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.
“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’?