The Corbett Report 
Friday, November 20, 2009
A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.
The link to the data appears to have been posted to a number of climate science websites yesterday by an anonymous hacker or insider going by the name “FOIA,” an apparent allusion to the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent . It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That , Climate Audit  and other climate science sites.
The information contained in the leaked emails and documents are as shocking as they are damning of the scientists who have been most vocal about the manmade global warming scare. Some of the excerpts include this email , purportedly from Phil Jones to researchers including Michael Mann of “Mann’s hockey stick” fame:
|From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxxDear 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.
And this excerpt  in which researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal because he seems to be sympathetic to climate realists:
This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.
According to Investigate magazine  out of Australia, Dr. Phil Jones has now confirmed that these emails do appear to be real.
The importance of this information will not be lost on The Corbett Report’s audience, as a recent interview I conducted with Tim Ball discussed the very issue of the Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones’ intense secrecy regarding their data:
Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty  talks, it is imperative that we have a true and open debate about climate change before we make potentially world-changing decisions based on this science. It is up to all of us to push this story and its staggering implications into the mainstream.