2dc0798c114f&c=3Ds
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
[8]http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-=
want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 pm
Subject: Re: This and that
> Hi, Phil,
>
> Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
> interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of
> sympathy, but
> I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday
> morningand flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston
> airport on my way
> home.
>
> Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC.
> Periodically,Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would
> violate agreements
> and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you
> don'tspecifically cite me or NCDC in this.
>
> But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
> Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All
> thoseworkshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
> peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data
> would be
> released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
> agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
> data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for
> SouthAmerica, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern
> data,Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia,
> Enricagain for central Africa, etc. The point being that such
> agreements are
> common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative
> insightsinto climate change in many parts of the world. Many
> countries don't
> mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
> Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
> data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?
>
> Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what
> rolewould be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs
> in my
> old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
> different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
> job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
> delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
> the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I
> get an
> opportunity, I would say yes.
>
> But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would
> be or
> even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on
> extremes and
> impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
> nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
> notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
> asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the
> details).
> Regards,
> Tom
>

Tom,

If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in GHCN). Presumably
this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
On something positive - attached is the outlines for the proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between some of the
data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2 if I decide. At
the
moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you considering
getting involved?
I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last time, and others in
the US have had.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia &nbs=
p;
Norwich &nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia &nbs=
p;
Norwich &nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
--=====================_1878687==.ALT--

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=f
2. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=n
3. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=s
4. http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
5. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
6. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
7. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
8. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm

Its obvious that the FOI requests are frustrating and their hands are tied by their contracts for the datasets, so they were never hiding the data from other people as may be claimed.

[Sean]

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: ray bradley <[email protected]>,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]


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.

Cheers
Phil
Poor show. I'd say this is the email that will be jumped upon most. "Tim" was, according to the spreadsheet under contract with:


1999 2001 NERC £92,383 Briffa KR Improving our understanding of natural climate variability by the combined use of observational, palaeo & GCM climate data
Which would make this the statement in question: http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf

So I'm presuming he's talking about the bump on "the hockeystick" around 1960:

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5027/hockeystick.jpg

[Revy]

Fake.

But no doubt this will be trumpeted as the "smoking gun". they think that despite all the evidence it's a conspiracy that all those scientists are in on.

[Sean]

Fake.

But no doubt this will be trumpeted as the "smoking gun". they think that despite all the evidence it's a conspiracy that all those scientists are in on.
This exact email was the one they've all been jumping on (could have saved myself ages of reading had I known that :P). Heres from AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0):


Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.So its not fake, just out of context.

Anyway, if people are agreeing that this part is real, then they have to also agree that the raw data they were contractually obliged not to release under the FOI is too. So now people can analyse the raw data themselves and 'correct' his 'trick'. One instance of statistical dishonesty in 10 years is pretty good.

The fact that a goldmine of data from all around the world is now in the public domain is good for debate, regardless of the intentions of these mysterious russian hackers.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I too have heard "trick" used by my physics professors in relation to changing data in accordance to new discoveries. It appears global warming skeptics are just clutching onto what the blogosphere said about this particular leak without any conditions for actually looking into what it's about...

[Revy]

The proof is in the pudding....the people of Tuvalu already have had to deal with rising tides flooding their island for years, their Prime Minister gave a speech to the UN about it in 2003 but the US and its "coalition of the willing" were too busy brutally conquering Iraq.

Even Bush acted like he cared, but he didn't. It's always hollow words because the reality is that the oil/gas/coal companies have a huge amount of power. Solar and wind, is far more environmentally friendly and cost-effective for the average worker....less profitable for these companies.

That's why BP was all pro-ethanol , because they know it's another resource they can use to make profits off of, corn being used for fuel, they'd make lots of money...and the corn industry would be happy too. it's all bullshit

The working class is told to do stupid pointless things that aren't even a drop in the bucket worth of difference when it comes to fighting climate change and the environmental destruction around us. The problem is we have a bunch of capitalists in control.....they love profit, fossil fuels brings profit, no matter how much it pollutes.

If anything showed the real need for the environmentalist movement to become eco-socialist...it's the role capitalism plays in all this.

[Sean]

Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have "the makings of a very big" scandal. "Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research," he added.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

To make this comparison complete, it would take Christopher Horner (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_C._Horner#On_global_wa rming)to be recieving funding from pimps to tell people that HIV doesn't exist and that hippy scientists are just out to attack the sex industry because of their seedy deals with condom manufacturers.

An amusing thing about CEI, other than the fact that they are funded by ExxonMobil is that they own the domain globalwarming.org

[GX.]

Ok, so someone hacked into Hadley Climate Research Unit and dumped all their data onto wikileaks.

Actually the Hadley Centre and the CRU are different institutions. It was the CRU that was hacked. Just pointing this out to avoid confusion. As for the "trick" that the blogs are going nuts about, they're completely misrepresenting this. It's not an attempt to embellish the data or anything of the sort. From realclimate:


Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/)) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

[Sean]

Thanks GX for the clarification. The statement being quoted is here in full: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

We can all fully expect "hide the decline" to be the new catchphrase coming from the oil money fed mouthpieces for a while (in fact, reading through their blogs, it would make a good drinking game to take a shot of your favourite booze every time you hear it!).

One thing that I just twigged onto which relates to the first email I pasted; the raw data will never be verified due to their contractual obligations (if they admit its official, data will never be shared with them again). This is kind of a downer because it robs the layman of the ability to beat the naysayers on climate change with the very thing they are parading around.

They can easily duck that by saying the quote was verified, but all the data showing climate change along with it never was.

Data aside, the politics and pressures involved are absolutely fascinating from the inside.

[Muzk]

So is there global warming now or not?

[Revy]

So is there global warming now or not?

there's climate change. Global warming caused by CO2 emissions causes the climate change, and when the climate becomes unstable, some places get colder.

[Tatarin]

I have always been very skeptical to the fact that this proof comes from computers. There are so many uncontrolable points that I don't know where to start. I mean, what is to say that this is genuine? Or that the hackers didn't create them? Or that it is an experiment playing on the theory that humans do not affect the planet?

As long as the mails are not verified, then I have a hard time believeing in something that could simply be a thought experiment by low-paid scientists.

Also, why this pursuit of trying to proove that nothing we do will in any way change the environment? Do they long for the old days of fogged cities, deadly chemical spills and garbage mountains the size of houses?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

George Monbiot's response to this on the Real News Network:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4537

Access the second half of this item by clicking on the third icon from the left at the foot of the screen at the end of the first part.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I have always been very skeptical to the fact that this proof comes from computers. There are so many uncontrolable points that I don't know where to start. I mean, what is to say that this is genuine? Or that the hackers didn't create them? Or that it is an experiment playing on the theory that humans do not affect the planet?

As long as the mails are not verified, then I have a hard time believeing in something that could simply be a thought experiment by low-paid scientists.

Also, why this pursuit of trying to proove that nothing we do will in any way change the environment? Do they long for the old days of fogged cities, deadly chemical spills and garbage mountains the size of houses?

Not all the emails have been authenticated yet, but it's been confirmed that the hacking was legitimate. However, none of the remarks demonstrate a conspiracy to fake data. Rather it's thought the people in question withheld information while they were trying to crunch out inconsistencies through data collection to cut off the flow of noise coming from the "skeptics" outside of their scientific fields. While I'm amused to see that scientists think of creationists and opponents of anthropogenic global warming as idiots, this was a mistake and a legal blunder. By trying to stop the ignorant critics from further polluting the discussion, they only fueled the fire.