This is a mirrored post from ClimateAudit.org which is terribly overloaded.
So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.
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
The e-mail is about WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 -report, or more specifically, about its cover image.
Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.
Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.
mike’s response speaks for itself.
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror it. -A)
When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).
TGIF-magazine has already asked Jones about the e-mail, and he denied misleading anyone but did remember grafting.
“No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
Maybe it helps Dr. Jones’s recollection of the exact context, if he inspects UC’s figure carefully. We here at CA are more than pleased to be able to help such nice persons in these matters.
Sponsored IT training links:
Learn all that you need to pass 220-701 exam. Complete your certification in days using 70-642 dumps and 220-702 study guide.
Read the excuse for this on Realclimate.com:
“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”
Hahaha!
By the way: WUWT has 1000 comments on one topic for the first time…
Dr Phil Jones’ 13.7 million British pounds in grants, seen in one of the XLS files,
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en
indicate that Jones’ less sophisticated tricks to hide the decline, relatively to Mann’s relatively refined ones, may be sufficient to fool the science-limited British taxpayer. 😉
Take no prisoners.
Go go go.
So,
What we have here is evidence that the team has engaged in:
1. Conspiracy
2. Government Fraud
3. Computer Fraud
4. Obstruction of Justice
5. Environmental Law Violations (Falsifying lab data pertaining to environmental regulations) (snicker)
6. Suppression of evidence
7. Tampering with evidence
8. Public Corruption
9. Bribery
Does that cover it?
Excellent work.
Awesome
I would be interested to hear some informed opinion comparing/contrasting this piece to RC’s explanation for “hide the decline”. They seem pretty consistent to me.
If Jones had written “address the divergence problem” instead of “hide the decline” would we be talking about that email at all?
Not that I’m entirely comfortable with “the divergence problem”. I’m not. To me it is evidence that the dendro’s specialty is not ready-for-primetime to be relying on for the kind of grave responsibilities it is being used for currently. Not that they shouldn’t keep working on it. Not that, perhaps, it won’t eventually get there (and perhaps not), but that it isn’t there yet.
Still, if Jones had written “address the divergence problem” instead –a well known non-controversial (in the sense everyone knows it is there) issue, would we be having this conversation about that particular email?
WOW – this has totally blown off the lid off. We have evidence of premeditated deceit and then outright denial when caught red handed.
Dr. Jones et Al. it is time to do the honorable thing when caught red handed as a cheats and a liars. PLEASE RESIGN before you are all FIRED.
As delicious as this all is, and as much as I agree that is shows these climate “scientists” to total a$$es, I’m not at all sure it represents the smoking gun so many seem to think.
But what clowns they are.
Keep it up!!! Holy cow, they are on the ropes now. It won’t be long before the ref stops this fight!
As Hunter said, go go go!!!!
Re “trick”, that was addressed in the other thread by many people –just google “tips and tricks” (with the quotes) and look at the responses you get and their nature. I got “about 12,000,000” when I just did it.
there are going to have a hard job burying this one but they are going to try very very hard
Hopefully some people will stand up to in the science industry for bringing there profession into disrepute
I agree with RC… “Trick” does NOT mean they were trying to deceive anyone. No way. Nothing problematic here. Instead, “trick” means selling their souls for power, prestige and money…as in the prostitution sense. Duh!
The emails are now searchable online here:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php
I typed in “skeptics” and the first email I read was allegedly from renowned climatologist Tom Wigley written in 1997 castigating his fellow scientists for misrepresenting the science to influence Kyoto. Here is the link:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=40
And here are a few paragraphs from the email:
“I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” In contrast to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3 review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more cost-effective options. It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases” for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I find this extremely disturbing.”
The amount of Kharma in having CRU, the great secret host of data that cannot and will not be released to peons who just want to find problems now having all that data andf then some exposed is massive.
I hope the irony is not lost on Jones, Mann et al. Maybe the write a new paper, get it peer reviewed and then have it published.
Posted on Richard’s site at the BBC.
While I can’t condone hacking, it’s great to see this information out in the open.
To those defending the ‘trick’:
The problem is not that he called his technique a ‘trick’.
The problem is that the intent of his technique is to fool people into thinking something is going on that is not, in fact, going on.
Mike’s naturtrick: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/#comments
How specious of you to point this out. ;P If no one can get to CA, why is it so busy?
I have no problem with the word “trick” – I use many “Tricks of the Trade” to diagnose problems, find workarounds for recalcitrant computers, etc. I have lots of problems with the word “hide” and can’t think of many places in a professional position where hide is good other than military and similar fields.
Congrats to John Finn and others who worked on this years ago. Good job!
Read the excuse for this on Realclimate.com:
“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”
Hahaha!
I personally use the word ‘murder’ to mean ‘wonder if that person would be nicer if they owned a puppy’.
Any future confessions or other statements by me should be read with this in mind.
RC: “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.”
A GOOD WAY TO DEAL WITH A PROBLEM?!?!?!?
The problem happened to be a downward trend in their anaysis.
They didn’t want that. So they found a way to cover it up or “hide it.”
Argue over nouns and adjectives later…this is FRAUD!
–If Jones had written “address the divergence problem” instead of “hide the decline” would we be talking about that email at all?–
The problem is the way they addressed the divergence problem was to simply hide the decline with plaster and lath.
“Hide the decline” is much closer to the truth than “address the divergence problem” as the former denotes a knowingly improper method whereas the latter is more closely associated with, you know, science. That’s probably why he used the term he did.
Luboš Motl (14:12:30). Hear-hear!
I think Jones really believes that grafting practise is acceptable. That these trees were great thermometers right up until 1960/61. As Tim Osborn said to Michael Mann, “we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use.”
I’ve tended to think of these handful of trees (out of hundreds and thousands of samples and probably hundreds of thousands not yet sampled) as “magic” trees. lucky to be found. Trees that can grow in step with the historic temperature “reconstruction” for 120 years, and become a proxy for centuries, even millennia of past temperatures.
Now I find it’s only 80 years tracking the reconstruction, I just don’t know what to think. Oh wait, I do.
Hide is good in tanning, which is what I hope they get.
I typed in fake and found this little snippet From Phil Jones
“I’m away all next week – with Mike. PaleoENSO meeting in Tahiti – you can’t
turn those sorts of meetings down!”
Indeed if only we could all have those sorts of meetings!
“13.7 million British pounds in grants”
So ask yourself … “If data ‘is what it is’, then why is it so important that the graphics show warming?” then repeat “13.7 million pounds in grants”, then ask yourself “If there were no ‘dramatic’ warming, what would be the consequence for them.” then repeat “13.7 million pounds in grants”.
It bothers me that gyrations must be done in order to show warming when if the warming is real, and there, the data would not need so much “massaging” in order to tease that warming out of it. It is like “well, if you turn it sideways, squint, tilt the paper a little this way, close one eye … see that! Warming! Now get us some money so we can ‘study’ it some more.”
The real problem to me with “the divergence problem” is *they don’t actually know what causes it*. So they know it exists post-1960. But because they don’t know what causes it, they have no idea where else in the dendro record it might also exist to one degree or another pre-instrumental record. No idea at all. Just whistling past the graveyard assuring themselves that shadow didn’t really just move.
Obama, Kerry, Pelosi and the EPAs Lisa Jackson are still fighting for climate change AGW. They will not admit defeat or even think this minor technical detail is but a bump in the road on their agenda. They think they have the votes. Let your elected officials in on the facts.
Epic Win for the Hockey Stick Hacker. American Politicians should be quick to drop Micheal Mann as a credible source of climate validity.
We here at CA are more than pleased to be able to help such nice persons in these matters.
Pretty big talk for a site with absolutely zero scientific accomplishments. Don’t you guys ever get tired of crying wolf to each other?
Okay, so the instrument record wasn’t grafted (in the precise meaning of the term) onto the proxy reconstruction. But if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, don’t blame skeptics for calling it a duck. It hardly qualifies as being a specious claim, as asserted by MM. I will be less kind and call it cooking the books to achieve a desired result. And if the comments from critics are sounding harsh these days, that’s what happens when the data is hidden. It might not be pretty, but the true path of real scientific discovery is made up of many false leads and loads of controversy — it’s not a sing-along love fest of consensual mutual admiration.
Also found this little cracker:
Discussing a paper going public;
“We simply want to do our best to help make sure
that the right message is emphasized.”
that was M MANN saying this
these are very eye opening it shows that they are playing with much more that just science
Might as well assume this as a continuation of the leak story. Looks like Revkin has virtually conceded as well… very interesting as they try to run for cover… LOL
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
Unless there is an extremely good explanation of how “hide the decline” should be interpreted as anything other than what it sounds like — trying to cook the data to make the recent temperature decline disappear from the chart — this is a damning evidence that should invalidate just about everything Hadley CRU and Mann had published.
The TGIF magazine mentioned is AKA “Investigate”.
IMHO this little magazine deserves kudos. New Zealand based, and always on the money.
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/newshop/contents/en-us/d13.html
Is it me or have the BBC just taken all comments off Richard Blacks site?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/copenhagen_countdown_17_days.html
I guess I didn’t have it quite right. Instead of supplying interpolated values for the tree ring series, they use “instrumental data”. Guess I’d better just supply a link cause I was spreading the appended temps myth.
Ok, I’ll bite, instrumental?
Roger Harrabin of the BBC writes
My contacts at the CRU tell me the e-mails are being taken out of context and insist they are part of the normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists working on some of the most complicated questions of our times.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm
Maybe Roger Harrabin would like to tell us who these public servants are and why they are talking to the media. Maybe he would like to show us where they are being taken out of context.
The article is a pathetic apology for wrong doing and Mr Harrabin shows his lack of capability and bias to a cause which has the credibilty of a dead nat.
No mention on the BBC news what a surprise.
Phil Jones writes that the missing raw CRU data could be reconstructed:
(from file 1255298593.txt)
From: P.Jones@uea.ac.ukTo: “Rick Piltz” <piltz@xxxx.net
Subject: Re: Your comments on the latest CEI/Michaels gambitDate: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:03:13 +0100 (BST)Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk
, "Ben Santer" <santer1@llnl.gov
Rick, What you've put together seems fine from a quick read. I'm in Lecce inthe heal of Italy till Tuesday. I should be back in the UK byWednesday. The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what wehad from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would startwith the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete wate oftime though. I may get around to it some time. As you've said, thedocumentation of what we've done is all in the literature. I think if it hadn't been this issue, the CEI would have dreamt upsomething else! Cheers Phil
Phil and Ben–
Thanks for writing. I appreciate very much what you're saying.
I'm going to be posting some entries on this matter on the Climate
Science Watch Web site. I'm sure others will weigh in on it in
various venues (Steve Schneider has supplied me with an on-the-record
quote), and I suppose that a more formal response by the relevant
scientists is likely eventually to become part of the EPA docket as
part of their rejection of the CEI petition. But that will drag on,
and meanwhile CEI and Michaels will demagogue their allegations, as
they do with everything. No way to prevent that. But I would like to
expedite documenting some immediate pushback, helping to set the
record straight and put what CEI and Michaels are up to in perspective.
I have taken the liberty of editing what you wrote just a bit (and
adding some possible URL links and writing-out of acronyms), in the
hope that, with your permission and with any revisions or additions
you might care to make, we could post your comments. This requires
no clearance other than you and me. I would draft appropriate text to
provide context. Please take a look at this and RSVP:
Ben's comment:
As I see it, there are two key issues here.
First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels
are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the CRU [Climatic
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK ] willfully,
intentionally, and suspiciously "destroyed" some of the raw surface
temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface
temperature datasets.
Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible
human influence" conclusions.
Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no
intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that,
over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw
station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and
Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts
by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based
estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In
fact, a key point here is that other groups — primarily at the NCDC
[NOAA National Climatic Data Center] and at GISS [NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies], but also in Russia — WERE able to
replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups.
The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely
independently. …
cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war
geo wrote:
“If Jones had written “address the divergence problem” instead of “hide the decline” would we be talking about that email at all?”
Seems to me that Jones’ email was about making a graphical presentation look the way they wanted it to by employing the “trick” of inserting certain data in the right places. In that context, “hide the decline” would have been exactly what he meant.
“Addressing the divergence problem” would imply a great deal of work and research into exacly why many of the proxies they use do not track with the modern instrumental temp data. That has nothing to do with the above email.
Sorry, geo, no dice.
Remember the Downing Street Memo? Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy….
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/11/intelligence-and-facts-are-being-fixed.html
Robert M. (14:15:43) :
“So,
What we have here is evidence that the team has engaged in:
1. Conspiracy
2. Government Fraud
3. Computer Fraud
4. Obstruction of Justice
5. Environmental Law Violations (Falsifying lab data pertaining to environmental regulations) (snicker)
6. Suppression of evidence
7. Tampering with evidence
8. Public Corruption
9. Bribery
Does that cover it?”
——————————–
Even if only half of the items you raise are punishable by criminal sanction (going to the slammer), it explains why the participants in the e-mails are refusing to comment:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
“When the Guardian asked Prof Phil Jones at UEA, who features in the correspondence, to verify whether the emails were genuine, he refused to comment.”
“Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: “I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails.”
Because they have talked to their lawyers and are preparing for criminal prosecution (just kidding…kind of)…
And that’s where they belong…in the slammer!
What’s wrong with grafting data ? They are dealing with dendro data or data from trees. The most common method of propagating trees is which maintains its good characteristics is by grafting the branch into some rubbish but stout base like citrange for citrus. The guys at CRU must be real denro scientist of the widest skills. They have just opened a new branch in horticulture-which is data grafting. As they expand to politics, grafting data could also take another meaning.
It is interesting for MattN to quote as Hunter said “go go go”. If I rememeber correctly it was a Hunter who used to head the IPCC secretariat at around the time of those emails.
IMO it’s worth mentioning how widespread the coverage and discussion of this hack has already become:
If you throw ”CRU email hack jones” at Google, as of right now it comes back with about 338,000 hits.
RC has completely changed tack. They are allowing all comments, which appear to really lambast them (RC) and all the team. I suppose they know they are on the line and its the only thing Gavin can do to possibly regain some respectability in Science. However I do admire his admissions re emails and willingness now to actually allow dissent albeit under extreme duress? I doubt if they will survive though (the site)
Btw, since one (unproven) theory is that warming causes “the divergence problem”, has any of the dendros (or Steve McI, should “somehow” the warmists not find it a worthy exercise) taken the observed post-1960s divergence and applied it to the MWP in the reconstructions covering that period? Could, in fact, this be a reason why the warmists have consistently underestimated the MWP?
Shurley Knot (14:52:51) :
“Pretty big talk for a site with absolutely zero scientific accomplishments.”
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature, considering what “scientific accomplishment” amounts to in this field.
Turning a “trick” is another way to describe prostitution.
Here, the science cops have been paid off in kind for looking
the other way while the transactions continue.
I don’t think Gavin knows any lawyers. Rule #1 – DON’T SAY ANOTHER WORD. Rule #2, Don’t take the stand in defense of yourself or anyone else.
He is putting himself on the stand for a marathon session of defending this fiasco – he better have a lot of coffee cause this is gonna be an all-nighter! Even the believers are taking shots at the level of contemptible discourse in the emails.
“if Jones had written “address the divergence problem” instead of “hide the decline” would we be talking about that email at all?”
Probably not. If something else happened in the past, then things would be different in the future. If something had not smacked Earth and had instead missed, the moon wouldn’t be there at night and we wouldn’t have spent billions getting there. I fail to see the point of your question.
But the fact that he did use the phrase “hide the decline” shows how he thought about the issue and shows his intention. He wasn’t worried about addressing the “divergence problem”, he was interested in “hiding” something. What he wrote at the time says how he felt about it, how he had it framed in his mind. So what he did was rather than having a trend line that was a smoothing of what had already happened, he decided to have a little bit of future data included in the current “trend”. And since the temperature in the future rises after the end of the trend line, this backfilling of future data into the present made it show what they wanted it to show even though the line itself was then meaningless.
What is to prevent them from using that same “trick” with the global temperature data? Lets say I have a missing value for a station. I compute a “fill” value by looking at an average of nearby stations over time on the same day. What if “over time” extended into the future and used what the model says temperatures are “going to be” as a value used to compute that average? You then get into a situation where you have a self-fulfilling prophecy where you model’s future prediction is influencing the present time which tends to make the present temperature more in line with the model’s prediction. You simply adjust today to better fit your prediction of the future. And the more values that go “missing” the better you can fit create the future of your choice by gradually warming up missing values so the overall global temperature is influenced by the model’s future prediction.
At this point I would put nothing past those people. They show little regard for scientific integrity of their output as long as it shows the “correct” result.
Thank you for explaining the “Trick”.
I am just sitting shaking my head and saying to myself: “They are so f***ed!”
Sorry for the language but it is hard to articulate my emotion in any other way.
Ben Santer Apparently!
“I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley. They seem to have no understanding of how science is actually done – no appreciation of the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of what we do. Once again, just let me know how I can help….”
“trick … to hide the decline”
that is the point. the trick was to hide. this is unnacceptable. it’s dishonest. it’s fraud. there is no place in any profession, scientific or otherwise, for deliberate use of “tricks” to “hide” information which the hider finds undesirable.
can they be prosecuted for misuse of govt funds / fraud? i hope so.
@ LittyKitter:
Apparently, there are legal issues…and until “airtight” controls are in place, no comments.
If I understood it well, smoothing did a down-tail of proxies ending in 80ties, even going more down than raw data showed, so they prolonged the proxy data with temperature data and cut now better smoothed line in 1980. Which is not THAT bad. Smoothing usually yields weird ends and beginnings for the smoothed line.
More serious was, when the Team cut the proxies in 1980s since they did not show as fast uptick as instrumental record did.
1107454306
Not that anyone has anything to hide…
Good lord, I’ve run out of popcorn.
Guys remember Gavin at Fenton Commmunications I mean Environmental Media Services I mean RealCimate.org says that reposting private emails is unethical so make sure to keep sending these to as many people as you know.
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming That they Tried to Keep out of the IPCC Report.
1089318616.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Cheers
Phil
Don’t let anyone read this either,
The Truth about RealClimate.org
good stuff!
here some of rahmstorf:
From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: Eystein Jansen Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Ch6-Climate Sensitivity Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:49:05 +0200 Reply-to: stefan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi co-authors,
here are some thoughts on what to say on climate sensitivity in our chapter – this is an
attempt to focus on the main, simple messages for policy makers. (I think we should try
retaining those important messages and not lose sight of them amidst all the details,
complexity and caveats.)
The main policy-relevant question could be phrased as follows: Does the past climate
history tell us how sensitive the climate system is to CO2?
I submit that the answers to this we get from different time periods are the following.
Deep Time:
Reconstructions are too uncertain (and boundary conditions too different, e.g. continents
in different places, different ocean circulation) to draw quantitative conclusions about
sensitivity to CO2,
I believe that the people involved in doctoring the data were chosen to push the enviro-socialistic beliefs of the Euro-centric (Both in US/Europe) progressives. The Excel file with all the grant $$$ helped push that along. It seems that this country and Europe are going further into a “global new deal” where health care, carbon taxes, redistribution of wealth and Big Government rule. Wall Street/London did push Obama 3 to 1 for a reason, because they will get the bailouts and government projects, brought to you by John Q Taxpayer. It’s to bad the Scientific and Political sides of the AGW debate have been melded together. Regardless if AGW is occurring or not, the politicians and money powers of the world have simply co-opted the Science over Politics. This story is nothing more then a symptom of Supra-Internationalism seeking to destroy the National and Economic Sovereignty of Nations.
Our little Gav is getting worried?
Response: There is no confusion. McIntyre insinuated malfeasance without any evidence whatsoever. It wasn’t that I didn’t understand what he had done, it was that I didn’t know what the circumstances were of the original study. Condemning me for trying to find out is a little odd. – gavin]
End of supercillious special pleading
He never suggested malfeasance he just showed that you were all rubbish at statistics. But never said that.
You censor so I post somewhere else.
You could not punch your way out of a wet echo.
Trick or Cheat?
So AGW is man made. We knew this, didn’t we? Now the rest of the world knows which men made it.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=471
I say, AGW is dead!
The Warmers at giss and at cru
Cooked up data to make hockey stew
The trick was to hide
How the warming had died
Hero hacker put the lies in full view…
Should I stay or should I go.
Our lovely boy Gav is still up he has even allowed critiscism. Maybe he just wants to show what a regular guy he is?
Where there is smoke, there is fire. Gore & Hansen, tied to CRU by IPCC, thier proclamations are likewise inflammable.
How’s that hot seat working out for you, Al?
Now this is interesting from Tim Osborn (1214229243.txt) :
So apparently if you organize a campaign to get FOI requests submitted, they can deny them all claiming they are designed to “inconvenience” or somehow harass them regardless of the merit.
I actually got a post through over at Real Climate. I was responding to a previous poster’s comment:
Steve Fish said: “it is not necessary to look to mathematics for an example of one of the many meanings of the word “trick” (e.g. one synonym is stratagem). I suggest that those individuals such as Joe Hunkins, Matty Virtanen, and dcook who are confused might benefit from looking in Merriam-Webster. That should do the trick.”
From Merriam-Webster for the synonym of “trick”: stratagem implies a ruse used to entrap, outwit, circumvent, or surprise an opponent or enemy .
[Response: You are being rather sly. Try linking to the definition, and looking at #3. This is a really weak point you are trying to make. – gavin]
I have to give gavin some credit. He is allowing posts from previously banned posters and trying his darnedest to reply to them (albeit not very well!)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=475
AGW for Rahmstorf = Lier like Al Gore!
I know the “hide the decline” email is getting lots of notice (and it is noteworthy), but I am even more interested in the “delete the emails” instructions given. This looks to be evidence of conspiracy to obstruct. Where are the lawyers among us?
Michael Mann via UK Guardian:
“I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”
Haha, if Anthony had a quote of the week, this would be it.
From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: Keith Briffa Subject: comments on Briffa, last millennium Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:15:25 +0100 Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen
Dear Keith,
you’ve done a great job on the touchy subject of the last millennium, which is central to our whole chapter. My comments to that are threefold: (1) If you could shorten the text somewhat, it could become more powerful (2) Some small edits & comments are in the attached doc (3) I propose some improvements to the figures as follows. – Fig 1a the land temps seem to go off plot, temperature scale needs to be extended – we need a break between panels a and the rest, since it’s a different time scale on the x axis – Fig 1c also has one curve going off the top – Panels 1b-d might run the time axis up to 2010 or so, else the important rise at the end is hidden in the tick-marks and less obvious than it should be – the legends need to say what the baseline period (zero line of y-axis) is (hard to find this in the axis label) – this baseline should be the same for all curves, i.e. 1961-1990. Fig 2d says 1901-1960 – it’s not ideal to have a different one, as compared to Fig 1. Also, is it true? Surely the Storch curve is not shown relative to this baseline, it’s way above it. Aligning it like this could lead to the dangerous misunderstanding that Storch suggests a much warmer medieval time compared to everyone else, which of course is not the case.
I hope this helps.
Cheers, Stefan
BBC Removes all comments to Black’s blog:
“Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.”
Time for those of us in the UK to seek an FOI request for that e-mail?
From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: David Rind Subject: Re: 6.5.8 revisions Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:20:47 +0100 Cc: Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen , FortunatJoos
Hi David,
thanks for the detailed response. I’ll try to be brief.
On the orbital forcing you write:
The point here is that climate can be forced by other factors than simply a global,
annual average radiation change, which is the metric now being used.
I think we all agree on this point. My concern is only about how to present it in the
section. I think that giving a climate sensitivity wrt. global mean orbital forcing is
confusing to the uninitiated, e.g. your statement in the section:
This high climate sensitivity (2�C/ Wm^-2) is occurring in an atmospheric model
(ECHAM-1) whose sensitivity to doubled CO[2] is about 0.6�C/Wm^-2.
I really think we should not give a number like 2�C/ Wm^-2 as “climate sensitivity” to
global-mean orbital forcing and contrast it to that to doubled CO2. It gives out the
message to people that climate sensitivity is all over the place and ill defined. That’s
not the case. Climate sensitivity is a well-defined concept for a globally uniform forcing
like CO2 forcing, but nobody expects any clear relation between the global mean part of
orbital forcing and the climate response.
Jones: You want answers?
McIntyre:I think I’m entitled.
Jones: You want answers?!
McIntyre:I want the truth!
Jones: You can’t handle the truth!
McIntyre:Did you order the code changed?
Jones: I did the job I had to do.
McIntyre:Did you order the code changed?!
Jones: You’re God damn right I did!
Still a few good men. Thankfully.
The leak will only help if it is widely reported. If the MSM refuses to report the leak, the general uninformed population will never hear about it and will still follow Gore.
@Ron Cram
Ron a good observation “hide the decline” allows debate.
The deletion of emails another aspect which of course stinks of conspiracy.
But lets deal with morality. If someone has died no normal person would take a perverse pleasure in their death would they?
But these people did and this suggests they have no moral base.
I saw mention of the leak on foxnews website and quickly looked on WWUT, but for people who refuse to look at Fox, they may never hear about the leak. We need to tell one and all.
Paul Husdon’s BBC blog is still open and there’ve been some relevant posts on it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/hatfield-gets-green-light-from.shtml
Where are the warmers hiding? The TWO Community Climate forum is a hotbed for them at the moment I think.
BBC is wading in now with loads more warmist cr*p. Looks like they’re calling everyone into the office!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm
Jeremy (14:21:51) “Dr. Jones et Al. it is time to do the honorable thing when caught red handed as a cheats and a liars. PLEASE RESIGN before you are all FIRED.”
A tenured professor getting fired? Perhaps you are overlooking what allows them to lie.
The knives are out for the BBC politically, especially in other, non-public service media outlets. I’m not surprised they’re being ultra-cautious on this. I wouldn’t read anything into it other than that.
Over thousand comments on a single publication within 14 hours time!
WUWT is a breaking records!
LittyKitter (14:59:43) :
Is it me or have the BBC just taken all comments off Richard Blacks site?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/copenhagen_countdown_17_days.html
Richard Black Comments:-
Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.
Its amazing how the crazies over at reddit.com enviro forums are not even batting an eye at this.. Are they THAT closed? How can this not even get them to question it? Blatant statements are being ignored or downplayed.
I too was surprised at the comments being allowed on RC.
I was even more impressed at how manfully (no pun intended) Gavin was defending his POV.
Love him or loathe him, he’s a born fighter.
I hope that he doesn’t end up single handedly manning the barricades!
Posted this to RC. Wonder if it gets through and what the answer might be?
Gavin, is there ANYTHING in the emails that indicates untoward behaviour or other unscientific behavior on the part of email authors or recipients…or is it all just one big misunderstanding on the part of those who are criticising? Is there anything?
Great work but until a national newspaper or tv and radio station covers it we are still unable to get the message home.
At least in America the Wall Street Journal has done a good piece on Steve McIntyre…. and 200 people demonstrated outside of a recent Al Gore lecture.
Cracks showing perhaps but it has got to become mainstream news.
“Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=802
Related to my earlier post, for example no mention of the leak on the home page of CNN.com, MSNBC.com, ABCnews . Again we need to send out emails to everyone we know.
Fame at last.
Tree ring controversy….
] *On Behalf Of *David
Schnare
*Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
*Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Gene:
I’ve been following this issue closely and this is what I take
away from it:
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.
2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work – in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta’s work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.
As Corcoran points out, “the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground.”
Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely
on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse
gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a
significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research,
including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques
are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that
the current alarmism is justified.
David Schnare
Richard Mc Gough (14:32:08) provided this excellent searchable link http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php
I typed in Watts and came up with the above.
This is the CC equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall, can’t think of anything else to talk about at the moment., I am driving my wife crazy !!!
I think it’s pretty obvious by now that CA is under a DoS attack, which tells me that somebody somewhere is utterly terrified of what MacIntyre is going to do with all this material…or even certain parts of it.
I once knew someone who had worked at the Mack Truck Testing Lab. He had
collected funny and stupid things that had been put in reports. My favorite, and the one that is apropos to this controversy is: “Through statistical manipulation, we arrived at the desired result.”
Jeremy (14:21:51), I believe in the UK “doing the honorable thing” means shooting oneself. In Japan it would be seppuku.
Breaking News! Anthony Watts found to have surreptitiously softened criticism of bad reporting by sympathetic news source!
Critique 1: Daily Tech is unresponsive and slow:
“Note from Anthony: When the DailyTech first posted this story and referenced my blog as the source of th compilation, without ever interviewing me or asking me a single question, I told them immediately they had it wrong. Shortly after that I published this ”Update and Caveat” (below) on the original post since they were slow to react. All told it took over 8 hours for Dailytech to make a change to the wording, but by then the genie was out of the bottle.”
http://forums.pal-item.com/viewtopic.php?p=105765&sid=71732ef7900cee2571a2f069dac31b70
Shortly after posting the note about Daily Tech’s reporting, Mr. Watts apparently decided that his criticism was too harsh.
Critique 2: Daily Tech is gracious and cooperative:
Note from Anthony: When the DailyTech first posted this story and referenced my blog as the source of th compilation, without ever interviewing me or asking me a single question, I notified them immediately of my concerns. Shortly after that I published this ”Update and Caveat” (below) on the original post. Dailytech graciously made a changes to the wording at my request, but by then the genie was out of the bottle.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/05/twelve-months-of-cooling-doesn%e2%80%99t-make-a-climate-trend
Malfeasance! LOL!
BBC have been awful over the last two days – we had a Red “Take Action” severe weather warning for north-west England and south-west England for heavy rain. When the inevitable happened and we had a fatality (a heroic policeman diverting traffic off a busy bridge, which then collapsed with him on it), they had less than 5 minutes on it in their morning broadcast compared to Sky News which devoted practically all their coverage to the dreadful flooding.
Of course they are now talking about it as a 1-in-1000 year event which all their usual connotations, wry looks to the camera.
Insurgent, good, but how about this one:
1107454306
” Ric Werme (14:35:30) :
I have no problem with the word “trick” – I use many “Tricks of the Trade” to diagnose problems, find workarounds for recalcitrant computers, etc. I have lots of problems with the word “hide” and can’t think of many places in a professional position where hide is good other than military and similar fields.
Congrats to John Finn and others who worked on this years ago. Good job!”
Reminds me of the other usage of “hide”
“Tan me hide when I’m dead Fred
Tan me hide when I’m dead
So we tanned his hide when he died Clyde
And that’s it hanging on the shed.”
Apologies to Rolf Harris
We’ve been conned. The tricksters, liars and frauds, should be held accountable and suffer the consequences for their actions.
“no mention of the leak on the home page of CNN.com, MSNBC.com, ABCnews”
Last time I looked at the ratings Fox draws more audience in most time slots than all the others combined. So it doesn’t really matter if the other nets aren’t carrying it. Nobody is listening to them preach anyway except the chior.
Very very difficult to get any messages through to our Gav. Hope you are reading lovely boy.
The whole stinking lie is now shown to be a smell. I always thought it was peculier that scientists’ would you use the word denier but now understand that none of you are scientists and your attacks were to hide the fraud.
Not only do you promote a falsehood you conspired together to do so.
Come on Gav how many R’s are there in resignation.
geo (14:21:09) asks “If Jones had written ‘address the divergence problem’ instead of ‘hide the decline’ would we be talking about that email at al?”
Yes we would! We would be asking why the tree ring data diverged from the insterment data. We would ask where the insterments where located in relation to the trees. We would question whether the reconstruction was valid through its entirety. We would talk about this e-mail!
geo (15:15:37) :
Um, no, you misunderstand the divergence problem. I shall explain…
The tree-rings are being used, after a sort of weighted average, to determine temperature. The divergence problem is simply the fact that post 1960 or so, many of the tree-rings no longer correlate well to temperature. This implies that tree-rings do not actually respond well to temperature, or at least, temperature is not adequately reflected in their measurement. This cannot be “applied to the MWP” as it signifies the two things (temperature and growth) are uncorrelated (or weakly correlated at best, with a non-linear relationship).
What makes this devastating is that they cannot use reconstructions based on tree-rings to “make the MWP go away.” True, the likes of Mann and others continue to use tree-rings in their reconstructions unabashed, but no amount of screaming can overcome the fact that such reconstructions are worthless.
Mark
Trust me Doug, the sheeple, as we are sometimes rather cutely described, are quite capable of seeking out the information they need in order to inform their opinions. Over the last year or so, I’ve seen the comment sections of MSN pro-AGW arguments full to overflowing with sceptic opinions. This isn’t some coordinated attack; it’s ordinary people like you and I proactively informing themselves, raising eyebrows, expressing their views. The days of media mind control over the general population are long gone.
There have been mentions on instapundit, fox news, and fox business.
also a mention on hotair
doug (16:40:04) says “Related to my earlier post, for example no mention of the leak on the home page of CNN.com, MSNBC.com, ABCnews . Again we need to send out emails to everyone we know.”
I saw it on FoxNews.com. I e-mailed my Senetors and Congressman because they’re going to see some nutty climate bill and need to be prepared to fight me off when I storm Washington.
This all excellent work.
Here’s what I see as especially ugly and of very low ethical standard:
The emails show very clear how the peer-review process was manipulated, a closed shop for insiders only, and having this neatly organized then arrogantly tell the world that the work of Steve McIntyre a.o. has no value, because not “peer-reviewed”. What a misuse.
What kind of personality must one have to arrange such, proceed and “refine” over years?
And all this fraud is done with taxpayers money? And those people influence politician, media and scare the rest of the world?
Isn’t it about time tha a lot of members in these circles draw a line and get back on track before it’s too late? Come on guys, we’ve got you.
Amazing that Jones denies misleading when he clearly uses the word “trick”.
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s36wattsup&r=35
Reminds me to MBH98, but this is a REAL hockey stick!
What is the correct solution to this scandal? If the institutes of higher learning are honest, they should fire all those who are involved. Jones, Mann etal. Wanna bet they keep their jobs? This makes these institutes co-conspirators.
From: “Graham F Haughton” To: “Phil Jones” Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
… Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness – I’ve signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it…. Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, ‘and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her…!’
Graham
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065
Nothing like remaining objective…
Not sure, but this smells like cherry pie cooking:
I posted the following at RC as they don’t seem to be censoring everything just at the moment (it’s a credibility thing . . . )
I think the defence of the use of the word ‘trick’ looks a bit like this ploy:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
Re getting this to the mass media, I posted the following on the enormous ‘Breaking News’ thread last night. Since it doubtless got buried, I’m taking the liberty of reposting:
/Mr Lynn
Here it is at the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?ref=science
The “Nature trick” is not near as damning as some of the things about a deliberate attempt to hinder FOI requests. I am sorry, but, if your data and method cannot be reproduced it is not science. Therefore anything that somes from that supposed data and method is meaningless garbage. It is hard to believe those at the Hadley Centre and elsewhere who have blocked these attempts could pass a high school science class with so poor an understanding of scientific method.
Meanwhile the Guardian has published a ridiculous and embarassing article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
It is obviously nothing but a spin control piece calling for the punishment of the leakers, reminding us of the supposed “evidence for global warming” and deliberately avoiding or oblivious to the entire actual issues. Such as the fact that the evidence they point to is shown by these very documents to have been largely fake.
I still can’t believe these emails can be real.
1123622471.txt
“The use of “likely” , “very likely” and my additional fudge word “unusual” are all carefully chosen where used.” – Keith Briffa
Luboš Motl (14:12:30) :
Dr Phil Jones’ 13.7 million British pounds in grants, seen in one of the XLS files,
……and preachers get accused of fleecing the flock.
Maybe CRU can submit a freedom of information act on the Farmers Almanac so they can compare notes. Both seem to be “reasonably” accurate, however the Farmers Almanac may not be considered “peer-reviewed”. 🙂
Posted 3 February 2009:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#comment-80957
Allan M R MacRae (21:07:14) :
NOW THE WORLDWIDE PRESS IS SWARMING,
‘ROUND ANOTHER
FINE EXAMPLE OF MANN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!
JUST LIKE THE FAMOUS HOCKEY STICK,
THEY USED THE OLD
“SPLICE TOGETHER TWO DATASETS” TRICK.
***********************
Today’s comment:
Some of us always knew it was a trick.
Now it is absolutely clear that it was much more. It was not just bad scientific methodology; it was deliberate fraud, conspiracy and corruption.
These scoundrels have taken hundreds of millions in government grants and caused the waste of hundreds of billions in public funds.
I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
They belong in jail.
>>So AGW is man made. We knew this, didn’t we? Now the rest of the world knows which men made it.
Ha.
Phil & Michael are on the phone right now with officials from ACORN getting advice.
Darn it, I’m getting withdrawal symptoms. The last time I got on to Climate Audit was ages ago.
Granted that when I do, I understand 10% of the Science but absorb 100% of the integrity. Thanks Anthony for giving me a partial fix tonight but, if it pleases the Big One, bring back CA to me!
Loved reading about SMc from the perspective of Team members BTW; that they fear his intelligence is palpable from their evident hatred and fear that he will turn his gaze upon them.
In the 21st century the establishment antipathy towards the gifted outsider is every bit as strong as it ever has been.
Unbelievable, this is tricky stuff.
“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.”
Perhaps this is just a remark stating that he was trying to test if Mike’s Nature trick did, in fact, hide the decline.
Did they find out if the trick did the job?
Did they then produce results knowing the trick was involved?
Those are the real questions.
Don’t these expressions of outrage ring a bit false? The tenor of comments would indicate shock and awe. All the revealed correspondence really does is confirm what most deniers have been accusing those folks of for years and years, either directly or by implication. What is there to be shocked about?
It seems to me a more honest reaction would be, “Yep. Just as we’ve been saying” followed closely by, “Damn! How could they be so dumb as to leave such an electronic trail of their activities?”
CH
Just posted this on Tips and mentioned recently on the “Hacked” thread,
http://www.agu.org is down. Anyone know why, or has recently visited, to get an idea of when it went down?
OT: Only in the alarmist Globe and Mail in Canada can Martin Mittelstaed, an activist/reporter post this while the rest of the media are ablazed with the emailgate!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-find-shame-in-status-as-climate-change-dawdlers/article1372296/#comments
“Martin Mittelstaedt Environment Reporter
From Saturday’s Globe and Mail
Published on Friday, Nov. 20, 2009 7:38PM EST
Last updated on Friday, Nov. 20, 2009 7:41PM EST
On the eve of major UN climate change talks next month in Copenhagen, a major survey of Canadians has found that more than three quarters of the public feel embarrassed that the country hasn’t been taking a leadership role on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.”
And where do you think this guilt spewing poll comes from?
“The survey was compiled by Hoggan & Associates, a Vancouver-based public-relations firm that was researching Canadian attitudes toward the environment and sustainable development for a number of major corporations and other entities, including BC Hydro, Desjardins Group, Alcoa, and the David Suzuki Foundation. It is to be released next week”
Hoggan owner of the racist, delationist blog desmogblog that attacks any scientist whose work does not condone AGW… And already this week the same reporter kindly obliged with a plug on the Hoggan book…
A friend of mine recalled it! The poll was done in april by telephone. They started asking some unrelated questions and then little by little asked questions about AGW, BC Hydro etc… tricksters!
Re: RC’s “change of tack”. There is no change of tack. The release of emails gives them a good opportunity to pump the many “skeptic” red herrings that can be used to caricature the opposition. Most threads allow stupid or angry opposition posts for much the same reason. They also allow easy questions that they can easily answer such as in the current thread. They also allow their own partisans to post lies about how censorship-free their website is.
However they do not allow probing questions about the data and how it has been manipulated. That is the case with the current thread. Future threads will undoubtedly have the same or greater censorship as those processes are reverse engineered and pointed out using the zip file data. At that point it will be old news and they will have moved on.
Calling: Robert M. (14:15:43) :
I believe Tax Evasion might be added to your list!
I just spent the last hour over at Real Climate: the longest I’ve ever been able to bear it (thanks to allowing real diversity of comments for once). One thought that occurred to me while reading Gavin’s justification for keeping McIntyre from getting published is that if climate science had any credibility, they would allow even what they consider to be “poor” papers to be published. In every field a wide range of papers is published, or should be: let the other scientific readers decide if the science stands on its own merit. The Hockey Team, which seems to have controlled the publication process, seems to have really feared the light being shone on their methods by McIntyre. Their credibility is in tatters.
As an academic, I have graded my share of undergraduate papers. While still a grad student myself, I found myself perplexed by student papers which used complex language or arcane constructions which I could not follow. It took a couple of years, but I came to realize that if I could not understand what an undergrad was writing, it was not a good paper: the student was trying to pull a snow job. I always have the same sensation on the occasions when I try to make sense of Gavin’s arguments over at RC.
Allan M R MacRae (17:41:38) Not jail, Allan – sentenced to collect real climate measurements for the rest of their lives at solo manned weather stations in Siberia (my wife’s suggestion – far too lenient I think )
I want to thank Anthony and the moderators for keeping up with the posts today.
And I, especially, want to thank Steve McIntyre for his dogged work in forcing this issue. You can tell from the emails that his analysis has always scared the pants off these individuals. That is the biggest compliment one can get from these individuals.
Stacey (15:05:18) :
Roger Harrabin of the BBC writes
My contacts at the CRU tell me the e-mails are being taken out of context and insist they are part of the normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists working on some of the most complicated questions of our times
.and I posted yesterday that they would claim the e-mails were taken out of context as a defense. They took tree rings out of context also. Jazzed up proxies.
Michael Mann claims to be into math. We all know taking two points and creating a vector is not linear regression analysis. here is no hockey stick.
You can search and read the hacked email correspondence online over here:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
Thanks to the ones who put this up.
“Atomic Hairdryer (15:47:11) :
So AGW is man made. We knew this, didn’t we? Now the rest of the world knows which men made it.”
Now, that makes my hair curl…
I said this on CA, so I’m saying it here. The person who got this stuff got a lot more, 60Mb is just a couple of minutes download – heck a thumb drive is Gigabytes. He had to have root rights to get to email. If the person who did this is reading this – I salute you! – I hope you covered your trail, because I’m sure the search is on.
Note to James Hansen, secure your computers.
Do not relent. These frauds must be eviscerated. Show no mercy. Otherwise, they will rise like Mike Meyers in the Halloween series of horror flicks.
Continue to hammer away at them until their fraud has no voice.
We expect truth from our scientists. Anything but truth makes them political tools with cynical agendas.
Please let the adults take back real science (and government).
[To the moderators…great job with the volume today!]
Allan M R …..
No, they belong on a road crew in the American Southwest, during the summer, with picks and shovels making small rocks out of large ones. No shade, and only the water jug (warm) and a portapotty to prevent some lawsuit.
Mike
Comment from Dot.Earth
“If this crime actually has an effect on funding, for example, then I would encourage my fellow scientists to just abandon civil society to its own devices. If society can’t appreciate the vital role of science in addressing societal problems, if this is the kind of behavior scientists have to contend with, then I’d say it’s time to say to hell with society and let it suffer the consequences of ignorance.”
Don’t leave us!!! We need more fraudulent science of teh doomsday!
“Mann” Made and “Philtered” Climate Change…
Red meat
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=384
The masking is a ‘fix’ applied to the model
>simulations to adjust them to fit the surface data known to contain
>spurious trends. This is simple GIGO.
This searchable site is great.
searched – “deleted files”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php
Just plug in words of your choice (this one is “deleted files”) and all the CRU emails with them come up.
Excuse me, that was from the CRU e-mail
“The masking is a ‘fix’ applied to the model
simulations to adjust them to fit the surface data known to contain
spurious trends. This is simple GIGO”
Schadenfreude => ha ha ha ha!
Here’s a good one, about changing data, from 1257874826.txt
“One final thing – don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may be down to SST issues”
So now we know what the expression “the old hide the baloney trick” actually means
Thanks RC, Ive often wondered about this myself
the story is now published at Washington Post and NYT
Yeah!!!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html
Let loose the flood……
The NYTimes even has a link to the hacked emails at
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
(After 10 yrs of no warming), have the mainstream media become more willing to report the skeptic arguments?
Richard deSousa (17:16:04) :
“What is the correct solution to this scandal? If the institutes of higher learning are honest, they should fire all those who are involved. Jones, Mann etal. Wanna bet they keep their jobs? This makes these institutes co-conspirators.”
Yeah, that’s the real problem–the corruption of institutions. As one Washington journalist famously said, “the real scandal in Washington isn’t what’s done that’s illegal, it’s what’s done that’s legal.”
Gee these emails are a great how to;
How to deal with Steve McIntyre
How to deal with Japan
How to deal with risks that are too low
How to deal with the IPCC
How to work with WWF
http://www.twawki.wordpress.com
Of course, we’re entering the weekend news cycle…the only news to survive through Monday is likely to be the US Senate showdown on Reid Healthcare Bill. I hope I’m wrong and that this CRU story grows over the weekend.
Found this in 1252154659.txt
It is part of an e-mail advising trying to get concensus on answering Steve McIntyre challenges. I would say the author’s tone is concerned and borders on nervous/scared.
“From: Darrell Kaufman To: Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , David Schneider , Jonathan Overpeck , “Bette L. Otto-Bliesner” , Raymond Bradley , Miller Giff , Bo Vinther , Keith Briffa Subject: Arctic2k update? Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700 Cc: ”
…
“(4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. …”
Suspect much more unflattering comments exist in all these e-mails.
Jaypan,
Have any of the Japanese news agencies picked up on this massive fraud? The Japanese, in my view, could not fall for this climate nonsense… Or have they?
Mike Bryant
It’s a little more nuanced than that. The mainstream have started responding to the overwhelmingly sceptical comments they receive on their pro-agw articles. The scepticism has been growing for a year or more and reflects I think, public doubts about the science, but more so about the proposed policy responses.
Just wondering how many Soros dollars were circulated to the Journals and other organizations that danced to the music of these corrupt so-called climate scientists…
Mike
This one is good its all about the right message Michael Mann said “we don’t expect to in any way be critical of the paper.”
Peer Review at its finest.
“At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something
on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are
going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere.
Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature’s embargo
(i.e., we wouldn’t post any article until the paper goes public) and we don’t expect to
in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure
that the right message is emphasized.
thanks in advance for any help!
mike — Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)”
vigilantfish: “It took a couple of years, but I came to realize that if I could not understand what an undergrad was writing, it was not a good paper: the student was trying to pull a snow job. I always have the same sensation on the occasions when I try to make sense of Gavin’s arguments over at RC.”
Very prescient observations…and I agree about listening to Gavin. The word sophistry comes to mind….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Tom in Florida (17:59:02) :
“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.”
Tom, if the dendro data is filtered at 50 years the instrument data _must_ also be filtered at 50 years. Have fun. Did they?
Bill Illis (18:21:49) :
“I want to thank Anthony and the moderators for keeping up with the posts today. And I, especially, want to thank Steve McIntyre for his dogged work in forcing this issue. You can tell from the emails that his analysis has always scared the pants off these individuals. That is the biggest compliment one can get from these individuals.”
Ditto the thanks to Watts, mods, and McIntyre.
This is history watching long-held “institutional” lies unraveling before our very eyes.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
One purpose of the release of these files (if they were released with the knowledge of those whose material the files contain) could be a ‘clear the air’ exercise before Copenhagen.
Similarly, one of the reasons for the ‘fall of the Berlin Wall’ over at RC is that they know the release of these files will be steering a lot of new media attention their way and they want to give the ‘impression’ of openness and reasonability to the world’s eyes now and through Copenhagen.
An old Soviet trick.
. . . I should have said in my previous post that I had attempted to post the Alice in Wonderland analogy over at RC but apparently Gavin’s tolerance for being compared to Humpty Dumpty is low. Oh well.
Michael Mann: “We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized.”
The “right message”?? Huh??
What is he…a religious evangelist or a scientist??
I don’t care in WHAT context this was delivered, this is about as unscientific an innuendo as can possibly be made.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I have to wonder if the person who made the hacked data available learned something from Andrew Breitbart’s release of the ACORN videos. Put some out, wait for denials, then nail them with more proof.
Well in any case I can hope. 🙂
I have been so disturbed by argument from “the consensus of scientists” that I can’t help relishing this.
I have not had the time to read all the comments and I have to head to reserve duty early in the morning, so….
There is a way that this can get ignored and forgotten. The media and the government will focus on the theft of the data and ignore the content of the data. This happened several years ago when a Republican Senate staffer stumbled across memos and messages between Democrats in the US Senate and lobbyists for NGOs.
The content of these messages and memos was shocking because the NGOs were telling the Senators to delay or block the confirmation of certain appeals court judges for a few years so that lawsuits being brought by the NGOs would be more likely to be heard by judges appointed by Carter or Clinton. This was a criminal conspiracy…but it was ignored. Instead, there was an investigation about how the data was released. Eventually a Republican staffer was fired.
This only works if you are a Democrat. When some political activists intercepted cell phone conversations between Republican lawmakers and political strategists (and recorded them), the embarrassing information was spread everywhere. A Dem congressman even read it on the floor of the House of Representatives. I don’t think any criminal charges were pressed against the couple that intercepted and recorded the conversations. The congressman was investigated by the Ethics Committee and given a mild sanction.
So, there will be a big investigation about how the data was stolen and the content of the data will be forgotten. If the media plays its usual role, this approach may even work.
Why is CA still down? Is it under a DDoS attack? Something is fishy here. This is too much downtime for heavy traffic to be the cause.
I’ll give you another explanation for the sudden “largess” over at Real Climate in allowing more open comment: Gavin is getting ready to throw Phil Jones and Mad Mann under the bus. Going through the emails, there wasn’t much (that I saw) that implicated Gavin much in the way of shenanigans – little bit about about his censuring in RC that deviated from its original apparent intent, but little to actual point a finger at Gavin and yell “you too!”
Gavin has to deflect the criticism, quickly, that he censors debate, especially from “contrarians”, because its a massive theme in the email train, and for the moment, it his only significant exposure (running the blog on company time is an “internal” matter with his employer).
But by allowing the full wave of anger to vent from the skeptic side, especially as it pertains to the Team, he reinforces the distance between himself and Jones et al. He’s quite prepared to let them swing.
[quote]This one is good its all about the right message Michael Mann said “we don’t expect to in any way be critical of the paper.”
Peer Review at its finest.
[/quote]
Obviously you have as much knowledge of the peer review process as a monkey does of manufacturing computer hardware.
If they haven’t been asked to review the paper, and it has passed review and has been accepted for publication, their request is hardly out of line. This is especially true when the whack-jobs [snip] continue to disregard the science behind this. The climate is changing. The causes are unknown, but only an idiot would think that increasing global temperature during the longest solar minimum in a century are somehow *not* indicative of change.
Apparently, over at CRU, they have Greenpeace writing letters for them (872202064.txt):
From: “Wallace, Helen” To: “‘t.mcmichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'” , “‘m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'” Subject: Letter Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:21:04 +0100
Dear Tony and Michael,
The final draft of the letter to the Times is attached, incorperating your changes (I hope I have combined them in a way that you are both happy with).
Brian Hoskins and Adrian Jenkins have both decided that they prefer not to sign the letter, although agreeing with its message. I haven’t been able to contact anyone else in the short time available, so I leave it up to you to decide whether you are still both happy to go ahead.
If so, Mike could you please reply to both Tony and myself and let us know, and Tony could you then send it as agreed?
Thank you both very much for your time and trouble.
Best regards, Helen
Dr Helen Wallace Senior Scientist Greenpeace UK
Full email at: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=32
I have nothing to add, I just want to be at the party.
Oh, I have to add something? OK, this is my bit.
Forget “trick”, that’s ambiguous. Concentrate on “hide”. No legitimate academic exercise hides anything.
I’m still waiting on someone to talk about the ostensible subject of this post – “stagnating temperatures”. What the heck is that supposed to mean? Every 5 year period in the last 12 years has a positive rate of rise for global mean land temperature. That’s not a coincidence.
Tricky Dick must be rolling over in his grave!
To restate the importance of Jones’ trick:
The problem is not in calling a cool technique a ‘trick’.
The problem is in using a cool trick to cover up the truth.
Jones used his tech to hide the truth, and to mislead policy makers.
Gavin may be, to his credit, demonstrating that he, unlike his colleagues, has integrity.
Hugh – it’s our job to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Erik,
Who said anything about coincidence?
Even more, why is a 5 year period so important now to you?
Is there some astronomical import to a 5 year parcel of time?
And please do let the folks at Hadley know – they seem very concerned about the flat temps.
I bet people like Curt in this Mann scolding doesn’t like the treatment he got.
M Mann to Curt Covey
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=776
” I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior! ”
Mike Mann — Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
HEADS UP REMINDER
That link takes you to a searchable site where you can search the e-mails with any name or phrase.
Hugh,
You pegged it.
The NYT seems to be taking exactly this tactic.
Here they have the ability to do something they have not done in years – actually report the news- and they won’t because it is stolen. Not that the stolen CIA secrets they published about lawful programs, that directly put Americans in harms way gave them any problems.
The good news is that cap-n-tax seems to be dead, which means Copenhagen will only be a Christmas shopping trip.
Michael Mann explaining that scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem” reminds me of a former president of the University of Colorado explaing that at one time “cunt’ was used as a term of endearment.
It would seem that the “warmmongers” who are posting here are the sort of people who, when smacked along side the head with a wet mackerel, would complain that it wasn’t a trout. Dead fish smell alike, and there were significant crimes perpetuated at the CRU, and the criminals haven’t stopped since.
kudos to CHRIS S for including what is probably what is one of the greatest dialogues in moviedom.
a question—- did the temps NOT rise in 1998 ? why did the green worm not follow the temp curve. i’m afraid that i don’t understand what the problem is
I teach a 400-level undergraduate software engineering course in which case-studies of software bugs that cause havoc are used to illustrate various strategies for better software engineering practice. Nowhere in the textbook is there mention of software development for scientific modeling. I am now developing a lecture on that topic using this current information on tricky programming techniques coming out of CRU.
As an added bonus, I will also be integrating a classroom discussion on the ethics of hacking vs. tricking – do you think it is justified or not in this case? – etc., etc. – can’t wait to here the students’ responses.
I uploaded the emails from Hadley CRU to my site. Seems that the others were overloaded.
Here’s the link: http://thelaymanscorner.com/?p=1446
Incidentally, there are also documents.
questioner (20:28:03) :
Rather than resorting to personal attack you maybe like to enlighten me to why exactly Mann shouldn’t be critical of the paper in case he finds something he perhaps disagrees with.
“…Can it be that all this added data, information and knowledge has produced no more wisdom then the ancients had? Or have we fallen into the same trap they did? We think we know, or believe we know, what in fact we do not. Is it that we have failed to see the difference between Mythos and Logos, between fact and fantasy?” (from one of my unpublished essays)
I can not say I am surprised but I am more than sad.
@TerryBixler:
I’m guessing you didn’t see the recent video of Senator Inhofe telling Senator Boxer:
“We won, it’s over, get a life!” (That was BEFORE these files were leaked!)
Sweet! On to Victory!
I’m very pleased to be able to report that the Cleveland local Enviro/Alarmist newspaper writer has just written a piece about his continually getting drowned in Skeptic (and some separate abusive) comments to his articles.
Unfortunately, the Alarmists are entrenched here, too. The piece also concerns a local/national noted environmentalist who has it out for “Deniers”.
This article http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/climate_skeptics_meet_james_po.html is a reminder of the importance this CRU Hack can play in addressing the many well established alarmist followers throughout the world, and in our backyards. This guy James Powell has national recognition and
just landed a $100 Mil Stimulus award for a “Green” Oberlin College project and also lectures to kids. He’s done some very good work, it seems, but unfortunately took up the AGW cause with a vengeance, too:
Environment, Real Time News, Science »
Meet James Powell, a geologist who says climate skeptics are being duped
By Michael Scott
November 20, 2009, 5:14AM
“Powell claims the ‘denier movement’ actually began around 1992 — the year in which he said media more often began quoting politicians rather than scientists in their climate coverage. He said that’s when large corporations began to pour money into conservative think tanks — which he calls ‘skeptic tanks.’
Powell said his lecture topic, “Skeptic Tanks: How Global Warming Deniers Dupe America,” forms the foundation of his next book, which has yet to be published.
He also offered a wager to skeptics that the earth is still warming despite a slight downward trend in recent years.
“I’ll bet any of them that five years from now our global temperatures will be higher than they’ve been,” he said. “If that’s not true, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with the science and our understanding of it.”
Obviously, no quarter will be ever be given skeptics/realists. Join in, if you like.
Just found this chestnut:
Friday, November 20, 2009
Briffa on problems with tree-ometers
Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:57:09 +0000
From: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones
…
…The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their sensitivity to
temperature variations.
…The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might
vary on longer timescales.
…
This is also related to the “strip bark” problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree’s structure .
…
At this point , it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is ,
at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation.
hunter (20:47:29) :
Would the NY Times turn down the Watergate tapes if 1974 were today?
Not even. Politically correct only gets you so far as the smell of scandal in the wind. Journalists these days may be on a veggie diet, but give them a taste of blood, and the wolf comes to the surface.
I’ll give the NY Times a bit of room here to expand coverage. Implications on the face of it says that there are more fish to fry in other high places.
This scandal has exposed the BBC environment and science departments complicity and it will be very interesting to watch the BBC squirm.
The insider trading and dealing in ‘fixed’ data and conclusions and the overly cosy relationship between a state broadcaster and a group of scientists may well have major ramifications for the BBC, do they disown their own reporters now or do the BBC hang on and suffer contamination by association?
It seems that Black/Harrabin/Shukman have some explaining to do, its a question of who will be thrown to the wolves, there is no honour among thieves and it will be interesting to see who disowns who.
From Nov. 21’s New York Times article:
“Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.
The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”
IOW “Nothing to see here, folks; move along.”
Unfortunately for the Times there’s this Interwebs thingy to let a broad swath of the public see for themselves the chicanery here. The story is on Drudge and Fox News, and Limbaugh’s already referred to it. The media moonbats will have a very hard time ignoring it—even if the NYT pooh-poohs the revelations.
You can bet that Sen Imhofe will be stuffing the emails down Barbara Boxer’s throat.
[i]test[/i] test
[quote]test[/quote] test
Off Topic Here, but I could use a little assistance on this one. Since the start of ClimateGate today, I have been discussing back and forth with my RC-Koolaid drinking father. He is pulling all kinds of straw-men out of his hat. The latest I post here with a question to you all for a little assistance with what he writes. I did my best in my first response to him, but I have limited knowledge of some of the statements he makes. Anyone willing to give a hand here?
Excerpt:
I just watched this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk&feature=player_embedded
Did Mr. Watts really try to have YouTube remove it?
Has Mr. Watts really appeared on Glen Beck’s show?
Was his study of US weather stations really published by the Heartland Institute?
Is it true that the 70 stations given high marks by Mr. Watts still replicate the overall network results?
Have you read this NOAA response to Mr. Watts book?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
TattyMane (19:56:02) :
“. . . I should have said in my previous post that I had attempted to post the Alice in Wonderland analogy over at RC but apparently Gavin’s tolerance for being compared to Humpty Dumpty is low. Oh well.”
Nominated for post of the day.
This will no doubt this post will get lost in all the excellent posts above and still to come.
It seems to me that the Editors of Science, Nature and other journals that dabble in climate matters are in this up to their eyeballs and have been a part of and totally complicit in perpetrating this entire scam on the world of science, the public and the political systems of every western nation.
Had these editors stuck to their supposed policies of requiring complete documentation and archiving of every aspect pertaining to every paper presented by the HADCRU / GISS Team so that papers were totally open to scrutiny by all comers and could be checked and verified in an open forum then this situation would probably never had arisen as the Team would have had to come clean with the presentation of their papers for publication.
The editors of those so called prestigious science journals did not enforce their policies if they ever had any, and it now seems that they were also quite open to overt manipulation by members of the Team.
If the science journals wish to retain credibility and they alone are totally responsible for publishing the now discredited papers without any real checks, then the the Editorial and Governing boards of those journals should immediately take vigorous action to remove the offending and complicit editors and completely revamp and rigidly enforce their editorial policies on requiring full declarations and archiving of ALL relevant materials pertaining to a paper.
No action by these science journals just means that this scam will just be repeated again and again and in the long run, the tax paying public’s trust in the integrity of science will be drastically eroded and the discipline of science will suffer an unjustifiable collapse in the public’s regard for it’s high status.
Please note this one:
Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David
Disagreement between
Benjamin D. Santer & John Christy
Benny is pissed at John
Seems John doesn’t drink the Kool Aid
1248993704.txt
i have been over to RC and, whilst it was more open than normal, the faithful were hyperventilating. (Even the cheering news of the death of John Daly was reinterpreted
and the critical comments claimed to be evidence of denialist evil).*
I am however, convinced, that we must maintain our courtesy to those who come here with courtesy. We may have a vast number of confused visitors here over the next few days.
Remember, we were all like them once. (At least I was).
Also honesty is always the best policy.
* Look, I can’t explain this either – go there and check it out.
‘The spin doctors
Of climatology
will deny any bias
In their tricky methadology.’
Thanks to Steve Mc., Anthony , Jeff, Finn, et al for your dogged pursuit for real data. Time to put on my fire works display.
Robert M. (14:15:43) :
So,
What we have here is evidence that the team has engaged in:
1. Conspiracy
2. Government Fraud
3. Computer Fraud
4. Obstruction of Justice
5. Environmental Law Violations (Falsifying lab data pertaining to environmental regulations) (snicker)
6. Suppression of evidence
7. Tampering with evidence
8. Public Corruption
9. Bribery
Does that cover it?
Well i would add a nice Organized crime to this…say RICO?
IANAL but it seems to me that Mr. Mann and Al Gore are quite possibily guilty of conspiring to defraud governments of hundreds of billions of dollars.
I keep hearing the AGW proponents saying these documents were stolen, illegal, etc. They want to fully prosecute, etc. Huh?
WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE ILLEGAL OR STOLEN. FOR ALL WE KNOW THEY WERE POSTED by one of the people listed in the email completely legally, I think Dr. Jones posted it for example because in a sudden attack of guilt – he turned – and is to embarrassed to tell his friends and thus refuses to acknowledge that he actually did it and thus hides his identity by posting in Russia. Until I know who the poster is and how the docs were obtained I assumed they are legal and the person or person(s) posting them wants to conceal there identity and is probably someone in the emails and responsible for the data and wants us to know the truth. Thank You Dr. Jones.
What will gordon brown do now?.He was relying on green taxes to get the uk deficit down.I’m raising your taxes due to government incompetence doesn’t sound good does it?
“…..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….”
———————————————————
The RC interpretation:
…. Well we used the word “Trick” to cover up the fact that we misrepresented a graph which is “fraud”, but we sorted all that out by redefining “Trick” to mean “Science” and fixed the “fraud” by using our “Science” to get Funding…..
You know it makes sense……:-)
“… 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.”
———————————————————–
…..and one way a person could construe RC’s excuses for this strange graphing “trick”.
…. Well they used the word “Trick” to cover up the fact that they misrepresented a graph which is “fraud”, but sorted all that out by redefining “Trick” to mean “Science” and fixed the “fraud” by using the “Science” to get Funding…..
You know it makes sense…..;-)
ref 1258053464.txt
This is one I like…. read what Mann says in the post script
At 17:07 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
Thanks–we know that. The point is simply that if we want to talk about about a meaningful “2009” anomaly, every additional month that is available from which to calculate an annual mean makes the number more credible. We already have this for GISTEMP, but have been awaiting HadCRU to be able to do a more decisive update of the status of the disingenuous “globe is cooling” contrarian talking point,
mike
p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like
It’s quite obvious from the emails and the posts at RC that there really is only one ‘team’. Don’t they understand that you don’t get to be your own judge and jury in this world?
Dear Anthony,
Pretty please retitle “Tips and Notes to WUWT” on upper right of blog to “Tips and Tricks to WUWT”.
Working on the hockey stick:
And reading all of these blog entries (both here and on Real Climate and a few other places) there seems to be some confusion about what is acceptable conduct in science…… So I’d like to remind everybody of a quote from Carl Sagan…
“The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common place in politics or religion…. but it is not the way to knowledge… and there is no place for it in the endeavour of science”
That to me is the fundamental issue…. are these guys trying to suppress uncomfortable ideas?
I think they are and therefore, in my mind, they are not behaving as scientists.
As for whether or not they have committed offences under the law, these are matters that I would love to see tested in a court of law.
We need to focus on fundementals. Apart from the odd troll, everyone here will, for some time, have had a pretty good idea whether Phil Jones or Richard Lindzen is a more credible scientist. Or indeed whether or not RC is more reliable than CA or WUWT.
The important thing to focus on is the fact that the ‘scientific consensus’ is being used to support (ostensibly) a move from a ‘High Carbon’ to a ‘Low Carbon’ economy. And to do this as a matter of NOW, with great urgency, irrespective of how ‘robust’ the science is.
In fact there are some fairly good arguments in researching and in implementing ‘Low Carbon’ energy production when mature and commercially attractive alternatives (without ginormous subsidies) to burning fossil fuels become available.
But, in my book, the worst sin of Jones, Mann and the rest is that they have deliberately panicked the politicians and the media into the belief that this must be done NOW in order to save the planet. Mainly motivated by arrogance and the desire to keep their comfortable, very well paid jobs, lavish research funding, index linked pensions. And, of course the all expenses paid jollies to Tahiti.
Cooler heads in industry and finance – and some more intelligent politicians – may realise this but see enormous potential profits from the carbon trading scam. That and the chance to fulfil their ambition to set up an eco-fascist superstate, a glorified version of the EU, where the ‘Political Elite’ will be able to control the lives of all the rest of us, accountable to nobody.
In that sense, whilst Briffa, Jones and the rest think perhaps that Gordon Brown is just a pawn in their AGW game, the reality is that the ‘Team’ are actually pawns in a much bigger game.
And this game will cause incalculable damage to the real economy, plunge hundreds of thousands even deeper into fuel poverty and destroy hope for millions in the Third World who could be provided with clean water, affordable and reliable energy, education and health (and, eventually, good governance?) for a fraction of what is being proposed to ‘save the planet’.
I wish I believed, as many commentators do, that this hack (if it was a hack) will make much difference. I wish I believed that Jones would get his ass kicked, even behind closed doors. I wish they would be punished for their blatant & barefaced violations of FOI laws. But I doubt it will happen.
The powers that be are far more interested in closing ranks.
>>Here it is at the New York Times:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?ref=science
Ouch. It does not look good for the AGW industry at all. The trouble with losing credibility, is that former friends start leaving in droves. Politicians, who were SO friendly yesterday, will not wish to shake hands with a pending legal case. Better stay on the sidelines until it all blows over.
Mr Mann and Hadcrut might find themselves rather lonely for the next months or two. It does not bode well for a good conference at Copenhagen.
.
I like this exchange – how to combat criticism from ‘deniers’.
Tim, Phil, Keef:
Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by “for”and “against” global warming proponents. However, if an “independent group” such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an “audit”, and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.
If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of control…..
Ray
Ray et al
… this whole process represents the most despicable example of slander and down right deliberate perversion of the scientific process , and bias (unverified) work being used to influence public perception and due political process. It is, however, essential that you (we) do not get caught up in the frenzy that these people are trying to generate, and that will more than likely lead to error on our part or some premature remarks that we might regret.
Keith
Guys,
So the verification RE for the “censored” NH mean reconstruction? -6.64
I think the case is really strong now!
What if were to eliminate the discussion of all the other technical details, and state more nicely that these series were effectively censored by their substitutions, and that by removing those series which they censored, I get a similar result, with a dismal RE.
Thoughts, comments? Thanks,
mike
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=380
Endquote:
.
More like politics than science.
And lots of the newer emails are defending themselves against WUWT and CA. It just goes to show how much pressure these sites have put these people under.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1022&filename=1254230232.txt
.
Mike’s Nature is to Trick.
Quote:
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1045&filename=1255100876.txt
How very scientific (Michaels is a skeptic.)
.
Bernie Madoff wanted to hide a decline too.
He also got away with it for years.
Quote:
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden. I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1039&filename=1254756944.txt
Indeed he does.
As an aside, this looks like leaked data rather than a hack. A great deal of the information is very specific to McIntyre and WUWT, which shows an interest in the various debates about withholding data and Yamal trees. Unless, of course, the emails we have been given have been selected to include this very topic.
.
And I see that all this research is not science, but a CAUSE !! AGW was and is a purely political CAUSE, just as I always thought.
Quote:
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=35&filename=876437553.txt
.
Er, these emails were stolen. Why are you displaying and distributing stolen goods?
In an undisclosed location, under HOT lights and with smoke and mirrors, an interrogation: “I have no recollection of the murder 10 years ago [of climate science] and have no idea what I meant when I pulled the trigger”.
Alleged CRU Emails – 1051202354.txt
Can you believe the arrogance of this Mann.
The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research >>>(vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it >>>should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he >>>responded saying ….. >>> >>>The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three >>>referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be >>>published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person >>>to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other >>>referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for >>>publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual. >>> >>>On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who >>>advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in >>>the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to. >>> >>>It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper — >>>deFreitas has offered us this possibility. >>> >>>______________________________ >>> >>>This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that >>>deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the >>>skeptics camp.
Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly >>>giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad >>>hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this. >>> >>>If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing >>>to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself. >>> >>>In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply >>>disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ >>>PhD is at the same level). >>> >>>______________________________ >>> >>>Best wishes to all, >>>Tom. >> >>______________________________________________________________ >> Professor Michael E. Mann >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall >> University of Virginia >> Charlottesville, VA 22903
“Climate scientists accused of ‘manipulating global warming data'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html
“One email seized upon by sceptics as supposed evidence of this, refers to a “trick” being employed to massage temperature statistics to “hide the decline”.”
ralph (02:17:16) :
>>Here it is at the New York Times:
Nice to see it’s not hidden away, go to home page find science and it’s the top story
http://www.nytimes.com/
Bhanwara,
The question of how they came to the public has not, in fact been established.
The people who are outed by them claim they were stolen.
But even if they were stolen, they were dumped into the public square, and so are in the public domain. That means that those who did not allegedly steal them are free to use them.
But on a personal note, is it not a bit pitiful that your only interest in the e-mails is that they were allegedly stolen?
SandyInDerby (16:26:27) :
How to flatter the BBC and get a reporter fired:
1111085657.txt
At 12:48 17/03/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
Yes, BBC has been disappointing in the way they’ve dealt with this–almost seems to be a contrarian element there.
Do you remember the name of the reporter you spoke to?
Thanks,
Mike
………………………
It’s so convenirnt having all the emails unzipped in a file. You can search so fast. Try searching “splice” to see if you agree with the RealClimate assertion that the team would NEVER splice two different data sets together. There’s more than one.
Then search WWF to see how money seems to be transferred for favors with the IPCC. Search Greenpeace for special pleading.
Try 1051230500 or search “referee” to see how referrees were eliminated or added to enhance the chance of team publication; then devise a search to look at how the souls of managers/owners of a journal were bought; then have a look at how papers submitted too late for inclusion in the IPCC were “rebadged” as Steve reported long ago. It’s all in there.
What gets boring is the repetition upon repition of the same band of merry men. One of the women was not so merry. Try Sarah Roper at 0932773964.txt for language unbefitting of a lady (bully).
Bhanwara (04:05:04) :
> Er, these emails were stolen. Why are you displaying and distributing stolen goods?
What evidence do you have that the emails were stolen?
If the person who originally released the emails and documents had accessed rights to them then all of these documents have simply been “leaked” and not stolen.
There is long history of MSM reporting on leaked documents, in fact in the UK, one of the major stories this year has been about the leaked MP’s expenses. There has been no outcry or call for the “leaker” to be brought to justice because the contents of the leak was so extraordinary.
Until evidence surfaces to the contrary I am going to assume that who ever posted this collection of emails and documents had a legal right to them and therefore did not steal them.
Bhanwara (04:05:04) :
Er, these emails were stolen. Why are you displaying and distributing stolen goods?
Er, why do you care? Er, now go back to your, er, troll cave.
“Bhanwara (04:05:04) :
Er, these emails were stolen. Why are you displaying and distributing stolen goods?”
Does publically funded mean anything to you? Stolen, my adz!
it would be interesting to know what the CRU people search the emails for….
Mark T (16:59:32) :
Um, no, you misunderstand the divergence problem. I shall explain…
The tree-rings are being used, after a sort of weighted average, to determine temperature. The divergence problem is simply the fact that post 1960 or so, many of the tree-rings no longer correlate well to temperature.
++++
I’m under the impression “no longer correlate well to temperature” means they no longer show the increased growth rates they’d expect from increased temperature. If that’s true for a warmer last quarter of the 20th century, why wouldn’t it also be true for a warmer WMP? At least, if warmth beyond a certain point is what is actually causing the issue. Because if it is, it seems likely to me that the WMP is undersized in the dendro record as well for the same reason.
But, as I said in a post a little further upstream, I’m not a fan of the dendros until they really *know* what causes the divergence problem and then additionally can convincingly display where else in the pre-instrumental record such conditions existed and correct their reconstructions for it in those eras and locales as well.
Not that “the divergence problem” is the only mountain the dendros have to climb, as Steve McI has convincingly shown time and again.
From: Phil Jones To: mann@… Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005 Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
…
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 !
Bhanwara (04:05:04) :
Er, these emails were stolen. Why are you displaying and distributing stolen goods?
———-
Looks like the team has decided on how to respond to this development.
Stolen? Hahahaha.
I think you’ll find that COPIED is the correct terminology.
In fact; if anyone concerned were to accidentally lose any of it, they now have many convenient online backups at their disposal.
The Washington Post article was written with total sympathy for the comments of Mann and the other culprits in this episode. The NYT & Boston Herald were far more critical. I don’t think Andrew Revkin appreciated public emails that associate him with scientists who lack integrity.
Thanks for mirroring this. I’ve added your link to my post about this matter.
Am I right about the following?
“Mike’s Nature trick” entails the following theoretical proposition:
– Smoothing/padding the proxy data with instrumental records is equivalent to smoothing/padding it with the proxy data which will become available in the future.
We are now 11 years out from the padding/smoothing trick that produced the WMO graphs.
To test the theory “Mike’s Nature trick” is based on:
the proxy record must be made current (updated to 2009);
the application of the instrumental record should be shifted forward by a corresponding number of years;
new graphs should be generated;
and they should exactly match the 1998 graphs.
A failure to match would be dispositive.
And furthermore, without experimental verification why should any scientist consider “Mike’s Nature trick” valid?
Squidly (22:18:31)
Did Mr. Watts really try to have YouTube remove it?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/
Has Mr. Watts really appeared on Glen Beck’s show?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/06/my-glenn-beck-interview/
Martin Brumby (02:13:35) :
You mention urgency. We have a tight economy It is always tight in at least a few ways. Urgency is a closing tool. When a scientist closes the deal and tries to get funding, they don’t want to await a verdict in 2 years and funding in 3. Too many distractions cause deal breakers. We have to “act now because 30 days may be too late” is a used car selling technique. From this past week forward, the closing cycle for funding research that is tied to warming and planet issues will slow way down. My friends in corporate budget roles are making 2010 budget meetings this month and early December. They sure don’t want to be embarrassed with inniatives that are clouded with scepticism. If a crank like Man walks into dupont, Monsanto, Pfizer akso or another biogenetics or related firm, they will stall on funding weather research and forcasting. Trust me, they want very much to develop seeds that are drought resistant and pest resistant. But they can’t trust these voodoo scientists any more.
Folks, there will be no jail time Not a criminal case.
There won’t be criminal charges for violating FOIA laws. Maybe a reprimand or demotion
Mann and a host of other names will be treated like they have a disease when they drag in a proposal seeking funding for research. They will not be told no. They will just get a run around. James Hansen speaking invitations will dry up.
McIntyre has the case. He was denied freedom of information access and there are several e-mails bragging about interference.
The punishment is the free flow of funding will drop drastically. and it should. Dirty research methods hurt everyone.
“The days of media mind control over the general population are long gone.”
I’ll believe that when people stop voting republican or democrat, or labour or conservative.
There are still a sizeable number of heavily conditioned people out there who the thought of questioning what they see on the BBC/CNN/NBC/CBS etc. never even enters their minds.
They still believe that we live in a democracy in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Our leaders are selected, not elected. The people are given a choice between globalist agenda supporting puppets.
People are waking up to the lies and misinformation, but nowhere near quickly enough.
http://drop.io/climatezip#
another location to download from
They want to use climate in order to regulate our lives. California passed a regulation last week that limits our choice of large screen TVs in order to “conserve energy”. If a single modern nuclear plant were built, more energy would be generated that this regulation would save. Electricity would be cheaper. Build six of them and electricity costs in California would plummet. But they create a climate crisis and an artificial energy “shortage” by refusing to build generation and blocking access to local energy resources and use that as an excuse to regulate the living daylights out of our lives.
These “climate scientists” would have been in an extremely powerful position for those wishing to manage practically every aspect of our lives as the ADAM draft pdf shows.
I have a different idea.
Well it’s on MSN at last.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149/ns/us_news-washington_post/
There is far too much damning evidence for this one to be swept under the carpet and once public opinion really gets into gear the AGW scam and the attempt to force world government on is toast.
What’s been proved to be going on at UEA is just the tip of the ice-berg. I’m sure lots more insider info will be coming soon.
“trick” semantics. Isn’t this like “That depends on what your definition of is,..is.”
Well it’s on MSN at last.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149/ns/us_news-washington_post/
There is far too much damning evidence for this one to be swept under the carpet and once public opinion really gets into gear the AGW scam and the attempt to force world government on us is toast.
What’s been proved to be going on at UEA is just the tip of the ice-berg. I’m sure lots more insider info will be coming soon.
Well it’s on MSN at last.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149/ns/us_news-washington_post/
There is far too much damning evidence for this one to be swept under the carpet and once public opinion really gets into gear the AGW scam and the attempt to force world government on us is toast. A tipping point has been reached in the AGW debate.
What’s been proved to be going on at UEA is just the tip of the ice-berg. I’m sure lots more insider info will be coming soon.
Where the real danger for the Alarmists lie is in the documents that were presented to Congress to debate the various issues at hand (ex. the now infamous Inhofe Hearings). As Barry Bonds and Clemens are now finding out, those hearings are not friendly get-togethers. If the information Mann et al presented to InHofe’s Committee contained fraudulent information, and if grant requests contained fraudulant information, those people can be indicted.
Anthony:
Sorry:
I can not.
Write a comment.
Without breaking the law somewhere on the planet.
Regrettable.
An inconvenient trick…
Dr. Jones himself described Mann’s Nature trick as hiding ‘uncooperative’ proxy data. Gavin cites Nature as proof that Mann did not hide them. Gavin is in a tricky position indeed.
These revelations will not be universally happy for all the good guys, as the producer & director of “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” at substantial expense will now be compelled to rename their movie to “Mendacious, Malevolent & Wrong.”
Has this one been spotted yet?
“I’m sure some people will use CRU TS 3.0 to look at 2003 in Europe so we
need to be happy with the version we release.”
Cherry picking, no doubt about it
Original Filename: 1252090220.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ian Harris
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Hopefully fixed TMP
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:50:20 +0100
Hi Tim
I’ve re-run with the same database used for the previous 2006 run
(tmp.0705101334.dtb).
/cru/cruts/version_3_0/update_top/gridded_finals/data/data.0909041051/
tmp/cru_ts_3_00.1901.2008.tmp.dat.nc.gz
Is that any better? If not please can you send the traditional multi-
page country plots for me to pore over?
Cheers
Harry
On 3 Sep 2009, at 17:04, Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Harry and Phil,
>
> the mean level of the “updated-to-2008” CRU TS 3.0 now looks good,
> matching closely with the 1xxx xxxx xxxxmeans of the earlier CRU TS 3.0
> and
> CRU TS 2.1.
>
> Please see the attached PDF of country mean time series, comparing
> last-year’s CRU TS 3.0 (black, up to 2005) with the most-recent CRU
> TS 3.0
> (pink, up to 2008).
>
> Latest version matches last-year’s version well for the most part, and
> where differences do occur I can’t say that the new version is any
> worse
> than last-year’s version (some may be better).
>
> One exception is the hot JJA in Europe in 2003. This is less
> extreme in
> the latest version. See attached PNG for a blow-up of France in JJA.
>
> I’m sure some people will use CRU TS 3.0 to look at 2003 in Europe,
> so we
> need to be happy with the version we release.
>
> Perhaps some hot stations have been dropped as outliers (more than 3
> standard deviations from the mean?)?
>
> But I’m not sure if that is the reason, since outlier checking was
> already
> used in last-year’s version, wasn’t it?
>
> Does the outlier checking always check +-3 SD from xxx xxxx xxxxmean (or
> normal),
> or does it check +-3 SD from the local mean (30-years centred on the
> value) which would allow for a gradual warming in both mean and
> outlier
> threshold?
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
Just two thoughts on this: First, since the official statements all have to do with “theft” or “unauthorized release”, etc., that strikes me as a strong indication that the material is real. If it was fabricated, they would be making noise about that. And, as many court cases have shown, it’s very hard to get rid of e-mails completely.
Second, just imagine internal e-mails from a drug company talking about using a “trick” to “hide” some aspect of the data from a clinical trial of a new drug. There is no connotation in which that would not be viewed as evidence that data were being falsified. It’s the stuff of an attorney’s dreams.
Claude Harvey,
As a skeptic, I have been called ‘paranoid’ and much worse for wondering if the coordination of the AGW promoters was not coincidental.
To find out that many of those who have been calling names the loudest have in fact been coordinating the massaging of data, the suppression of counter evidence, the destruction of fellow scientists, the corruption of the peer review process, the falsification of the IPCC, the misleading of governments, the avoidance of legal requests to release data, etc. etc. etc., is a bit shocking.
The question that comes to mind is this: are you OK with having world climate policy controlled by the claims these guys make?
Gordon (10:05:05)
You beat me to the punch. But then, great minds usually travel on the same paths.
If I am reading some of these emails correctly, it seems like Mann may have lied to congress during his 1999 testimony especially when you look at this trick in the context of trying to persuade congress.
Go ahead Gavin, throw him under the bus. Oh yeah, it’s all taken out of context.
btw, i just tried to post this over on RC, got deleted 🙁
We shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Someone who illegally obtains files or who would distribute illegally obtained files would probably not have any scruples about misconstruing them for political purposes. Discrediting science may serve short terms goals for some but it could end up a disaster in the long run. My father taught me several math “tricks” for doing calculations and finding errors. A trick in that sense means something different than trying to trick someone.
I’ve always used NASA’s data which is based on measurements back to about 1880. The tree ring data was used to try to estimate temperatures back past measured values. There is a “decline” in fossil “data” as you near the present – for obvious reasons. The measured values were apparently “added” to the graph – but not to other numbers – to bring the graph up to the present. Who really knows what Mann was referring to – except Mann himself? I’m sure there are many who will not listen to or accept even a reasonable explanation from him.
Mann “However, their theft constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”
I hope ‘the Mann’ realises that the prosecutor and police might be coming for him and his workmates also. (Obtaining public funds by deception/fraud). The UK MPs were ‘flogged’ for exagerating their expenses. These guys, IMHO, did the same thing or worse.
Jimbo
Henry chance (08:20:09) :
Criminality? Try copyright.
1237496573.txt
Part quote:
“With many papers, we’re using Met Office observations. We’ve abstracted these from BADC to use them in papers. We’re not allowed to make these available to others. We’d need to get Met Office’s permission in all cases”.
We can’t stop in our fight on the cap and tax, it is not dead yet as long as they can bribe /get 60 senators to vote for something like the healthcare debacle when polls are showing most in the US are against the so called bills. Enough bribes from Harry, Nancy and Soros, they could still pass cap and tax.
I’m sorry, but unless there’s a bevy of printed correspondance out there in the scientific community – preferrably among these folks in particular – referring to “trick” as if it is a standard terminology for a benign procedure, it’s pretty impossible to defend it’s use as such.
What’s up with that? Is this the smoking gun? trend_profiles_dogs_dinner.png?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2391795/posts?page=18
Chart shows no Human Induced Global Warming, shows Global Cooling?
hunter (05:08:12) :
Bhanwara,
The question of how they came to the public has not, in fact been established.
The people who are outed by them claim they were stolen.
Well, even if made public against the will of the writers, that’s a long way from “stolen”. Just one hypothetical: A systems admin (or even an authorized contractor) goes through orientation and is told “At any time email may be subject to FOIA or other publication. It is not your private communications.” Said person is AUTHORIZED to work on the machine, and sees evidence of what they believe is an immoral and perhaps illegal deception.
Since vandalism for the greater good is now allowed by precedent under UK Law this authorized person may take the data they are authorized to access and make it public for the greater good.
The only action that I see to be brought against them would be by their employer for violation of some corporate policy or other. (Though even that might well be set aside “for the greater good” as evidenced by Hansen still being employed after being arrested in violation of NASA ethics guidelines…)
Petard, meet hoist…
But even if they were stolen, they were dumped into the public square, and so are in the public domain. That means that those who did not allegedly steal them are free to use them.
In fact, since the FOIA training ought to have included warnings about “no expectation of privacy” there are likely lots of documents disclaiming any “private” nature to the email record. Good luck trying to assert an expectation of non-publication with training documents floating around declaring the expectation of future publication…
But on a personal note, is it not a bit pitiful that your only interest in the e-mails is that they were allegedly stolen?
Not only that, but an incredible naivete about the fact that email is a substantially permanent and frequently public record…
BY LAW in the USA you must keep it for between 5 and 7 years (varies a bit by type of company) and maybe longer. That is the legal minium. It must be made available for “Discovery”. It must be made available to any lawmaking body (may require subpoena). It must be made available to law enforcement (again, usually with a subpoena, or management approval). It is almost universally available to the “line management” above any given person. It is available to all the geeks who work on the box (subject to sufficient ‘rights’) and the systems admin may be REQUIRED to search email for particular types of communications (i.e. H.R. can request “harassment” language searches ) and corporate security operations can request full transcripts of anything. Oh, and legal gets to read anything they find interesting too… And more…
So once again: Good Luck demonstrating that a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ exists… And if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy …
And folks wonder why I’m not keen on using email…
It is NOT subject to the same privacy expectations as paper mail… nor the same access restrictions. It IS substantially an open book.
I’ve been the Director of I.T. at companies. I’ve reported to the V.P. of Legal. I’ve done the email dumps, and providing. I’ve been through the SARBOX legal training. I’ve worked in the security department of financial firms and I’ve been through the FBI checks for same. And I’ve even been the email admin personally. If you don’t think the “staff” can wander through your email (and is often required to do so…) then you have no clue. None.
The only reasonable assumption when writing an email is that it will be on the front page of the local newspaper AND enshrined in Google FOREVER.
It is interesting to watch the back&forth on this one.
Were the emails stolen? There is no evidence of theft, only the presumption
and statement of theft by Mann et al. The emails could have been leaked.
Or the emails could have been released to a party that had a successful
FOIA request, and that party could have put the on the Russian server.
Were the contents even capable of being stolen? The emails and documents
all appear to be non-privileged communication between public servants.
The data is PUBLIC and should have a zero, or near-zero access cost.
As such, this sort of data cannot be stolen. What appears to have happened is the active interference with FOIA requests has side-stepped.
The emails appear to show a conspiracy to defeat FOIA requests. That
conspiracy alone is a crime, regardless of other fraud and conspiracy
crimes committed earlier.
Prepare your mind and consider the “Brogan Case” implications. Any
false communication directed to a US Federal official, in written or
oral form, under oath or not, is a straight felony. (In the sense that
is is not a “wobbler”, it cannot be plead to a misdemeanor.) Anybody
in the AGW liar camp that testified before congress, or even wrote a
note and sent it to a congressional staffer, where there was intent to
deceive, has committed a felony.
It was Brogan prosecution that put Scooter Libby and Martha Stuart in
jail. There was no underlying crime, but lying to investigators checking
for a possible crime, was a crime.
For the motivated Federal prosecutor, there is a lot to work on.
Jimbo (16:14:38) : “Mann: “However, their theft constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.” ”
Is this from the same man that had no problem helping to defend vandals in England because he blieved their cause was just?
I’m wondering if declineseries.pdf shows the divergence between dendro and surface temp data?
All Your Emails Are Belong To Us
crosspatch (09:17:47) :
‘But they create a climate crisis and an artificial energy “shortage” by refusing to build generation and blocking access to local energy resources and use that as an excuse to regulate the living daylights out of our lives.’
Heck of a business model isn’t it’?
So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).
So… the thermometers are lying?
Shurley knot,
No, to him, the trees were lying. He needed a surrogate because the trees didn’t cooperate. He used poor judgement, cherry picked from another data base, used whatever data he could find to support his conclusion, he lied. Its your choice. But its OK, he was on a mission to save the planet.
If a few cases, the thermometers actually were lying. The temperatures at the Tucson Airport were measured for a few years with sensors that were later shown to be biased to high temperatures. This explained why so many record high temperatures were recorded during the time those sensors were used. Note that the data has not been removed from the record, despite the fact that everybody acknowledges the problem.
In more cases there are local micro-climate and Urban Heat Island effects that affect the temperature readings. This web site has links to the weather station site surveys at Surfacestations trying to determine how bad the micro-climate effects are. My personal favorite was the official weather station surrounded by 23 window air conditioners, but there are also ones near barbeque grills and on tarmac and occasionally in the exhaust of commercial airliners.
The AGW advocates have been arguing for years that these effects either are negligible or have been properly corrected, with Phil Jones one of the strongest voices on the irrelevance of the UHI effect. Note that some of the emails are from Jones, acknowledging that one of his papers on UHI is affected by fraud by his coauthor.
CRU has also hidden the algorithms it uses to take temperature histories from weather stations and generates its gridded temperature anomaly data series. There is no way to know how the temperature data has been adjusted, manipulated, or mangled before it confessed.
The Register’s take on this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/cru_climate_hack/
“It does not bode well for a good conference at Copenhagen.”
Let them crack open a Carlsberg and bawl in their beer.
Here’s a great quote from the latest NYT article:
“‘This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,’ said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist …”
By the way, here is a suggested name for this scandal:
FOIAphobia Jones and the Meltdown Mann Hoax
It may be too long, but it could be box office gold.
You people are morons beyond your own wildest dreams. Luckily, the public and the media will ignore your bizarre claims and they don’t care, either. The first I heard of this illegal hacking you have done was on the RealClimate website. They aren’t hiding anything.
You guys are jokes. You don’t get the science because you don’t understand science, you’re all on the payroll of Exxon and BP.
Do your other hobbies include Ouiji boards and bank robberies?
Reply: I’m actually known for kicking puppies, only dating space aliens, and taking coats of the homeless sleeping in streets in winter. ~ ctm
On further review, the narrative of the letter does not fit the post’s surmise. I remember Mann, and RC running to this excuse for the “divergence” problem, but they don not do so now.
Mike’s ‘tricks’ are several, and smoothing functions are covered in Intermediate Statistics, the usual opening course for Math junkies, if not scientists.
Copy the original emails http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T Send link viral.
PUT THEM IN JAIL NOW! Felony after Felony. This is not fake emails. You could not FAKE that much data. PERIOD.
Hold them accountable pass the link.
Well, my comment has been in “moderation” for over twelve hours (Granted he is terribly overloaded) at RC.(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-6/#comments) It was this:
[Begin original Comment]
[Response: Sure it can. TSI + volcanoes. – gavin]
On #280, what I meant is that something that “would” (but did not) happen cannot be measured. Is it your assertion that any warming not explained by natural drivers is automatically anthropogenic and there is no unexplained drivers? In other words is everything left over filed under “man caused” until further explained? I ask this because when unexpected cooling is observed, albeit not prolonged yet, It seems like it is never even considered that anthropogenic warming is overestimated, just that the cooling is unexplained.
It seems like an all out effort to preserve the estimated AGW. Bias is the concern.
Excerpt from [1255558867.txt]
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
Kevin says … “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”. I
do not
agree with this.
I know you are very busy. Thank you for all the time you have taken.
[End of Comment]
I didn’t even add this exchange from file #1255553034.txt:
Here is Mann commenting on the unexpected cooling (after wondering why this “new” BBC reporter was even reporting the cooling. See file 1255558867.txt) :
[excerpt]
Michael Mann wrote:
thanks Tom,
I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind…..pulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
I did
[End excerpt]
Then Tom takes a look:
[Begin excerpt]
Mike,
The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
harsh)
view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
Tom.
[End excerpt]
Of course Mann, the ringleader, comes back:
[Begin excerpt]
Hi Tom,
thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3
ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices
regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud
radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling
community. I’m not saying that these things necessarily cancel out
(after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing
compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across
the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if
showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine
what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive (your point re MAGICC
notwithstanding),
perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after
all),
mike
[End excerpt]
Finally Gavin chimes in:
[Begin excerpt]
Tom, with respect to the difference between the models and the data, the
fundamental issue on short time scales is the magnitude of the internal
variability. Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple
individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more
suited to a comparison with a short period of observations. MAGICC is
great at the longer time scale, but its neglect of unforced variability
does not make it useful for these kinds of comparison.
The kind of things we are hearing “no model showed a cooling”, the “data
is outside the range of the models” need to be addressed directly.
Gavin
[End excerpt]
They fail to see that you can’t just remove observed data, and draw on different comparisons to mask the models lack of ability to account for various natural drivers.
Are these more “Tricks”? I agree with Tom on the final reply:
[Begin excerpt]
Gavin,
I just think that you need to be up front with uncertainties
and the possibility of compensating errors.
Tom.
[End excerpt]
Shelly T. (04:39:02) :
You people are morons beyond your own wildest dreams. Luckily, the public and the media will ignore your bizarre claims and they don’t care, either. The first I heard of this illegal hacking you have done was on the RealClimate website. They aren’t hiding anything.
You guys are jokes. You don’t get the science because you don’t understand science, you’re all on the payroll of Exxon and BP.
Do your other hobbies include Ouiji boards and bank robberies?
Reply: I’m actually known for kicking puppies, only dating space aliens, and taking coats of the homeless sleeping in streets in winter. ~ ctm”
The alarmist site linked to the poster’s name states in the “about” section:
“There is zero tolerance on this site for those people and their lies, misinformation, and attempted obstruction of the truth that the public needs.”
This is a particularly nasty troll, but likely just a hit and run.
Is this where the “trick” is added in to the climate model? I’m used to simpler programming code!!!
;
trv=0 ; selects tree-ring-variable: 0=MXD 1=TRW 2=MXD-TRW
case trv of
0: fnadd=’mxd’
1: fnadd=’trw’
2: fnadd=’mxd-trw’
endcase
titadd=strupcase(fnadd)
;
; Get chronology locations
;
print,’Reading ‘+titadd+’ data’
if trv eq 2 then begin
restore,filename=’../alltrw.idlsave’
trw=mxd
restore,filename=’../allmxd.idlsave’
mxd=mxd-trw
endif else begin
restore,filename=’../all’+fnadd+’.idlsave’
; nchron,idno,idname,location,country,tree,yrstart,yrend,statlat,statlon,$
; mxd,fraction,timey,nyr
endelse
;
; Now read in the 1961-90 monthly means of precip and temperature
;
print,’Reading precipitation baseline’
restore,’/cru/u2/f055/data/obs/grid/surface/precip_new_19611990.idlsave’
; g,nmon,ltm5
pre6190=ltm5
print,’Reading temperature baseline’
restore,’/cru/u2/f055/data/obs/grid/surface/lat_new_19611990.idlsave’
; g,nmon,ltm5
lat6190=ltm5
;
; Now read in the land precipitation dataset.
; Although there is some missing data in Mark New’s precip anomalies, all
; MXD boxes have sufficient data, so do not have to use surrounding boxes.
;
print,’Reading precipitation data’
ncid=ncdf_open
<Theres more in the file, found; FOI2009.zip\FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\datastore\examplets.pro
So much to try to understand!!
There has been a lot of speculation on the name of this scandal. Many want to call it “something-gate.” It is much too big to get that tired old suffix. Besides, it has a catchy name.
FOIA.ZIP
@Ron Cram (15:57:05) :
I know the “hide the decline” email is getting lots of notice (and it is noteworthy), but I am even more interested in the “delete the emails” instructions given. This looks to be evidence of conspiracy to obstruct. Where are the lawyers among us?
Agree… & AGW-FOIA.ZIP
Also,
This should all be Public Domain – public funded – no state secrets – etc. – we need Big Government to push this up to the top of the stack…
Gavin, Tim, Mike and the boyz have not told us where they hid the LIA or MWP… those two facts alone trash all else IMO… ( not to mention ICE AGES and subsequent warming )
Anthony – I think some are new to the WUWT site and may not be aware of the Viking Farms on Greenland – Also proxy data has its limits – ICE-CORES have CO2 migration issues which negate their validity – as does the tremendous variation of sampling, categorizing and documentation of the tree-rings data. All AGW is very shaky at best.
At least we can now see the entire house of cards collapsing – we need to hustle back into the US Supreme court to get CO2 declared plant food again –
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/extref/METHODS/AlgorithmDescription.txt
“Prior to analysis, small gaps in proxy series during the latter part of the
calibration period (between 1972 and 1980) were filled by Mann et al (1998).”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Just saying, Mike’s Nature Trick may be important. That paper was published in ’98, email in ’99.
But 1972-1980 don’t look cold.
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Of course, in the middle of the 70s, there was a significant concern about falling temps. Now why is that? There is only a difference of about 0.1C between 1940 and 1980 on my neat little chart.
Science is not a religion, unless your pimping science as your own personal whore. The whole thing is disgusting. Perpertrating a fraud on the human race as to purposely cause goverments to enslave and punitivley punish innocent untold millions upon millions people on this planet whose only crime was to be born breathing. These men are the best that Evil has to offer,For they have done wrong to one and all for reasons that they belive are justified by their religion that is but self evident to them such that being self righteous dictates. The Eco-Hitlers of our time.
There isn’t a very good reason to hide the recent global decline in temp. In fact a motive for hiding it is very unlikely to come from a scientist studying climate change. The global rise is looked at over several centuries and is not effected by little blips, it still shows a steady and persistent rise over the long time frame. There are several periods that show temp declining, they are on much shorter time frames and don’t change the long term rise being observed.
Get a life.
Now, wait a second… the “Nature Trick” looks perfectly reasonable to me.
If you have archaeologic/dendrologic data spanning a thousand years, but you have very precise temperature measurements over the last few decades, why not use the data? The ancient data is used over the time period we don’t have carefully measured data, while thermometer-recorded data is used over the period in which it was recorded. Simple.
The only “decline” I see is that shown where the ancient data fizzles out. Of course I would use my more precise and accurate data at that point! Only an idiot would use uncertain/inaccurate data at that point (I would describe my exact methods and reasons in the description and text).
Nikabok – It is scientifically invalid to append a data set to another data set if the 2 sets are not consistent. The fact that there was divergence between the data sets implies that the instrument data invalidated the archaeological/dendrological data set. Continuing to use the first data set is therefore invalid. Cherry picking results from the two data sets is scientifically fraudulent.
Holy Moly.
Thank again to Fox News (that media that isn’t a real news company per our leader) for airing this report or I would have never new about it. Just like the Acorn scandel.
The swines, no valid peer review and the make out like is nothing, their rabid follows just put their fingers in their ears and go la la la.
I wonder what legal action will result from the hacking and subsequent circulation of the documents and emails? The revelations from them don’t seem particularly *wow* to me.
Early on, Geo wrote that he typed in “tips and tricks” and got 12 million plus responses. DUH. “Tips” completely skews the context. The hacked Email mention of “trick” says nothing about “tips and tricks.” It says “Mike’s Nature TRICK… to HIDE the DECLINE”. When you search for “tips and tricks” you’re going to get a lot of information about video game solutions etc. You may has well have tossed in “tips and tricks for retards who are in denial.”
Those who received public grants and have fudged ( that is a term we BS detectors use all the time ) the results should be prosecuted (if there are still any honest prosecutors and judges) and put in prison. Let them sell fake herbal remedies and other snake oil medicines when they get out. How’s Obama and Gore reacting to the recent news?
Dave – “It is scientifically invalid to append a data set to another data set if the 2 sets are not consistent.”
The problem is that the two (actually four) data sets *are* consistent, up to the mid-20th century, where a proxy measure (derived from tree ring data) departs from *observed* data. So while you are right that you have to be careful in merging sets of data gathered under different circumstances, this is not the problem here.
The problem is that there’s something strange happening in the trees: perhaps they are actually *responding* to the warming climate by changing their growth patterns in a way that looks like they think the earth is cooler. Perhaps like a dog panting in the heat. That’s a pretty frightening thought: that the very thing that many people are today taking to be evidence that there is no warming climate could in fact be the trees’ way of saying “So long, and thanks for all the fish.”
The divergence of proxy from temperature that they were hiding was a real problem for them. They avoided by ignoring it. When they are trying to validate their tree ring proxies against real temperatures it is ludicrous to trunicate and substitute real temps.
The whole reason the need to “hide the decline” is because if you include the decline then the supposed temperature proxies, tree ring data, don’t correlate to measured temperatures. No correlation means that the data is not a valid proxy. So the whole point of the “trick” is to manufacture a spurious correlation, aka false correlation, and thus false proxy. One can then use the false proxy to generate false historical predictions of temperature.
Michael Mann is incompetent, or dishonest for using such a method.
In addition, the whole idea of trying to correlate physical proxies from Siberia with global temperatures is also idiotic. There is no possible physical mechanism by which a tree (or trees) in Siberia could measure global average temperatures. So even without the truncation to produce a spurious correlation we know that any correlation against global temperature is spurious in the first place.
This ludicrous belief that trees sense global average temperatures is called teleconnect. What’s worse for climatalogists is that they belittle the Medieval Warming Period as being a local phenomena, and therefore not representative of global temps. Talk about having contradictory beliefs.
Tell you what. Since so many climatologists claim to agree with IPCC based on their peer review, and that is based in large part on this nonsense then I have a challenge.
I challenge climatologists to produce an instrument that, had it been placed in a single locale anywhere on earth, will produced measurements that correlate to global average temperature but not to local temperature conditions. Your instrument can use whatever input it wants, rainfall, sunshine, mercury expansion, air pressure, whatever. Hell, even temperature.
You couldn’t design that if you wanted and certainly there is no selective pressure on trees to measure global temperatures, so evolution isn’t going to design one either.
What ever the methods used to measure it seems clear that they are all pointing to a serious problem for mankind.
Did I put you all to sleep?
So this is the “trick” hubbub? Sadly, the hubbub probably won’t die, as It is quite obvious that many, actually most, people have no idea how a computer creates a polynomial average curve from a data set. When a curve is created of a set of data points from an algorithm, the very ends of the trend line can be inaccurate as the end data points may be inappropriately amplified or incomplete….. especially in polynomials of multiple orders. In the above chart, the downward projection of the end of the green trend is caused by the premature end of the proxy data. In fact, it can be easily proved that the green curve is incorrect, as it differs from the actual recorded instrumental temperatures in the end. Anybody with more than even a limited knowledge of mathematics can see that the green line is an inaccurate depiction of the trending temperatures. As a result, any scientist would have to change their algorithms to CORRECT THIS MATHEMATICAL ERROR, which is what is seen in the purple trend. Any climate change skeptic that would look at the green trend, which is a fabricated guess, (as is the purple trend line, after all) and conclude that the trend shows cooling, when the ACTUAL recorded temperatures are going up, is showing what a laughable lack they have of mathematical knowledge in general. As for grafting instrumental data onto the end of the proxy series…. how else are you going to do it? Need I remind people that tree rings and ice cores, ahem, are not as accurate as instrumental readings. And you just don’t have instrumental readings from 50,000 BC through 1700. Sorry.
My goodness, JT,
Clever as you might be with mathematics, your English comprehension skills are in doubt. Just take a little look at Brian Macker’s post above yours.
Adding oranges to apples doesn’t inavalidate those fruits, it just makes lousy marmalade.
“How else are you going to do it?” you ask. Do what? Convince people that you know exactly what’s going on?
Another disgusting event.
But it´s great to read more than a thousand comments in just one entry.
Let´s spread the data and let each one make their own mind.
Peace to all
Here’s a great video.
The decline….. What decline are we talking about? Temperature, or the divergence in tree ring data? The video explains this comment IN CONTEXT. They’re talking about tree rings. See links below.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-divergence-problem.html
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
I’ve read a bunch of stuff here today and it really doesn’t change my view on the subject. In essence one side was able to come out on top and the others are just mad you weren’t on top.
Global warming, I don’t know, sure seems like it to me. The weather here is warmer than it was 30 yrs ago when I was a child. Are humans “The cause?” No, just like cigarettes aren’t “The cause cancer.” But don’t tell me cigarettes aren’t a contributing factor or bad for you!! As a former smoker I can say that I don’t get as many colds as before and I sure breath a lot easier now. Likewise don’t tell me that humans aren’t a contributing factor to the enviornment, we are! Look at LA, they have bad air day advisories. That IS from too much crap put into the air by humans!!
Also what is lost on all of you is the absolute fact that fossil fuels are finite. Which means sooner or later we have to find other sources of energy, which will take time to perfect, so why not sooner. Another fact lost on most of you is the 1000’s of products that use oil products; that’s right 1000’s. All those products go away when the finite amt of oil is used up. So let’s stop being wasteful, recycle and push for green energy.
Doug W. – every generation claims that they had it tougher than the subsequent generation (when I was a lad we walked barefoot to school through snow uphill both ways) and you prove your generation is no different. I have a picture of my father plowing fields in January in the early 1950’s in Maine, a feat that has not been possible since. I remember cold winters and warm winters in my youth (in the 50’s and 60’s) and I still see it today. Normally I would trust data over my experience, but now that I see how much the data is manipulated, I have to trust my experience and that tells me that it is as cold now as it was in my youth. Hopefully we will be able to get raw, unfiltered data in the future from people of integrity, but I fear that we will have to wait for scientists without political and funding agendas to come onto the scene.
You say Los Angeles is proof of man’s impact on the environment. There is some truth to this, however, the indians call the LA basin “the land of 10,000 smokes.” LA is geographically unsuitable for handling any form of pollution, whether from forest fires, power plants or automobiles with an on shore breeze trapping gases against a mountain barrier on the east side of the basin. Citing LA as an example of man’s damage to the environment is the sort of cherry picking that characterizes the folks on your side of the debate.
As far as when we should transition from fossil fuels to other forms of energy, all we need to do is watch the price signals in a free market (the wisdom of crowds). Of course your counter-argument is that you don’t trust markets but I certainly trust them more than your opinion.
All involved need to be thrown in prison and tried for treason, fraud, theft, and being very stupid. None deserve to be called “scientist” – they are all hacks – and not very good ones either.