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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.