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.
Breaking News! Anthony Watts found to have surreptitiously softened criticism of bad reporting by sympathetic news source!
Critique 1: Daily Tech is unresponsive and slow:
“Note from Anthony: When the DailyTech first posted this story and referenced my blog as the source of th compilation, without ever interviewing me or asking me a single question, I told them immediately they had it wrong. Shortly after that I published this ”Update and Caveat” (below) on the original post since they were slow to react. All told it took over 8 hours for Dailytech to make a change to the wording, but by then the genie was out of the bottle.”
http://forums.pal-item.com/viewtopic.php?p=105765&sid=71732ef7900cee2571a2f069dac31b70
Shortly after posting the note about Daily Tech’s reporting, Mr. Watts apparently decided that his criticism was too harsh.
Critique 2: Daily Tech is gracious and cooperative:
Note from Anthony: When the DailyTech first posted this story and referenced my blog as the source of th compilation, without ever interviewing me or asking me a single question, I notified them immediately of my concerns. Shortly after that I published this ”Update and Caveat” (below) on the original post. Dailytech graciously made a changes to the wording at my request, but by then the genie was out of the bottle.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/05/twelve-months-of-cooling-doesn%e2%80%99t-make-a-climate-trend
Malfeasance! LOL!
BBC have been awful over the last two days – we had a Red “Take Action” severe weather warning for north-west England and south-west England for heavy rain. When the inevitable happened and we had a fatality (a heroic policeman diverting traffic off a busy bridge, which then collapsed with him on it), they had less than 5 minutes on it in their morning broadcast compared to Sky News which devoted practically all their coverage to the dreadful flooding.
Of course they are now talking about it as a 1-in-1000 year event which all their usual connotations, wry looks to the camera.
Insurgent, good, but how about this one:
1107454306
” Ric Werme (14:35:30) :
I have no problem with the word “trick” – I use many “Tricks of the Trade” to diagnose problems, find workarounds for recalcitrant computers, etc. I have lots of problems with the word “hide” and can’t think of many places in a professional position where hide is good other than military and similar fields.
Congrats to John Finn and others who worked on this years ago. Good job!”
Reminds me of the other usage of “hide”
“Tan me hide when I’m dead Fred
Tan me hide when I’m dead
So we tanned his hide when he died Clyde
And that’s it hanging on the shed.”
Apologies to Rolf Harris
We’ve been conned. The tricksters, liars and frauds, should be held accountable and suffer the consequences for their actions.
“no mention of the leak on the home page of CNN.com, MSNBC.com, ABCnews”
Last time I looked at the ratings Fox draws more audience in most time slots than all the others combined. So it doesn’t really matter if the other nets aren’t carrying it. Nobody is listening to them preach anyway except the chior.
Very very difficult to get any messages through to our Gav. Hope you are reading lovely boy.
The whole stinking lie is now shown to be a smell. I always thought it was peculier that scientists’ would you use the word denier but now understand that none of you are scientists and your attacks were to hide the fraud.
Not only do you promote a falsehood you conspired together to do so.
Come on Gav how many R’s are there in resignation.
geo (14:21:09) asks “If Jones had written ‘address the divergence problem’ instead of ‘hide the decline’ would we be talking about that email at al?”
Yes we would! We would be asking why the tree ring data diverged from the insterment data. We would ask where the insterments where located in relation to the trees. We would question whether the reconstruction was valid through its entirety. We would talk about this e-mail!
geo (15:15:37) :
Um, no, you misunderstand the divergence problem. I shall explain…
The tree-rings are being used, after a sort of weighted average, to determine temperature. The divergence problem is simply the fact that post 1960 or so, many of the tree-rings no longer correlate well to temperature. This implies that tree-rings do not actually respond well to temperature, or at least, temperature is not adequately reflected in their measurement. This cannot be “applied to the MWP” as it signifies the two things (temperature and growth) are uncorrelated (or weakly correlated at best, with a non-linear relationship).
What makes this devastating is that they cannot use reconstructions based on tree-rings to “make the MWP go away.” True, the likes of Mann and others continue to use tree-rings in their reconstructions unabashed, but no amount of screaming can overcome the fact that such reconstructions are worthless.
Mark
Trust me Doug, the sheeple, as we are sometimes rather cutely described, are quite capable of seeking out the information they need in order to inform their opinions. Over the last year or so, I’ve seen the comment sections of MSN pro-AGW arguments full to overflowing with sceptic opinions. This isn’t some coordinated attack; it’s ordinary people like you and I proactively informing themselves, raising eyebrows, expressing their views. The days of media mind control over the general population are long gone.
There have been mentions on instapundit, fox news, and fox business.
also a mention on hotair
doug (16:40:04) says “Related to my earlier post, for example no mention of the leak on the home page of CNN.com, MSNBC.com, ABCnews . Again we need to send out emails to everyone we know.”
I saw it on FoxNews.com. I e-mailed my Senetors and Congressman because they’re going to see some nutty climate bill and need to be prepared to fight me off when I storm Washington.
This all excellent work.
Here’s what I see as especially ugly and of very low ethical standard:
The emails show very clear how the peer-review process was manipulated, a closed shop for insiders only, and having this neatly organized then arrogantly tell the world that the work of Steve McIntyre a.o. has no value, because not “peer-reviewed”. What a misuse.
What kind of personality must one have to arrange such, proceed and “refine” over years?
And all this fraud is done with taxpayers money? And those people influence politician, media and scare the rest of the world?
Isn’t it about time tha a lot of members in these circles draw a line and get back on track before it’s too late? Come on guys, we’ve got you.
Amazing that Jones denies misleading when he clearly uses the word “trick”.
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s36wattsup&r=35
Reminds me to MBH98, but this is a REAL hockey stick!
What is the correct solution to this scandal? If the institutes of higher learning are honest, they should fire all those who are involved. Jones, Mann etal. Wanna bet they keep their jobs? This makes these institutes co-conspirators.
From: “Graham F Haughton” To: “Phil Jones” Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
… Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness – I’ve signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it…. Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, ‘and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her…!’
Graham
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065
Nothing like remaining objective…
Not sure, but this smells like cherry pie cooking:
I posted the following at RC as they don’t seem to be censoring everything just at the moment (it’s a credibility thing . . . )
I think the defence of the use of the word ‘trick’ looks a bit like this ploy:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
Re getting this to the mass media, I posted the following on the enormous ‘Breaking News’ thread last night. Since it doubtless got buried, I’m taking the liberty of reposting:
/Mr Lynn
Here it is at the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?ref=science
The “Nature trick” is not near as damning as some of the things about a deliberate attempt to hinder FOI requests. I am sorry, but, if your data and method cannot be reproduced it is not science. Therefore anything that somes from that supposed data and method is meaningless garbage. It is hard to believe those at the Hadley Centre and elsewhere who have blocked these attempts could pass a high school science class with so poor an understanding of scientific method.
Meanwhile the Guardian has published a ridiculous and embarassing article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
It is obviously nothing but a spin control piece calling for the punishment of the leakers, reminding us of the supposed “evidence for global warming” and deliberately avoiding or oblivious to the entire actual issues. Such as the fact that the evidence they point to is shown by these very documents to have been largely fake.
I still can’t believe these emails can be real.
1123622471.txt
“The use of “likely” , “very likely” and my additional fudge word “unusual” are all carefully chosen where used.” – Keith Briffa
Luboš Motl (14:12:30) :
Dr Phil Jones’ 13.7 million British pounds in grants, seen in one of the XLS files,
……and preachers get accused of fleecing the flock.