I've been unhappy with the quality of data released to support AGW, and so was unwilling to jump onto the bandwagon - while supporting things like energy independence. And I've been worried that core data - which keeps somehow being unreproducable or unavailable - needs to be rigorously reviewed before we make critical policy decisions.

But I never expected outright fraud.

From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

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

Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx NR4 7TJ UK

This is mindblowing.

What we have is a body of research supported by hundred of millions in research grands based on a premise promulgated and legitimized by a guy who is well on his way to making a billion from claiming to manage it.

And I thought it was bad for hucksters to 'create' issues that they could then sell patent medicine to cure.

Update: There's a great precis of the "juicy" emails over at the Bishop Hill blog. Go read it, and then decide a bit more how you feel about this...
-