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.
Excuse me, that was from the CRU e-mail
“The masking is a ‘fix’ applied to the model
simulations to adjust them to fit the surface data known to contain
spurious trends. This is simple GIGO”
Schadenfreude => ha ha ha ha!
Here’s a good one, about changing data, from 1257874826.txt
“One final thing – don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may be down to SST issues”
So now we know what the expression “the old hide the baloney trick” actually means
Thanks RC, Ive often wondered about this myself
the story is now published at Washington Post and NYT
Yeah!!!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html
Let loose the flood……
The NYTimes even has a link to the hacked emails at
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
(After 10 yrs of no warming), have the mainstream media become more willing to report the skeptic arguments?
Richard deSousa (17:16:04) :
“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.”
Yeah, that’s the real problem–the corruption of institutions. As one Washington journalist famously said, “the real scandal in Washington isn’t what’s done that’s illegal, it’s what’s done that’s legal.”
Gee these emails are a great how to;
How to deal with Steve McIntyre
How to deal with Japan
How to deal with risks that are too low
How to deal with the IPCC
How to work with WWF
http://www.twawki.wordpress.com
Of course, we’re entering the weekend news cycle…the only news to survive through Monday is likely to be the US Senate showdown on Reid Healthcare Bill. I hope I’m wrong and that this CRU story grows over the weekend.
Found this in 1252154659.txt
It is part of an e-mail advising trying to get concensus on answering Steve McIntyre challenges. I would say the author’s tone is concerned and borders on nervous/scared.
“From: Darrell Kaufman To: Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , David Schneider , Jonathan Overpeck , “Bette L. Otto-Bliesner” , Raymond Bradley , Miller Giff , Bo Vinther , Keith Briffa Subject: Arctic2k update? Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700 Cc: ”
…
“(4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. …”
Suspect much more unflattering comments exist in all these e-mails.
Jaypan,
Have any of the Japanese news agencies picked up on this massive fraud? The Japanese, in my view, could not fall for this climate nonsense… Or have they?
Mike Bryant
It’s a little more nuanced than that. The mainstream have started responding to the overwhelmingly sceptical comments they receive on their pro-agw articles. The scepticism has been growing for a year or more and reflects I think, public doubts about the science, but more so about the proposed policy responses.
Just wondering how many Soros dollars were circulated to the Journals and other organizations that danced to the music of these corrupt so-called climate scientists…
Mike
This one is good its all about the right message Michael Mann said “we don’t expect to in any way be critical of the paper.”
Peer Review at its finest.
“At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something
on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are
going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere.
Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature’s embargo
(i.e., we wouldn’t post any article until the paper goes public) and we don’t expect to
in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure
that the right message is emphasized.
thanks in advance for any help!
mike — Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)”
vigilantfish: “It took a couple of years, but I came to realize that if I could not understand what an undergrad was writing, it was not a good paper: the student was trying to pull a snow job. I always have the same sensation on the occasions when I try to make sense of Gavin’s arguments over at RC.”
Very prescient observations…and I agree about listening to Gavin. The word sophistry comes to mind….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Tom in Florida (17:59:02) :
“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.”
Tom, if the dendro data is filtered at 50 years the instrument data _must_ also be filtered at 50 years. Have fun. Did they?
Bill Illis (18:21:49) :
“I want to thank Anthony and the moderators for keeping up with the posts today. And I, especially, want to thank Steve McIntyre for his dogged work in forcing this issue. You can tell from the emails that his analysis has always scared the pants off these individuals. That is the biggest compliment one can get from these individuals.”
Ditto the thanks to Watts, mods, and McIntyre.
This is history watching long-held “institutional” lies unraveling before our very eyes.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
One purpose of the release of these files (if they were released with the knowledge of those whose material the files contain) could be a ‘clear the air’ exercise before Copenhagen.
Similarly, one of the reasons for the ‘fall of the Berlin Wall’ over at RC is that they know the release of these files will be steering a lot of new media attention their way and they want to give the ‘impression’ of openness and reasonability to the world’s eyes now and through Copenhagen.
An old Soviet trick.
. . . I should have said in my previous post that I had attempted to post the Alice in Wonderland analogy over at RC but apparently Gavin’s tolerance for being compared to Humpty Dumpty is low. Oh well.
Michael Mann: “We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized.”
The “right message”?? Huh??
What is he…a religious evangelist or a scientist??
I don’t care in WHAT context this was delivered, this is about as unscientific an innuendo as can possibly be made.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I have to wonder if the person who made the hacked data available learned something from Andrew Breitbart’s release of the ACORN videos. Put some out, wait for denials, then nail them with more proof.
Well in any case I can hope. 🙂
I have been so disturbed by argument from “the consensus of scientists” that I can’t help relishing this.
I have not had the time to read all the comments and I have to head to reserve duty early in the morning, so….
There is a way that this can get ignored and forgotten. The media and the government will focus on the theft of the data and ignore the content of the data. This happened several years ago when a Republican Senate staffer stumbled across memos and messages between Democrats in the US Senate and lobbyists for NGOs.
The content of these messages and memos was shocking because the NGOs were telling the Senators to delay or block the confirmation of certain appeals court judges for a few years so that lawsuits being brought by the NGOs would be more likely to be heard by judges appointed by Carter or Clinton. This was a criminal conspiracy…but it was ignored. Instead, there was an investigation about how the data was released. Eventually a Republican staffer was fired.
This only works if you are a Democrat. When some political activists intercepted cell phone conversations between Republican lawmakers and political strategists (and recorded them), the embarrassing information was spread everywhere. A Dem congressman even read it on the floor of the House of Representatives. I don’t think any criminal charges were pressed against the couple that intercepted and recorded the conversations. The congressman was investigated by the Ethics Committee and given a mild sanction.
So, there will be a big investigation about how the data was stolen and the content of the data will be forgotten. If the media plays its usual role, this approach may even work.
Why is CA still down? Is it under a DDoS attack? Something is fishy here. This is too much downtime for heavy traffic to be the cause.
I’ll give you another explanation for the sudden “largess” over at Real Climate in allowing more open comment: Gavin is getting ready to throw Phil Jones and Mad Mann under the bus. Going through the emails, there wasn’t much (that I saw) that implicated Gavin much in the way of shenanigans – little bit about about his censuring in RC that deviated from its original apparent intent, but little to actual point a finger at Gavin and yell “you too!”
Gavin has to deflect the criticism, quickly, that he censors debate, especially from “contrarians”, because its a massive theme in the email train, and for the moment, it his only significant exposure (running the blog on company time is an “internal” matter with his employer).
But by allowing the full wave of anger to vent from the skeptic side, especially as it pertains to the Team, he reinforces the distance between himself and Jones et al. He’s quite prepared to let them swing.
[quote]This one is good its all about the right message Michael Mann said “we don’t expect to in any way be critical of the paper.”
Peer Review at its finest.
[/quote]
Obviously you have as much knowledge of the peer review process as a monkey does of manufacturing computer hardware.
If they haven’t been asked to review the paper, and it has passed review and has been accepted for publication, their request is hardly out of line. This is especially true when the whack-jobs [snip] continue to disregard the science behind this. The climate is changing. The causes are unknown, but only an idiot would think that increasing global temperature during the longest solar minimum in a century are somehow *not* indicative of change.
Apparently, over at CRU, they have Greenpeace writing letters for them (872202064.txt):
From: “Wallace, Helen” To: “‘t.mcmichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'” , “‘m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'” Subject: Letter Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:21:04 +0100
Dear Tony and Michael,
The final draft of the letter to the Times is attached, incorperating your changes (I hope I have combined them in a way that you are both happy with).
Brian Hoskins and Adrian Jenkins have both decided that they prefer not to sign the letter, although agreeing with its message. I haven’t been able to contact anyone else in the short time available, so I leave it up to you to decide whether you are still both happy to go ahead.
If so, Mike could you please reply to both Tony and myself and let us know, and Tony could you then send it as agreed?
Thank you both very much for your time and trouble.
Best regards, Helen
Dr Helen Wallace Senior Scientist Greenpeace UK
Full email at: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=32