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.
Turning a “trick” is another way to describe prostitution.
Here, the science cops have been paid off in kind for looking
the other way while the transactions continue.
I don’t think Gavin knows any lawyers. Rule #1 – DON’T SAY ANOTHER WORD. Rule #2, Don’t take the stand in defense of yourself or anyone else.
He is putting himself on the stand for a marathon session of defending this fiasco – he better have a lot of coffee cause this is gonna be an all-nighter! Even the believers are taking shots at the level of contemptible discourse in the emails.
“if Jones had written “address the divergence problem” instead of “hide the decline” would we be talking about that email at all?”
Probably not. If something else happened in the past, then things would be different in the future. If something had not smacked Earth and had instead missed, the moon wouldn’t be there at night and we wouldn’t have spent billions getting there. I fail to see the point of your question.
But the fact that he did use the phrase “hide the decline” shows how he thought about the issue and shows his intention. He wasn’t worried about addressing the “divergence problem”, he was interested in “hiding” something. What he wrote at the time says how he felt about it, how he had it framed in his mind. So what he did was rather than having a trend line that was a smoothing of what had already happened, he decided to have a little bit of future data included in the current “trend”. And since the temperature in the future rises after the end of the trend line, this backfilling of future data into the present made it show what they wanted it to show even though the line itself was then meaningless.
What is to prevent them from using that same “trick” with the global temperature data? Lets say I have a missing value for a station. I compute a “fill” value by looking at an average of nearby stations over time on the same day. What if “over time” extended into the future and used what the model says temperatures are “going to be” as a value used to compute that average? You then get into a situation where you have a self-fulfilling prophecy where you model’s future prediction is influencing the present time which tends to make the present temperature more in line with the model’s prediction. You simply adjust today to better fit your prediction of the future. And the more values that go “missing” the better you can fit create the future of your choice by gradually warming up missing values so the overall global temperature is influenced by the model’s future prediction.
At this point I would put nothing past those people. They show little regard for scientific integrity of their output as long as it shows the “correct” result.
Thank you for explaining the “Trick”.
I am just sitting shaking my head and saying to myself: “They are so f***ed!”
Sorry for the language but it is hard to articulate my emotion in any other way.
Ben Santer Apparently!
“I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley. They seem to have no understanding of how science is actually done – no appreciation of the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of what we do. Once again, just let me know how I can help….”
“trick … to hide the decline”
that is the point. the trick was to hide. this is unnacceptable. it’s dishonest. it’s fraud. there is no place in any profession, scientific or otherwise, for deliberate use of “tricks” to “hide” information which the hider finds undesirable.
can they be prosecuted for misuse of govt funds / fraud? i hope so.
@ur momisugly LittyKitter:
Apparently, there are legal issues…and until “airtight” controls are in place, no comments.
If I understood it well, smoothing did a down-tail of proxies ending in 80ties, even going more down than raw data showed, so they prolonged the proxy data with temperature data and cut now better smoothed line in 1980. Which is not THAT bad. Smoothing usually yields weird ends and beginnings for the smoothed line.
More serious was, when the Team cut the proxies in 1980s since they did not show as fast uptick as instrumental record did.
1107454306
Not that anyone has anything to hide…
Good lord, I’ve run out of popcorn.
Guys remember Gavin at Fenton Commmunications I mean Environmental Media Services I mean RealCimate.org says that reposting private emails is unethical so make sure to keep sending these to as many people as you know.
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming That they Tried to Keep out of the IPCC Report.
1089318616.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Cheers
Phil
Don’t let anyone read this either,
The Truth about RealClimate.org
good stuff!
here some of rahmstorf:
From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: Eystein Jansen Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Ch6-Climate Sensitivity Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:49:05 +0200 Reply-to: stefan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi co-authors,
here are some thoughts on what to say on climate sensitivity in our chapter – this is an
attempt to focus on the main, simple messages for policy makers. (I think we should try
retaining those important messages and not lose sight of them amidst all the details,
complexity and caveats.)
The main policy-relevant question could be phrased as follows: Does the past climate
history tell us how sensitive the climate system is to CO2?
I submit that the answers to this we get from different time periods are the following.
Deep Time:
Reconstructions are too uncertain (and boundary conditions too different, e.g. continents
in different places, different ocean circulation) to draw quantitative conclusions about
sensitivity to CO2,
I believe that the people involved in doctoring the data were chosen to push the enviro-socialistic beliefs of the Euro-centric (Both in US/Europe) progressives. The Excel file with all the grant $$$ helped push that along. It seems that this country and Europe are going further into a “global new deal” where health care, carbon taxes, redistribution of wealth and Big Government rule. Wall Street/London did push Obama 3 to 1 for a reason, because they will get the bailouts and government projects, brought to you by John Q Taxpayer. It’s to bad the Scientific and Political sides of the AGW debate have been melded together. Regardless if AGW is occurring or not, the politicians and money powers of the world have simply co-opted the Science over Politics. This story is nothing more then a symptom of Supra-Internationalism seeking to destroy the National and Economic Sovereignty of Nations.
Our little Gav is getting worried?
Response: There is no confusion. McIntyre insinuated malfeasance without any evidence whatsoever. It wasn’t that I didn’t understand what he had done, it was that I didn’t know what the circumstances were of the original study. Condemning me for trying to find out is a little odd. – gavin]
End of supercillious special pleading
He never suggested malfeasance he just showed that you were all rubbish at statistics. But never said that.
You censor so I post somewhere else.
You could not punch your way out of a wet echo.
Trick or Cheat?
So AGW is man made. We knew this, didn’t we? Now the rest of the world knows which men made it.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=471
I say, AGW is dead!
The Warmers at giss and at cru
Cooked up data to make hockey stew
The trick was to hide
How the warming had died
Hero hacker put the lies in full view…
Should I stay or should I go.
Our lovely boy Gav is still up he has even allowed critiscism. Maybe he just wants to show what a regular guy he is?
Where there is smoke, there is fire. Gore & Hansen, tied to CRU by IPCC, thier proclamations are likewise inflammable.
How’s that hot seat working out for you, Al?
Now this is interesting from Tim Osborn (1214229243.txt) :
So apparently if you organize a campaign to get FOI requests submitted, they can deny them all claiming they are designed to “inconvenience” or somehow harass them regardless of the merit.
I actually got a post through over at Real Climate. I was responding to a previous poster’s comment:
Steve Fish said: “it is not necessary to look to mathematics for an example of one of the many meanings of the word “trick” (e.g. one synonym is stratagem). I suggest that those individuals such as Joe Hunkins, Matty Virtanen, and dcook who are confused might benefit from looking in Merriam-Webster. That should do the trick.”
From Merriam-Webster for the synonym of “trick”: stratagem implies a ruse used to entrap, outwit, circumvent, or surprise an opponent or enemy .
[Response: You are being rather sly. Try linking to the definition, and looking at #3. This is a really weak point you are trying to make. – gavin]
I have to give gavin some credit. He is allowing posts from previously banned posters and trying his darnedest to reply to them (albeit not very well!)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=475
AGW for Rahmstorf = Lier like Al Gore!
I know the “hide the decline” email is getting lots of notice (and it is noteworthy), but I am even more interested in the “delete the emails” instructions given. This looks to be evidence of conspiracy to obstruct. Where are the lawyers among us?
Michael Mann via UK Guardian:
“I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”