Mann throws Jones under the bus

These guys are frightened, and they should be. Jone, Mann et. al. have been perpetrating a massive fraud. They, the media who have and continue to protect them, and the politicians who willingly suspend disbelief should be ripped to shreds in the public square.
What they have done is indefensible. It is indefensible.

Popping my popcorn right now…

Trouble in AGW Paradise?

e tu Brute?

Mann is still on his ego trip.
If he had any good judgement, he would keep quiet. This endeavor on his part may backfire. He also Will find Jones may counter attack him. Mann needs to take a time out and go to Siberia and look at some tree rings on a field trip.
He will need a lot more tree rings. He also needs some cooler tree rings from the Midevil warm period. Mannipulate the Mid-evil period soon before you get investigated.

Given the tone(casual) of some of the e-mails, I’d say Mann is being a little disingenuous. I’d really like a peek at some of his. Perhaps in the Senate hearings but I’d imagine by now, Mann has deleted his incriminating ones. Of course, servers have backups and archives…….

As far as “cherry picking” is concerned there is a significant difference between someone “cherry picking” data to prove a theory and another person who picks instances that disprove a theory.
“Exceptio probat regnum.” The exception probes (tests) the rule.
(not “the exception proves the rule” because the modern meaning of “prove” has become to show truth)
It really gets my goat when these frauds accuse sceptics of “cherry picking” when they are pointing out failures in their theories. That is not “cherry picking”, that is science.

“I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions”
Those nasty sceptics trying to get him to release his data so the science can be verified.

Mann was implicated in the cover-up … he initiated it.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/hiding-decline.html

Let the games begin!
Brent in Calgary

It’s time for Penn State to save it’s reputation and throw Mann under the bus.
They could previously claim ignorance. They don’t have that excuse anymore.

I guess Mann forgot about this
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt
Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.
I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>

Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.
This is what I call a “laughable statement”.

Wait until somebody starts to investigate the infractions under the FOI legislation and we start hearing about enforcement actions. Then we will really see the guns being turned inwards and find out who deleted what. If the police found that the Wall St. guys “rolled” much more easily than the Mob, how long will it take before a crew of academics start to offer evidence against the others in exchange for a deal? At least the Wall St. guys have some experience with tough negotiations. The FOI prosecutors will have the deal negotiated and papered by noon on Day 1.

I may be a late on this one but has anyone seen this and commented on it….
I cannot believe it…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/pdf/462545a.pdf

@AJStrata
Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis
End of part post
In the report above Professor Mann says Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.
Then no doubt he repsonde appropriately and would like to share his response with the wider world.
Unreal Climate seems to be treating Professor Jones like a leper? No articles re the resignation no support?
Have I been moderated today? On another post?

Mann’s ego is only surpassed by his incompetence. He will be the last to surrender. I would watch Schmidt and Wigley, because they are much more exposed to federal rules and guidelines. They have no place to hide.

“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.”
Wow! He’s obviously a pathogical liar as well. Didn’t McIntyre catch him outright with his “hockey stick” graph?

Found this side door round at the BBC. Might be worth giving the moderators stool a kick…. or two
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8375378.stm

It seems he doesn’t want to resign as instructed by his patrons.
As Piers Corbyn said yesterday about Phil Jones’ step aside:
“This is a token intended to enable a coverup of the shameful suppression of differing science and the hiding of data on world cooling by those in charge of this data”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23595663

Classic ‘Prisoners dilemma’ – well known ethics/game theory study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
cheers David

It’s hard to believe in 2009 (almost 2010) that these allegedly intelligent people don’t understand how email works. You can delete email from your own personal store, but one or more copies will continue to exist on one or more servers (archive, backup, audit, whatever) somewhere within the organization.
Not only are they boneheads for conspiring to delete email, they are doubly-boneheaded to think it was possible to do so!

Sorry about that. I couldn’t resist. I’ll try not to do that again.

“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!
It has been said before: Don’t attribute to malevolence what when incompetence will suffice.

“Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: ‘I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.’”
Where is his contemporaneous e-mail reply documenting his disapproval to the suggestion to delete e-mails?
qui tacet consentire videtur

There must be another whistle-blower lurking somewhere in the bowels of one of these great, scientific institutions. Someone who has knowledge of other e-mails or of more ‘value added’ data proving what a crock the AGW theory is. Perhaps he/she looks in on this and other such sites to see which way the wind is blowing. Well, I’d say the wind would be well and truly at the back of anyone who would now raise their head and whistle another merry tune.
Need some more encouragement, mr/mrs/miss/ms whistle-blower? Imagine the kudos for having put the last nail in the coffin of AGW; imagine the book-rights, the tv interviews, the (I knew it all along) politicians desperate to be photographed shaking you hand… on second thoughts, forget that last one. Imagine also, the gratitude of the vast majority of honest mortals in your profession who are being painted with the same dirty brush of institutionalized corruption currently being used to blacken forever the reputations of your once, beyond-reproach leaders.
All together now, “Whistle while you work…”

It’s not only the individual scientists that have to be investigated but the entire system.

“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
OK so which definition of manipulate does he mean?
1. To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner:
2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously:
3. To tamper with or falsify for personal gain:

Next we’ll hear Phil Jones pointing the finger at Mann. 🙂

Cool, they’ve started a circular firing squad.
More popcorn!

If Mann didn’t manipulate data, the lack of competance in his work must be staggering! Funny, how that seems to always support AGW.

Yes, there may be another whistle-blower waiting for the right moment.
I do not have any faith in the statements of those who hid thier formulas/data and barred access to peer review. Until it’s out in the open, it is classified junk.

Here is something to keep in mind about the two University investigations. The UEA would not be known outside of a small portion of England if it wasn’t for the CRU. The CRU is a cash cow for the UEA because it attracts students to it’s programs, brings prestige being used by the IPCC and so forth. So the UEA has a financial interest to make sure nothing happens to the CRU’s reputation.
On the Other hand Penn State is the exact opposite. The PSU football team brings in more money to the University in one year then Mann has in the entire time he has been there. You ask most people what is the first thing they think about when you say Penn State and its Joe Patnero and the Football team. So the University doesn’t have a large financial interest in Mann, its all about prestige and if Upside Down keeps running his mouth, PSU might decide he is not worth the aggrivation.

I think Mann was just a lot more circumspect and smart enough not to incriminate himself by email. My guess is that Americans in general – certainly educated ones that read the news occasionally – ought to understand the potential for courts, etc. to go spelunking around in an institution’s files and computers.
Note his response to Jones’ request to delete email messages was neither a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ but just the address of someone else Jones wanted to contact about doing so.

The computer code is what is important here. Code is the automated process to turn data into results. It’s meta-math.
I think of this code as like Hamilton’s mathematical proof of Poincare’s Conjecture. He suggested using “surgery” to iron out singularities in a 3-manifold. But he couldn’t say HOW – and so, not only did he not get the credit, but his whole method was discredited. (Hamilton himself warned readers that this was not a full proof, so please understand this as NOT an attack on Hamilton’s genius or integrity.) Grisha Perelman showed us how to use his method, and so he got the credit.
I don’t have a problem with “surgery” in the code – as long as it has documentation that it’s there because of the data and not because of the result (the latter is cheating). So if your code is undocumented such that it looks like it does its surgery arbitrarily, it’s a “Hamiltonian” partial solution at best, and doesn’t prove anything.

I think Mann is going to discover there’s plenty of room under the bus for him, too. The emails make it pretty clear that even Briffa did not believe in Mann’s anti-Medieval-Warming use of Briffa’s work.

Excellent.
Next, we will see some papers withdrawn.
But until the IPCC itself is shown as the propaganda sock puppet it is, we will not be able to see policy makers find face-saving ways out of this mess.
the real story will be when some very enterprising reporter follows the money.
There is a great huge money train in this to follow.

“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
He did not say “I did not manipulate data.”
Just for those, like me, who are not too well up on Bart/OJ Simpson.

Do these ‘scientists’ have to disclose their financial data? It would be interesting to see if any of them have made money off trading carbon offsets.

This is starting to develop the elements of the “prisoners dilemma.” If one defects by testifying against the other, while the other remains silent, the defector gets off scott free and the other takes the full rap. If both remain defensive however, they will both be implicated on minor charges. Finally, if each betrays the other, they will both be implicated but to a lesser degree that in the first case.
In the classic form of this game, cooperating is strictly dominated by defection so that the only possible equilibrium for is for each player to defect. This is because no matter what the other player does each player will always gain the greatest payoff by defecting.
The form of the game actually playing out, is slightly different, since each player can actually see the actions of the other. Jones can see what appears to be a defection by Mann. This would seem to make defecting a more probable play by Jones. The other pecularity is that this is a multi multi player game, and none of the other players have yet shown their hand. One prediction is that the more players who start to show defection behaviour, the more the probability that the others will defect.
We shall see.

In one exchange, Jones tells Penn State’s Michael Mann: “If they ever hear there’s a Freedom of Information Act in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” He even asks Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about an IPCC assessment report: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: (the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report)?”
investor.com
Mann is in denial. Where was Mann in writing discouraging the Mannipulation of data, software and publications?

I’d love to know what I’ve done to deserve to be sent straight to the spam bin.
I’m on a static IP so unless anything with this nick that does not come from that IP is false.
DaveE.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say he threw Jones under the bus.
But in the interview Mann did show again what a fraud and a liar he is.
My dad used to say: put a bunch of crooks in a room, and it’s just a matter of time before they starting screwing each other.

Climategate aka the Mann-hole. 😉

2 minutes ago, Rush made a simple observation about Jones and the CRU.
“They got caught”
It is simple. Mann is a member of the gang green. Mann got caught and is passing the blame. I don’t care what Mann says about his intellect, research, the conspiracy or anything else. He got caught.

no one has commented on
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/pdf/462545a.pdf
have I missed something

statement

Well the fact is the warming can’t be faked. No one has except the authors of these posts. There is no decline to hide. The trend holds regardless of tossing a sub dataset.

AJStrata (09:51:34) :
I guess Mann forgot about this
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt
Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.
———————————-
I’d seen that email before but I hadn’t noticed his interesting choice of words – he says “discovered THE problem”, not “discovered A problem”. Given the context, it’s a curious way to phrase an outsider’s claim about your own work.

Well the head of PSU just got notice that the state legislature is going to be watching and they better not be whitewhasing Mann, with the implied threat of getting the money cutoff.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23612181/Sen-Piccola-Letter-on-PSU-Prof-Michael-Mann

Before this is over, the FBI will be drawn in. Think of the billions in grants that were bilked, the carbon credits and ethanol investors that were scammed. Makes Madoff look like chump change.

MikeH (12:16:48) :

he says “discovered THE problem”, not “discovered A problem”. Given the context, it’s a curious way to phrase an outsider’s claim

I too read that as an admission of wrongdoing & commented to that effect at the time.
DaveE.

“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.”
It is the accidental(?) manipulations that most concern me. They are going to cause enormous burden for future auditors trying to re-reconcile the Earth orientation parameter record with the various ‘adjusted’ climate series.
It is time that the climate scientists acknowledge that the challenge is interdisciplinary. A blindered (“I don’t see it because I’m not looking”) unidisciplinary approach can’t avoid looking foolish to those watching from other perspectives.
I imagine some of the folks in geodesy having a jolly, hearty laugh if they know the details of what is going on …but they are probably hesitant to speak up because they know they’ll be stoned as ‘deniers’ for speaking truth, if the admins above them would even allow that – & to be honest, I don’t think they would in organizations with tight control, on grounds such as ‘national security’, since the top geodesy experts are involved in pinpoint military targeting etc. – i.e. the admins easily know persuasive tricks in such clear-cut cases where it’s a breeze to conflate issues.

Mann is a foregone conclusion. Penn State has to fire him before he’s indicted by some Congressional inquiry – which trashes the school along with his ego.
“If you’e studying counterfeiting, that could make you good at avoiding counterfeiting, or…” MMann
Counterfeiting what Phil? It is tragic to see how this handful of arrogant, self-anointed shadow people are collapsing good organizations that have hitched themselves to climate change. Unfortunately some honest charitable causes will go down with the climate ship – only because they did not exercise due diligence to ferret out rats before boarding.
Had the climate change campaign been willing to admit poor judgment even a short while ago – they would not have been brought so low.
Pride – the door to self-destruction.

debreuil (12:29:33) :

Given their hockey team in Toronto, you’d think they would be all over a chance to trumpet a local hero. There will be a good movie made about Steve M one day, where the people that wrote the emails will be the bit players.

One can only hope it’s soon enough that Steve can play himself. 😉
DaveE.

Snowmaneasy, that Nature piece is one of the most egregiously offensive pieces of apologia I have ever seen. If there was ever any doubt that that rag has lost all traces of scientific objectivity, this certainly cements it.

After more careful reading of that letter from the State Senator to the head of PSU, it sounds more like can his butt or else to me.
First the Senator mentions how organizations and individuals are writing in asking that the state withold funding until appropriate action is taken about Mann.
Then in the next paragraph the Senator states:
“I do not believe at this time that Penn State’s pending appropriation should be jeopardized…..”
Notice he said at this time
Then in the third paragraph he asks that the results be sent to him and depending on the results the State committee might form its on investigation, if warranted.
Sounds like a get him out of here or else statement to me.

Snowmaneasy
I agree. It’s shocking.
I think we have to stop considering Nature as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.

PhilW (10:11:46)
I took you advice and sent the comment below:
Obviously judging by your questions above the BBC assumes Climate Change is taken as a given and it is the fault of man. This, when the BBC Trust shouts from the rooftops about BBC impartiality.
The BBC is happy to preach the religion of MMGW without any scientific proof, but has the hypocrisy to fly 35 staff to Copenhagen for 2 weeks.
Once the BBC was a bastion of impartiality. Now it has become a shadow of it’s former self and too nervous to report at all on subjects such as Climategate.
My guess is you won’t publish this comment on any of your outlets – but that is as expected. Your behavior is nothing but a disgrace to your millions of license payers. For your own good – make the changes to you editorial policy – now.

PAguy (10:10:23) :
Fortunately for Dr. Mann, Penn State main campus has low carbon footprint buses powered by natural gas.
Being thrown under such a bus would be an honor
Natural gas buses are higher in carbon output than diesel Lot higher. Nancy Pelosi even said natural gas was not a fossil fuel. It is a fossil fuel and very inefficient for engines. Mercedes has clean diesel engines as is one of the BMW engines. They are common rail deisel and ultra high pressure injecters.

I know this is nasty situation with blame to go aroundbut from several things I have read it sounds to me like Wigley is a true believer but I am not seeing him fudging the data but rather questioning those who are. Are his sins those of not blowing the whistle or is there some place he is obviously part of the fraud?

“Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
Mind you, don’t ask him about Tortured, Abused, Adjusted, Ignored, Cherry-picked, CENSORED, Mutilated or Deleted…

If we start with the studies of what works in climate forecasting, the Milankavitch cycles, and expand on what has turned out to be true about solar cycles according to Theodor Landscheidt, ( the only one to correctly forecast the long solar minimum we are passing through). The evidence points to the natural variability factors as being the effects of the rotation or the galaxy and the swirl imparted to the local area of the spiral arm we seem to reside in (Milankavich), and by the inertial dampening of the planets effects on the barycenter of the solar system, moves the sun’s center of mass around as it tries to stay magnetically and gravitationally centered in the swirling magnetic fields, plasma, and dust clouds, and other stars joining us in this dance to the celestial music as it were.
(Landscheidt) Found the driving forces of the Inertial dampening of the system and defined it to the point of predictability, it only seems that that the next steps would be to analyze the effects of the interactions of the Inner planets, which have a rhythmic pattern to their orbital relationships, and their relations to the weather patterns they share. Most good discoveries come from the individuals who seek the truth with out consideration for the limited vision of the thundering herd mentality.
With climategate we have seen the latest stampede, of hurried angst ridden, fear mongering, driving of the ignorant sheep of the world away from the truth and into the pens. By the politically minded “think they know what the rest of us need crowd,” that are controlling the funds, research orientation, and imposing their goals upon the process, to achieve profits as they see fit, to stay in power.
I have quietly undertaken the study of the relationships between the interactions of the Sun’s magnetic fields borne on the solar wind, and it’s interactions with the Earth’s weather patterns to the point I have found the cyclic patterns of the shorter decadeal durations, that show up as the natural background variances in the climate RAW data sets. Starting with the history of research into planetary motions and the Lunar declination,(the Earth / Moon system’s response to the rotation of the magnetic poles of the sun. In order to find a natural analog to the patterns in the weather there were several things I had to consider.
The results of the analog cyclic pattern I discovered repeat with in a complex pattern of Inner planet harmonics, and outer planet longer term interferences that come round to the 172 year pattern Landscheidt discovered, so this is just the shorter period set of variables, that further define the limits, of the natural variables needed to be considered, along side the CO2 hypothesis, as the longer term/period parents (Milankivich and Landscheidt cycles) of these driving forces are valid. It would be in error if they were not considered and calculated into the filtering of the swings in the climate data, for forecasting longer terms into the future.
A sample of the cyclic pattern found in the meteorological database is presented as a composite of the past three cycles composited together and plotted onto maps for a 5 year period starting in 2008, and running to January of 2014, on a rough draft website I use to further define the shifts in the pattern from the past three to the current cycle, to continue learning about the details of the interactions.
http://www.aerology.com
The building of Stonehenge at the end of the last ice age, was done as the weather in the area was changing from tundra, to grasses and shrubs, in waves from the El nino effects at the time.
They began a study of the relationship between the Solar and Lunar declinational movement timing, found the lunar 18.6 year Mn minimum/maximum declinational cycle, the 19 year Metonic cycle where the moon is at the same phase and maximum declination on the same date every 19 years, and the 6585 day Saris cycle of eclipses.
From combining the annual seasonal effects of apparent solar declination, and the short term effects of the Lunar declinational movement. The Incas and Mayans understood repeating weather patterns well enough to build a thriving culture, that supported a much larger population, than the area currently barely supports in poverty.
Then along came the Conquistadors, that were assumed to be the gods foretold in prophecy, who took over and killed off the high priests and the learned class (because the Catholic priests with them were convinced, they were idolaters and heretics.) so all were lost that understood how the “Pagan religion†was able to grow that much food with little problems, by the timing of celebrations and festivals that the people partook of, in a joyous and productive mood.
The Mayan stone masons who were busy carving out the next stone block to carve another 300 years of calendar upon, were put to work mining gold to export back to Spain. So with the next stone block unfinished, and in the rough, still in the quarry the Mayan calendar comes to an end in 2012.
Most of the population of the area was either killed in battles, or worked to death, while on cocaine to minimize food consumption, and mined gold for export by the false gods.
At home in Europe the Spanish inquisition sought to wipe out the fund of knowledge, (that went underground) about the interactions of the Solar and Lunar declinational movements and other sidereal stellar influences on people, and things in the natural world. As the result of mass killings, and book burnings much knowledge, and data history was lost.
Nicolas Copernicus, (19, February 1473 – 24 May 1543) and Nostradamus, (21 December, 1503 – 2 July 1566) Were around at about the same time and may have collaborated in person, or through a net work of underground friends. To give Nostradamus the idea to convert the data sets of past history sorted by geocentric astrology locations and positions, to a Heliocentric data base from which he drew his famous quatrains. There are many references to late night calculations, aside observations that may have given him his accuracy. Then along came Galileo Galilie , (15, February, 1564 – 8 January, 1642) with proof, that round moons circled round planets.
With the advent of good fast cheap computers, I was able to look at data sets ( although with considerably less coverage due to centuries of suppression,) and sort for Planetary and Lunar influences, and found that the Lunar declinational component, of the orbital movements, of the Moon, was responsible for the driving, of the Rossby Wave patterns, in sync with the lunar declinational tidal forces at work in the atmosphere.
How does this all work you ask? Well there is a magnetic field that surrounds the sun, and magnetic fields, that are invested in the body of the Galaxy. These large scale standing fields, interact to produce fluctuations in the strength of the fields felt upon the Earth as it moves in it’s orbit.
The poles of the Earth are tilted to the axis of the solar system ~23 ½ degrees, giving us the changing seasons. The sun on the other hand is different it’s axis of rotation is vertical, but the magnet poles are tilted ~12 degrees, so as it rotates on an average of 27.325 day period, the polarity of the magnetic fields felt via the solar wind, shifts from the result of the orientation determined by the position of the rotating magnetic poles of the sun.
The inner core of the moon has frozen, the outer core of the Earth is still molten, and a concentration of the magnetically permeable materials that make up the earth. These pulses of alternating North then South magnetic field shifts has been going on since before the Earth condensed into a planet and then was later struck by a Mars sized object (so the current theory goes), that splashed off most of the crust.
Most returned to the Earth, some was lost into interplanetary space, and some condensed into the moon. Somewhere in the process the center of mass of the moon gravitated toward the surface that faces the Earth, before it froze, causing that denser side to always face the Earth.
It is not the center of mass of the Earth that scribes the orbital path of the Earth about the sun but the center of mass of the composite Earth / moon barycenter that lies about 1,200 kilometers off of the center of mass of the Earth, always positioned between the center of the earth and the center of the Moon. So as the Moon rotates around the earth to create the lunar light phases, the center of mass of the earth goes from inside to out side, around the common barycenter. As the Moon moves North / South in it’s declination, the center of mass of the earth goes the opposite direction to counter balance, around their common barycenter that scribes the smooth ellipse of the orbit around the sun. So really the Earth makes 13 loops like a strung out spring every year.
The magnetic impulses in the solar wind has driven the Moon / Earth into the declinational dance that creates the tides in phase in the atmosphere, because of the pendulum type movement the Moon hangs at the extremes of declination almost three days with in a couple of degrees then makes a fast sweep across the equator at up to 7 to 9 degrees per day. At these culminations of declination movement the polarity of the solar wind peaks and reverses, causing a surge in the reversal of the ion flux generated as a result. Because of the combination of both peak of Meridian flow surge in the atmosphere, and reversal of ion charge gradient globally occurs at the same time like clock work most severe weather occurs at these times.
Because of the semi boundary conditions caused by mountain ranges, the Rockies, Andes, Urals, Alps, Himalayas, that resulted in topographical forcing into a four fold pattern of types of Jet stream patterns, I had to use not a 27.325 day period but a 109.3 day period to synchronize the lunar declinational patterns into the data to get clearer repeatability than the same data set filtered by Lunar phase alone.
There is a pattern of 6554 days where in the inner planets, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury, make an even number of orbital revolutions, and return to almost the same relative position to the star field.
By adding 4 days to this period I get 6558 days the time it takes the Moon to have 240 declinational cycles of 27.325 days, so that by using 6558 days as a synchronization period I get the lunar Declination angle, lunar phase, perigee / apogee cycle, and the relative positions of the inner planets to align from the past three (6558 day) cycles well enough that the average of the temperatures, and the totals of the precipitations give a picture of the repeating pattern, from the last three to forecast the next almost 18 year long string of weather related events, with a better accuracy than the forecast available for three to five days from NOW from conventional NWS / NOAA sources.
So by looking at the periods of declinational movement and the four fold pattern of Rossby wave propagation, while maintaining the inner planet synchronization. I get all of these influences in sync to look almost the same, as the current conditions, even to periods of hail, and tornado production.
When the outer planets are added into the mix, they are out of phase in regard to the inner planet / Lunar patterns, and their influences are not in Sync with these background patterns. There are lines of magnetic force that connect each planet to the sun, and these revolve around with the planets naturally.
As the Earth’s orbit takes it between these outer planets and the sun (at Synodic conjunctions), the increase in magnetic fields carried via the solar wind, (to effect this outer planet coupling) is felt upon the Earth’s magnetosphere, and results in a temporary increase in the pole to equator charge gradient then a discharge back to ambient levels (about a two week long up then down cycle time), how this interferes or combines with the “usual lunar / inner planet patterns†is determined by whether it is in, or out of phase with the background patterns.
During normal charge cycles more moisture is driven into the atmosphere carrying positive Ions, along the ITCZ, and in discharge cycle phases waves of free electrons, and negative ions are sent down from the poles into the mid-latitudes. Charge cycles inhibit precipitation amounts and discharge cycles produce increased precipitation amounts along existing frontal boundaries, due to changes in residual ion charge differences between the air masses.
There is a seasonal increase in magnetic fields coupled from the center of out galaxy to the sun that peaks in mid June (summer solstice), and then decreases till winter solstice. As the magnetic charging cycle associated with this build up in Northern hemisphere Spring, it brings on a bias for surges of positive ionized air masses, that produces surges of tornadoes in phase with the lunar declinational culminations, and other severe weather, will also be enhanced by Synod conjunctions with outer planets, by the same increases of positively charged ions. The closer the timing of the conjunction to a peak lunar culmination the sharper the spike of production, like cracking a whip.
During discharge phases from summer solstice through fall in general, tropical storms manifest as large scale discharge patterns to ring the moisture, heat, and excess ions out of the tropical air masses. Outer planets conjunctions at these times help to build moisture reserves in the atmosphere, during their ion charge contribution, and enhance storms to category 4 and 5 levels when in phase with their discharge phase influences. So to say that the planets have no real influence on the world in general, is the same as to totally disregard how much the weather, effects how people live and survive.
I think that the influences felt at the surface, are just changes in the back ground stimuli, and not strongly controlling enough to lose free will, when we chose to interact with the total spectrum of stimuli that surrounds us at any particular moment. The 18+ year long repeating pattern is long enough that the other conditions surrounding a person have changed, via plant growth, soil changes, age, or location on the surface of the earth, since the last cycle.
On the ground, all plants that have roots in the soil share soil ions and nutrients, via microbial sharing, fungal predation, and companion plants that support each other. The organic matter from past growth that gives up valuable nutrients as it decays, and adds texture to the soil for better aeration and moisture penetration, form a mat of interacting processes, that breath life into the environment.

Richard Lawson (13:06:38)
For over 3 years I have been writing to Mark Thompson (BBC Director General) and Sir Michael Lyons (Chairman, BBC Trust) about the organisation’s absolute bias towards the ‘consensus’ on climate change.
All I have received for my troubles is sophistry and obfuscation. This is probably explained because:
A BBC report; “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel-Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century”, commissioned jointly by the BBC Trust and Board of Management and published in June 2007 concluded;
‘There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and that it is at least predominantly man-made… the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’
So there you have it, damned by their own hand…yet STILL they refuse to admit it! And that is why they have kept quiet about Climategate.
Anyone interested in taking the same road as me should write to:
Mark Thompson Esq
Director General
BBC Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA
Mark your envelope: Strictly Private & Confidential
If his desk gets deluged with letters from irate licence-fee payers, he will have to recognise he has a problem.
It would also be helpful to get your MP involved.
Happy stirring!

With a friend like Michael Mann, who needs enemies? Seriously, what an SOB to throw Jones under the bus. If he was a Real Man, he would stand beside Jones and take his lumps.

Daryl M (13:49:56) :
“With a friend like Michael Mann, who needs enemies? Seriously, what an SOB to throw Jones under the bus. If he was a Real Man, he would stand beside Jones and take his lumps.”
Actually hugely risky; I’m sure Jones knows where the bodies are buried and he is quite capable of taking Mann (and the rest) down with him.

““Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…””
Right. This is the same “Meltdown” Mann who just days ago published a paper with the lake-sediment data turned upside-down, right? The same guy who, scant months ago, published a paper claiming East Antarctic warming which was based entirely on “interpolated” (i.e. made-up) temp readings? The same guy who created the statistical AlGorHythm: a routine which will take any set of inputs and generate a hockey-stick?
Oh, yeah. Never manipulated anything. And OJ is still looking for the real killers.

The rift between these two goes back a ways:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=108&filename=926026654.txt
1) Keith didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us
think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term
decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale.

Re: he says “discovered THE problem”, not “discovered A problem”. Given the context, it’s a curious way to phrase an outsider’s claim
Unless of course THE problem was discovered by someone else (not McIntyre.) It also implies that they view McIntyre as a publicity hound with connections at WSJ. Honestly, it’s not that hard to read that from this email.
Re: sounds good Phil, I agree on the forecast. I think its at least
‘plausible’ ;)”
I think this was a wink, wink, nudge, nudge inside joke between two colleagues. If every time you put a forecast out, and you knew that certain people were going to say it was not even in the realm of possibility (whether it is or not) this type of joke would develop with a colleague that holds the same view point as you. Just because they don’t work together on a daily basis, doesn’t mean this type of relationship could not form.
I am not a Mann/Jones/etc… apologist. I don’t believe in CAGW, and I’m not really all that sold on AGW either. All I would ask is who here has not written an email that would look damning to people that are not privy to the rest of the conversation or inside jokes between colleagues? I know for a fact that I am guilty of this from time to time (I’m a very sarcastic person.) I guess what I’m saying is that the remarks may be about what others are going to say and their motivations rather that commenting on real actions or malfeasance on their part.

matt (15:17:32)
Oh… Its a frame up to be sure. Commit the misdeed, inspire others to follow, then blame one’s followers as culprits when it goes public.

Can we have our lightbulbs and Freon back now?

From: Ben Santer <sant…@llnl.gov
Date: Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Subject: Open letter to the climate science community
Dear colleagues and friends,
I am sure that by now, all of you are aware of the hacking incident which
recently took place at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research
Unit (CRU). This was a criminal act. Over 3,000 emails and documents were
stolen. The identity of the hacker or hackers is still unknown.
The emails represented private correspondence between CRU scientists and
scientists at climate research centers around the world. Dozens of the
stolen emails are from over a decade of my own personal correspondence with
Professor Phil Jones, the Director of CRU.
I obtained my Ph.D. at the Climatic Research Unit. I went to CRU in 1983
because it was – and remains – one of the world's premier institutions for
studying the nature and causes of climate change. During the course of my
Ph.D., I was privileged to work together with exceptional scientists – with
people like Tom Wigley, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and Sarah Raper.
After completing my Ph.D. at CRU in 1987, I devoted much of my scientific
career to what is now called "climate fingerprinting", which seeks to
understand the causes of recent climate change. At its core, fingerprinting
is a form of what people now call "data mining" – an attempt to extract
information and meaning from very large, complex climate datasets. The
emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit are now being subjected to a
very different form of "data mining". This mining is taking place in the
blogosphere, in the editorial pages of various newspapers, and in radio and
television programs. This form of mining has little to do with extracting
meaning from personal email correspondence on complex scientific issues.
This form of mining seeks to find dirt – to skew true meaning, to distort,
to misrepresent, to take out of context. It seeks to destroy the reputations
of exceptional scientists – scientists like Professor Phil Jones.
I have known Phil for over 25 years. He is the antithesis of the secretive,
"data destroying" character being portrayed to the outside world by the
miners of dirt and disinformation. Phil Jones and Tom Wigley (the second
Director of the Climatic Research Unit) devoted significant portions of
their scientific careers to the construction of the land component of the
so-called "HadCRUT" dataset of land and ocean surface temperatures. The U.K.
Meteorological Office Hadley Centre (MOHC) took the lead in developing the
ocean surface temperature component of HadCRUT.
The CRU and Hadley Centre efforts to construct the HadCRUT dataset have been
open and transparent, and are documented in dozens of peer-reviewed
scientific papers. This work has been tremendously influential. In my
personal opinion, it is some of the most important scientific research ever
published. It has provided hard scientific evidence for the warming of our
planet over the past 150 years.
Phil, Tom, and their CRU and MOHC colleagues conducted this research in a
very open and transparent manner. Like good scientists, they examined the
sensitivity of their results to many different subjective choices made
during the construction of the HadCRUT dataset. These choices relate to such
issues as how to account for changes over time in the type of thermometer
used to make temperature measurements, the thermometer location, and the
immediate physical surroundings of the thermometer. They found that, no
matter what choices they made in dataset construction, their bottom-line
finding – that the surface of our planet is warming – was rock solid. This
finding was supported by many other independent lines of evidence, such as
the retreat of snow and sea-ice cover, the widespread melting and retreat of
glaciers, the rise in sea-level, and the increase in the amount of water
vapor in the atmosphere. All of these independent observations are
physically consistent with a warming planet.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The claim that our Earth
had warmed markedly during the 20th century was extraordinary, and was
subjected to extraordinary scrutiny. Groups at the National Climatic Data
Center in North Carolina (NCDC) and at the Goddard Institute for Space
Studies in New York (GISS) independently attempted to reproduce the results
of the Climatic Research Unit and the U.K. Meteorological Office Hadley
Centre. While the NCDC and GISS groups largely relied on the same primary
temperature measurements that had been used in the development of the
HadCRUT dataset, they made very different choices in the treatment of the
raw measurements. Although there were differences in the details of the
three groups' results, the NCDC and GISS analyses broadly confirmed the
"warming Earth" findings of the CRU and MOHC scientists.
Other extraordinary claims – such as a claim by scientists at the University
of Alabama that Earth's lower atmosphere cooled since 1979, and that such
cooling contradicts "warming Earth" findings – have not withstood rigorous
scientific examination.
In summary, Phil Jones and his colleagues have done a tremendous service to
the scientific community – and to the planet – by making surface temperature
datasets publicly available for scientific research. These datasets have
facilitated climate research around the world, and have led to the
publication of literally hundreds of important scientific papers.
Phil Jones is one of the gentlemen of our field. He has given decades of his
life not only to cutting-edge scientific research on the nature and causes
of climate change, but also to a variety of difficult and time-consuming
community service activities – such as his dedicated (and repeated) service
as a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since the theft of the CRU emails and their public dissemination, Phil has
been subjected to the vilest personal attacks. These attacks are without
justification. They are deeply disturbing. They should be of concern to all
of you. We are now faced with powerful "forces of unreason" – forces that
(at least to date) have been unsuccessful in challenging scientific findings
of a warming Earth, and a "discernible human influence" on global climate.
These forces of unreason are now shifting the focus of their attention to
the scientists themselves. They seek to discredit, to skew the truth, to
misrepresent. They seek to destroy scientific careers rather than to improve
our understanding of the nature and causes of climate change.
Yesterday, Phil temporarily stepped down as Director of the Climatic
Research Unit. Yesterday was a very sad day for climate science. When the
forces of unreason win, and force exceptional scientists like Professor Phil
Jones to leave their positions, we all lose. Climate science loses. Our
community loses. The world loses.
Now, more than at any other time in human history, we need sound scientific
information on the nature and causes of climate change. Phil Jones and his
colleagues at CRU have helped to provide such information. I hope that all
of you will join me in thanking Phil for everything he has done – and will
do in the future – for our scientific community. He and his CRU colleagues
deserve great credit.
With best regards,
Ben Santer
—————————————————————————­-
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-3840
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: sant…@llnl.gov

addendum
P Wilson (17:33:23: paras 1&2 .Bret Stephens – Wall Street Journal December 1, 2009

I dout that dirt is being looked for. The only controversial *dirt* to be garnered from the emails seems to be Santer’s own desire to beat the crap” out of someone. Thats about the only slinging I can garner from the correspondences.

Every Mann for himself!!
My interpretation – Mann trying to get in front of the PSU investigation, possibly being guided by the investigators to issue statements they can use to mitigate their findings. They reveal a perceived weak position.
Easterling and Spanier are certainly under tremendous pressure from the alumni, including me. Let’s see the data, Graham.

“…..yes Senator Boxer, you are accurate in your assertion, Mr. Jones did go off the reservation….but gobal warming science is sound…..”

Mann is probably thinking that hell will freeze over before they prove anything, but it’s ironic that he’s prepared for this eventuality because he’ll have his hockey stick when hell becomes an ice rink.

Of course we don’t have Mann’s email store, but I have to admit from what I’ve seen he comes off better than most of them in being upfront with his colleagues about issues he wishes to raise, and not nearly as consistently catty in his remarks about other colleagues not on the particular chain he was responding to.
That doesn’t make his science any better (or worse), of course.

Perhaps he’s jumped ship.
MANN OVERBOARD!!
Sorry.

I’m an aerospace Technical Fellow of Modeling, Simulation and Analysis (MS&A), I’m appalled at the low standards in climatology, and how their shoddy work is–as the WSJ noted–adversely impacting the reputation of all scientists in all fields.
Mann said in the quote that he did not, could not conscience the deletion of emails and data. Yet, as others above posted, the his email response to Jones’ request to pass along his request to delete, Mann made no objection, and seemed to comply, especially w.r.t. passing along the request to delete to colleagues.
If PSU and UEA are allowed to run their own “independent” investigation, then the next time there is a big USA DoD scandal, I expect Boeing and LockMart to be allowed to “independently” investigate themselves, pronounce their innocence, and everyone accept it. Forget about the $600 toilet seats. Forget about the $450 hammers. “We did an in-depth investigation, and Dr Jones and Dr Mann didn’t really do anything wrong, but they are very sorry for being the cause of the turmoil, so let’s all just forget about it all, and go back to giving us $100,000,000 grants, and stop questioning GW and AGW.”
Through channels I offered Sen Inhofe my services as an expert practitioner of data collection, cleaning, mining, simulation and analysis. (If Sen Boxer were interested in more than catching the “hacker” I would offer my services to her side too,) I doubt he will call, but I stand ready to serve.
A blue-ribbonn panel of OUTSIDE experts needs to disassemble the data and code, and determine if accepted standard practices and procedures were followed by these climatologists.
The credibility of PSU and UES are too tarnished for them to investigate anything worse than a plagiarism claim. These data and studies are the basis for Cap-and-Trade styled changes to the world economy, which is already in shambles. Unless OUTSIDE auditors are used, the public will lose respect for science, and what will happen then? Will mob superstition replace science?
Newt Love (my real name)
newtlove.com

Ken this movement wasn’t born in this last generation, it is multi generational.
It has roots all the way back in the 1960’s when the scientist that basically put Scripps Oceanographic institute on the map postited the modern version of AGW (see John Colmans piece on ICE CAP). This scientist then moved from Scripps were he met a grad student by the name of Al Gore, as shown in his book Earth in the Balance. Of course this scientist in 1991 announced that he was wrong on AGW but by that time the AGW Bus was picking up steam with the Goracle at the wheel so Al threw him under that Bus.
At the same time this scientist made his hypthothesis the modern day Enviro movement started and as been proven by their own words (Yes I mean you Dr. Holdren) they had an agenda to enforce there own views on the world. Howerver back then the Temps were falling so AGW was still in its infancy so they went with AGC. The next Ice Age was comming, we were all going to die and it was man’s fault, yada, yada, yada. I remember the first movie I went to (I was 5 at the time) and they had this short clip before the Diseny Film about how, ironies of ironies, Exxon was helping the Enviro movement stop AGC. Yep your eyes ain’t misleading you The Greens and Exxon in bed! As the years went strolling along and we had another winter worse then the next until it all culminated in the 1977 Blizzard that basically shut down the entire Northeast for a week. After that even was Spock was on the AGC crowd as his ManBearPig series In Search of shows (You can still see the episode on the next Ice Age on You Tube, complete with a temp station on a remote island on the artic circle and an Alarmist scientist). Time famously had articles on this in 1975. Basically just take everything you have heard about AGW and change the W for a C, substitute Cold for Hot so forth and you will get an accurate picture.
Then a funny thing happened on the way to an Icy grave for mankind, The planet started warming up. Darn planet forgot to read Time and watch ManBearPig TV shows. Now the Enviros hadn’t really discovered AGW yet but they did discover the Ozone layer which CFC’s were destroying and if we didn’t do something right now in 10 years we would all fry to death in UV rays. Again the band tuned up and marched off and pass laws that really had no effect on the Ozone hole, but did help clear the smog away and we all didn’t fry in 10 years. Of course just when that was dying is when they found the motherlode of AGW and the Goracle. The rest is history.

…………….but Mann forwarded Jones’s email to another colleague.
If Mann felt uneasy about deleting emails he should have replied to Jones that wasn’t going to comply and not forward it to another colleague.
Mann like Jones was spreading the message – “delete the emails”.

Henry chance (09:38:53) :
Mann is still on his ego trip.
If he had any good judgement, he would keep quiet. This endeavor on his part may backfire. He also will find Jones may counter attack him. Mann needs to take a time out and go to Siberia and look at some tree rings on a field trip.
I would suggest that this time of year in Siberia he might want some warmer tree rings. Maybe time to throw a few on the fire.

Regarding Santer et al’s “hacker” claim, and stressing how this was a criminal act, this morning on NPR’s Marketplace Morning Report Stephen Beard took it a step further to say that “Climate-change skeptics hacked into computer records…”.
The implication seems to be that this is all a deliberate, well-timed, and “desperate” attempt by skeptics to try to undermine COP15. In short, IT’S A CONSPIRACY!
Beard goes on to say that the BBC quoted “a senior Saudi official saying this will have a huge impact on the Copenhagen conference. Every country under pressure, he says, to curb its emissions could now seize on these e-mails and say why should we damage our economy when there is still, apparently, serious doubt about climate change.”
He concludes by saying “there is plenty of other evidence that climate change is man-made”, but “this does seem to surface” next week in Copenhagen, a strange way of saying that it will certainly be an issue there. Apparently Beard and Eaton will both be there, and reporting from there.

this is what Mann does best: intimidate and screw up people! but so does Phil J, so we’re in for a great show, once they come out in public.

Richard Holle (05:04:21) :
“Finding the truth, and using it are my agenda:
Asking questions, and finding answers to compare, to further evaluate, gives us a gathering of knowledge, to evaluate the hypothesis skeptically, while figuring out better questions, to ask for the next set of trials.”
Reply: Couldn’t agree more with you. Science is all about facts and the truth – it is not about belief and defending entrenched and untenable hypotheses to the last Mann, as is happening with CAGW.
Only from real knowledge can wisdom ensue. The unbiased observer is the most import element in scientific discovery, and the ability to examine things from different points of view is a rare attribute only gifted to few.
I find your work interesting. as you try to find mechanisms to explain apparent correlations to events and rhythms in our wider climate ‘exosphere’. If we don’t look at all the factors that could effect our chaotic climate system, we will never find the truth.
It’s very interesting that Piers Corbyn, of Weather Action, hinted that he used similar methods to you to give long-range weather forecasts. I think it would be worth your time to contact him, if you haven’t already done so?
Predicting the climate is very important to the development of humanity. If we know the direction events are going, we have the time to adapt and prepare.
Good look on your quest for knowledge.

Perhaps my last post was too previous. Newsnight are now running “out of control earth” clips, floods, kids dying, meteorites hurtling into the ground, forest fires, Mayan calendars, disintegration of the planet – all under the banner of an arts report on current environmental-catastrophe-NOW! movies. Q: “Why are we so drawn to these images of destruction” A:”We have no sense of hope in the future” followed by a guy (movie critic or similar) saying that we *are facing unprecedented crisis in his analysis of the movies. Sheesh.

Here you are: the UK’s official view from the PM. This sceptic rubbish, it’s all flat earthers and loonies don’t you know?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6729833/Gordon-Brown-climate-change-sceptics-are-flat-earthers.html

Mann throws Jones under the bus, waits for a truck.