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
Shurley Knot (09:50:16) : said:
If that is the case then why bother to come here and disabuse us of our mistaken impression? It really doesn’t matter what people on this blog think, does it?
A couple of other sites are reporting:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/20/the-cru-hack
They call it “fraud”:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hacker-releases-data-implicating-cru-in-global-warming-fraud
And from Daily Tech:
http://www.dailytech.com/Climategate+Stunning+Deception+and+Misconduct+at+UK+Warming+Research+Center+Revealed/article16889.htm
I think the bottomline on this whole story is this. The institutions that govern scientific behavior have gone awry. Those institutions have been corrupted by money and power and politics. The tonic for this is transparency. Free the data; free the code; free the debate.
But the AGW side is interested in controlling the message. They fight against data release because they fear what people will do with it. They fear that data will be misused:it will be. They fear people finding errors: errors will be found. They fear that people will be less certain: they will be. And they fear that it may take a long time to convince people to take action: it will. And so they act out of fear and try to control the message. Everyone who understands the nixon whitehouse understands how this fear drives people to do crazy things. The one thing they never feared: disclosure. Leaks. And so the thing they feared the most, delaying action on climate science, is the very thing they may have got. They should have trusted that open debate would yield the next right action in the shortest time possible. They didnt. They feared a “corporate enemy” that would delay action. And ironically in the end they ended up being the thing they feared.
It really doesn’t matter what people on this blog think, does it?
It hasn’t so far!
Mikey apparently doesn’t trust Andy (Revkin). Note the ps at the end. Paranoia among the Team, imagine that!
At 17:07 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
“Hi Phil,
Thanks–we know that. The point is simply that if we want to talk about about a
meaningful “2009” anomaly, every additional month that is available from which to
calculate an annual mean makes the number more credible. We already have this for
GISTEMP, but have been awaiting HadCRU to be able to do a more decisive update of the
status of the disingenuous “globe is cooling” contrarian talking point,
mike
p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like”
Here Mikey waxes eloquent about what skepticism means to science, the caveat being that it be through “formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process”. And, of course, “those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.”
This is a veritable gold mine!
From: Michael Mann To: Andrew Revkin Subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest…. Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
HI Andy,
Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don’t quote
anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically–thanks.
Re, your point at the end–you’ve taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential
for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
of this system are not to be trusted.
mike
Phil Jones to John Christy 4 years ago, 2005:
”
The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.
OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
….
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.
This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil
”
Cheers, leader of Hadcrut believed in 2005 that the world have been colling for 7 years. Thats 11 years today.
TXT 1120593115
“irresponsible” is a keyword greens often use to mean certain things…
Afraid I agree with Mike McMillan above. It will be hard to stop this train. The mole has perhaps slowed it down a little though.
HOCKEY STICK
At 12:04 PM 2/26/01 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
I was away over the weekend at Bowdoin College in Maine, giving a talk about the last 1000 years.
………….
Broecker’s bombshell bears the seemingly innocent title “Was the
Medieval Warm Period Global?” It may seem esoteric, but whether the apparent warmth reported in Europe about 1000 years ago was global or simply local is becoming a central issue in climate science. What makes it contentious is the recent claims by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the earth is warmer now than it has been for millennia, and that therefore human carbon dioxide emissions are
to blame. Broecker, a leading figure at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, questions both IPCC claims. The focus of the debate is a 1000-year temperature reconstruction known in climate circles as the “hockey stick”. Produced in 1999 by M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes, the long handle of the hockey stick shows global temperatures for the first 8 centuries as basically unchanging, followed by the sharply up-tilting blade of the last 150 years or so. The Mann et al hockey stick is the central feature of the recently released IPCC working group one Summary for Policy makers, which claims to embody the best of climate science. Broecker does not like the hockey stick, nor the conclusions the IPCC draws from it. He says ” A recent, widely cited reconstruction (Mann’s) leaves the impression that the 20th century warming was unique during the last millennium. It shows no hint of the Medieval Warm Period (from around 800 to 1200 A.D.) during
which the Vikings colonized Greenland, suggesting that this warm event was regional rather than global. It also remains unclear why just at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and before the emission of substantial amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, Earth’s temperature began to rise steeply. Was it a coincidence? I do not think so. Rather, I suspect that the post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present inter-glacial, the Holocene.” Broecker presents the evidence for a global Medieval Warm Period, as well as for a Little Ice Age from around 1300 to 1860, when the present temperature rise begins. He also argues that the “proxy” evidence used by Mann et al, such as tree ring data, is ill suited to the time period and temperature variation — less than one degree C — in question. As he puts it, “In my estimation, at least for time scales greater than a century or two, only two proxies can yield temperatures that are accurate to 0.5 C: the reconstruction of temperatures from the elevation of mountain snowlines and borehole
thermometry. Tree ring records are useful for measuring temperature fluctuations over short time periods but cannot pick up long-term trends because there is no way to establish the long-term evolution in ring thickness were temperatures to have remained constant.”
Broecker acknowledges that the proxy evidence is necessarily somewhat
“murky”, but his conclusion is that “climatic conditions have oscillated steadily over the past 100,000 years, with an average period close to 1500 years… The swing from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age was the penultimate of these oscillations.” The implication being that some, if not all, of the present warming is the natural swing out of the
Little Ice Age, and that Mann et al, as well as the IPCC, are mistaken.
Free the data; free the code; free the debate.
Oh, *snap*.
Of course, in reality, few things in capitalism are as freely accessible as science. Not that it’s helped deniers in the slightest but thousands of papers are archived annually and the fact that one or two denialist hobbyhorse papers still have data embargoed is the exception that proves the rule.
Just listen to yourselves!
Reading some of these CRU emails, I can now see with my own eyes just how much collusion is purchased with 68-billion dollars of research money over 30 years. None of this embarassment would have happened if the raw data funded by the taxpayers had been put online years ago.
Thanks to whoever did the hacking.
Marlo, thanks for the offer. The converted size will likely be in the region of 15 Mb (10% of the original file sizes). These are just the PDF / Doc / xls files, there’s no real point in sharing the programmes and data files as anyone that interested will have them already.
It’s not the filesize that is the problem though. It’s the transfer of data. If each file was looked at only 2000 times over the month (and in 24 hours the emails have had 250,000 page views), that’s 30Gb data transfer. If I upload them then the entire site would have to be taken offline after 10 days or so at that level.
I’m still looking into how I can do it, but cheers.
H
Shug Niggurath:
You can get a 4 dollar/month account at 1and1.com which should handle it easily.
“INTO NEWSPAPERS AND FINALLY TO THE SENATE FLOOR THIS WAY”
At 10:25 AM 10/14/2003 -0600, Caspar Ammann wrote:
Mike,
looks good to me. It is one of these points where they can persuade journalists that they are ‘correct’ and it actually got into newspapers and finally to the senate floor this way. The more we are able to explain why the first half of the 20th century warmed up naturally, the more confidence we get on the detection of the anthropogenic signal afterwards.
Caspar
The test of of whether or not these AGW promoters are behaving in a way that is acceptable is to ask yourself this:
If I found out that my 401-k, or 403-b money manager was behaving with my money as these scientists were behaving towards the truth, disclosure and accurate reporting as demonstrated in in these e-mails, would I leave my money with them?
Would I consider their behavior professional or ethical?
Would I continue to trust their reports of the condition of my investments?
On the basis of what the scientists in these e-mails are claiming, the world is on the verge of investing literally trillions of dollars. Entire industries are being marked for destruction.
Now that we see a very small example of how they treat the data, the methods of processing the data, their lack of integrity irt peer review, and how they treat those who dare to question them, are those decisions still made with confidence?
Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker has commented to his audience:
“…Some of the guys working on this stuff appear to be genuinely trying to clean up other people’s trash. But trash in produces trash out, and if you can’t successfully defend the statistical integrity of the data going into your computational models you have nothing.
This leaves me with one final question: since we have emails now apparently documenting an attempt to “paper over” temperature decreases in recent years, and we also have claims of “lost” data, one wonders – was the data really lost, or was it intentionally deleted or withheld from other researchers who asked for it, as providing it would show that measurement uncertainties were not carried through computationally – and if they were, the claimed results in the so-called “peer reviewed” paper would be impossible to validate? ”
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1651-Global-Warming-SCAM-A-Further-Look.html
Phil,
I can’t quite see what all the fuss is about Watson – why should he be re-nominated
one of the best:
anyway? Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC? One could argue the CC issue is
more important for the South than for the North. Watson has perhaps thrown his weight
about too much in the past. The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why
not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with
energy and money, than natural science.
From: Mike Hulme
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: [Fwd: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote]
Date: Mon Apr 22 18:14:44 2002
probably posted already can’t believe I’m reading this:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
it.
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
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40’s trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not – over eastern US.
I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone
School of Environmental Sciences Fax
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Although the email parts of this have attracted the most attention (some of it warranted ), I think the real story is buried in the data files and mathematics of the various analyzes. A quick search of the emails for “statistics” yields some interesting discussions of problems associated with those analyzes and models. I’ll be anxiously awaiting the judgment of the skeptical experts (scientists and statisticians ) regarding the validity of the techniques used, and subsequent conclusions presented by the Hadley team. Some side by side comparisons are in order. Let’s get to work guys.
steven mosher (10:24:20) :
Very poignant pose, Steven!
If this ends up costing a few of these climate “scientists” their jobs I am confident they could find work in the Obama Administration as Counters of Jobs Saved/Created by the Economic Stimulus Package.
Steven Mosher
Yes, this is profoundly true. Nothing kills a cause so fast or thoroughly as those most fanatically devoted to it. Look what Cyril Burt did to inherited abilities. When the twin studies were proved fakes, he put the issue out of consideration for a generation. But actually, some abilities really are inherited. Just not with the racial and social implications that he faked the data with a view to attaching to this fact.
This is the same sort of thing. It could be that climate change, and human caused climate change is a real threat. But this is now going to be impossible to seriously advocate, thanks to the idiotic antics of a few venal fanatics.
‘Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!’
I could not believe my ears when I heard about the CRU hack on the main evening news for Austria. The state owned broadcaster “ORF” usually only brings alarmist news. I guess now the CRU hack will also get some press coverage.
Note to anyone searching the database:
I would be very interested in hearing about anything you can find on “1945” & “COWL” (cold ocean – warm land).
This relates to clouds & EOP (Earth orientation parameters) – i.e. 2 things that are too inconvenient for top alarmist operatives to acknowledge, it often seems.
Thanks to some of Bob Tisdale’s articles, it is clear to me that top alarmist operatives would find it convenient to erase the ~1945 spikes in the following records:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/NutationObliquity.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumALPI.png
Either ignorance or deceit is at play. Investigation is warranted.
It might also be insightful to search “chandler wobble”, “polar motion”, “1920-1940”, “arctic warming”, “dirty 30s”, “southern ocean”, “Sidorenkov”, “Barkin”, “Vondrak”, etc. to see if they have any clue about:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PolarMotionPeriodMorlet2piPower.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/GA_MapXL.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/sqrtaayoy.sq22.png
Evidence of deception &/or ignorance on these fronts would be very telling.
After a few searces I realized that the worst nightmare of the Team members is getting a FOI request from McIntyre.
On a possibly related note, the most popular search term on the email search site at the moment is ‘moron’;
Top ten:
moron
Al Gore
trick
delete
revkin
foi
hide the decline
fraud
steve mcintyre