Quite a lot of interest continues in the files from CRU that were leaked/hacked and placed on a Russian FTP server. Quite a number of other websites have been things with them ranging from commentary to evaluation of validity. With over 1000 emails, it is a bit of a task to wade through.
The Internet is an amazing place. Now there’s a website that has put all of the emails into a searchable database with a web engine interface.
The screencap below shows the engine at http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
I have no idea who put this together, but it does seem to work quite well. For example, typing in the keyword “moron” yields an interesting email. So does typing in the name of a prominent climate “bulldog”.
Interesting stuff.
NOTE: Link updated to new website on 1/23/10
NikFromNYC (15:45:24) :
You are the one harping on the decline email. Mike’s nature trick is actually the subject of a post on this blog, perhaps you should be commenting there?
Subject to moderator permission;
The first 10 who send an e-mail to crufoifile@live.co.uk may receive a reply with a large attachment.
(Mod – snip if this breaks your rules)
Link to ‘The Times’ article on UK News front page dropped into oblivion and replaced with this:
Climate change to lash Britain with tropical storms
… but note the comments. LOL!
RE: ‘Billy Mitchell’ in regards to the 6 sigma event mentioned in my previous post.Is he a climatologist or not? Or are they using the famous Airforce Flyer’s name as meaning ‘Blowing the theory out of the water’? I want to go to bed,it’s a simple question?
If Lord Monckton tells Bonnie Prince Charlie he’s gaga, is that peer review?
Down with the Illuminati!
Re: mark_d (15:15:30)
Good find. As I suspected, EOP, aa, & other factors continue to appear to be completely off their radars. They are focused on British vs. USA navy ships, buckets, volcanoes, atmospheric chemistry, etc. and appear completely oblivious to the layers of confounding — several major global variables went through major changes around 1945 — perhaps it is inconvenient to look carefully at all major variables.
Bob Tisdale: I hope you are following mark_d’s posts.
The real Bonnie Prince Charlie was a Scot and a Stuart, as opposed to this Hanoverian Pretender.
‘Down with the Illuminati’ still stands.
Telegraph now gone mainstream with it …
Climate scientists accused of ‘manipulating global warming data’
This is rather good as an example of silencing the ‘deniers’
Alleged CRU Email – 1051190249.txt
From: Tom Wigley
To: Timothy Carter
Subject: Re: Java climate model
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
Cc: Mike Hulme , Phil Jones
Tim,
I know about what Matthews has done. He did so without contacting Sarah
or me. He uses a statistical emulation method that can never account for
the full range of uncertainties. I would not trust it outside the
calibration zone — so I doubt that it can work well for (e.g.)
stabilization cases. As far as I know it has not been peer reviewed.
Furthermore, unless he has illegally got hold of the TAR version of the
model, what he has done can only be an emulation of the SAR version.
Personally, I regard this as junk science (i.e., not science at all).
Matthews is doing the community a considerable disservice.
Tom.
PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the
editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame — he encourages the
publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach
is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their
journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation
under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since
whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is
how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to
sign such a letter — 50+ people.
Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.
Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not
work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually
fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer,
etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so
the above approach might remove that hurdle too.
thanks Tim,
I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to
NCAR, NSF, NAS, IPCC and everyone else. Rest assured that I won’t ever
respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you
any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way…
I hope you’re having as nice a spring as we are here. See you in June?
mike
—-
That’s DOCTOR BOZO to you, “mike”, if that is your real name.
—
> Hi Phil,
>
> This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
> for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
> facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They
> can’t take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
> thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
> entirely compromised.
—
Folks, is this true??? Please say it ain’t so!
Politics lead science
With regard to refs – remember that our goal is to cut the number of references significantly. Since this is an assessment and not a review, we can delete all but the most recent and comprehensive references. I don’t like cutting out the original refs any more than you, but we just don’t have room, and its more important to have text than exhaustive references. Our colleagues will hopefully understand, and if they don’t then they need to do an ego check. It’s more important that we make an impact with policy makers rather than with citation indices. 1120014836.txt
Wipe the slate clean, eh?
Subject: Re: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 18:51:01 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike,
We’ll differ a bit on a few points, but let’s wipe the slate clean and get back to improving our estimates of past changes over the last millennium. I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over here makes that easier than in the US – but I would ignore the so-called skeptics until they get to the peer-review arena. I know this is harder for you in the US and it might become harder still at your new location. I guess it shows though that what we are doing in important. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle.
Cheers
Phil926031061.txt
This “cheat” sounds like it is about presentation.
Grey shading is a little cheat from Santer et al using a trusty ruler. See Figure 3.B in this paper, take the absolute range of model scaling factors at each of the heights on the y-axis and apply this scaling to HadCRUT3 tropical mean trend denoted by the star at the surface. So, if we assume HadCRUT3 is correct then we are aiming for the grey shading or not depending upon one’s pre-conceived notion as to whether the models are correct.1200010023.txt
Re: vukcevic (15:51:49)
This is certainly very interesting in light of Barkin’s work.
Related:
Coverage of the recent UK floods in Canada has focused on the lack of warning. This makes me wonder if UK news agencies are blocking release of info about Piers Corbyn’s predictions, which were made 100 days in advance.
The cover-up of natural influences on climate is falling apart.
Mosh, please write a post for Steve or WUWT or tAV. Get all those lucid moments clearly together, what you are saying is important.
Thanks.
Everyone, please note CA mirror site now at http://camirror.wordpress.com/
This one is pretty interresting. One gets to read about the origins of paleodata inclusion in the public information contributions from the team:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=75&filename=907695513.txt
From: Keith Briffa
To: Jonathan T. Overpeck
Date: Tue Oct 6 13:38:33 1998
“My first comment is that I agree with all of your general remarks and with your implied rebuke to Phil that we should be very wary of seeming to dam certain proxies and over hype others when we all know that there are real strengths and weaknesses associted with them all. The truth is that all of this group are well aware of this and of the associated fact that even within each of these sub-disciplines e.g. Dendro, coral etc. there is a large range of value , or concern with the external usage of our data. However, my own and Phil’s concerns are motivated ,like yourself, by the outside world’s inability to appreciate these points and the danger that we will all be seen as uncritical or niave about the real value of proxy data. The rationale for the recent Jones et al paper, and some things that I have written in the past is to inform would be users , particularly the modellers, that there are critical questions to be addressed about how the palaeo-data are best used in a ‘detection’ or ‘model validation’ context.”
“Your question about Jasper, the sample depth, in my opinion , IS responsible for the early high values. So don’t put much faith in the early warmth. We have devised a simple method of scaling down the variance in average series to take account of the inflated variance that occurs when a reduced number of series are averaged – such as at the start of this chronology . We used this in our recent Nature paper looking at a possible volcanic signal in the density data averaged over the northern network. Ed has incorporated this in the latest version of his super tree-ring standardisation/chronolgy construction program , but it was not used in the Jasper work .”
Searching for ‘Eyes only’ and ‘reconstruction errors’ brings up some pretty dubious behavior by all invloved.
What this archive of incriminating evidence shows is that people who are up to no good still haven’t learned the historical lesson that when up to no good you *should not keep records of your malfeasance*.
This is one that ought to be in the “Evil Overlord List”. 😉
Especially good is the e-mail where Mann says “Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP.” which is in reference to the first big break against the AGW fraud when the data on creating the phony “hockey stick” was discovered on an unsecured FTP server.
My bet on this is for an inside job where someone had an attack of conscience, integrity and honesty and decided to let the world outside know what really goes on under the umbrella of “science”.
If it was an outside hack, then whomever was in charge of the server that got hacked was negligent. BSD, Linux, Unix and systems like them aren’t that difficult to secure, especially when they’re set up for a dedicated purpose like a mail server or relay rather than as a general purpose operating system.
Here’s a funny article on the hacked emails from TreeHugger, which is a mouthpiece for the Warmists:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/climate-emails-hacked.php
“Check out emails between climate scientists stored on servers at the University of East Anglia that showed not a plot but perhaps too much information-sharing on climate change between scientists.”
Clearly the biggest impediment to advancing our understanding of Earth’s climate system is “too much information-sharing on climate change between scientists.”…
Absent a return to dueling, I urge resolving these matters with a worldwide gauntlet of wiffleball bats.
I have solved the “divergence problem” of tree rings not matching recent temperature that The Hockey Stick Team is trying so to hard to “hide the decline” of during a period of temperature incline.
If I ignore other growth factors than temperature and I merely look at a plot not over time but of thermometer recorded temperature vs. tree growth I suddenly discover the not exactly surprising result that cold-adapted very long living trees do not grow very well when temperatures rise *too* far from those warmer Ts they actually do better in.
Now take this response-to-temperature relation and plug into it a perfect historical temperature record going back a few thousand years (but not long enough for trees to adapt along the way) then very warm periods like those of the present day will appear as COLD years if you idiotically call tree ring widths a linear proxy of T.
That’s the exact message of the “divergence problem”. They are looking for external factors, can’t find any (!) and so say they don’t understand it yet. They are ignoring the obvious explanation that their crucial data sets, the only ones that give alarming instead of merely suggestive results, are NEGATIVELY effected by HOT temperatures as much as they are positively effected by merely warm ones.
So in Nerd Word, Fox News’s headline would actually have more punch:
“Leaked e-mails from British research center include reference to plan to hide the glaring non-linearity of cold stressed trees to temperature.”
I just saw this post on Real Climate.
———————————————–
I am sorry that you have to waste your time answering the misconceptions that have arisen from this theft. I am sure you have better things to do than to justify your working methods. (post continues)
———————————————–
That is the kind of thinking that’s going on over there.
In other news (yea, there has been other news!), you’ve missed CERN starting up the CLOUD experiment Anthony.
Does anyone have a secure system/setup and want to take a chance on the offer made above by Nic (16:21:44) :
There could be more.
Nik, I look forward to your guest blog on this. A literature search on the divergence problem would help though, just in case it’s been covered previously (although obviously as the peer review system is gamed, I don’t expect you’ll find anything relevant in the published literature!).
Shurley Knot (16:37:42) :
“thanks Tim,
I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to
NCAR, NSF, NAS, IPCC and everyone else. Rest assured that I won’t ever
respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you
any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way…
mike”
Interesting that Mann is willing and intends to share private email with others, without even being asked. That’s a no-no.
Hi all–
I work for the USGS. Out of curiousity, I did a search on “USGS”. Was kind of surprised to find this from Bob Keeland:
I guess that my point is that climate continues to fluctuate within
broad bounds. Everything that we are now calling ‘climate change’ is
well within the bounds observed within the prehistoric record of climate
fluctuations. Do we call any variation ‘climate change’ or should we
limit the term climate change for anything considered to be caused by
humans? To my mind it is not so much what we call it, but rather that
we keep a clear idea of what we actually talking about.
Bob Keeland
USGS, National Wetlands Research Center
Lafayette, LA
bob_keeland@xxxx
Other interesting search terms to enter are “Bush” and “Obama”.