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
Slightly more info on the 1945 thing.
David Thompson is giving a talk here tomorrow on this.
The essence of his talk will be in Nature in a few weeks time.
The skeptics will make a meal of this when it
comes out, but if they did their job properly (I know this is impossible!) they would
have found it. It relates to a problem with SST data in the late 1940s. The
problem will get corrected for at some point. SSTs need adjusting as there must be
from buckets for the period from Aug45 by about 0.3 gradually reducing to
a zero adjustment by about the mid-1960s. The assumption was that after WW2 they were
all intake measurements and didn’t need adjusting.
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling
with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary. It won’t change century-scale trends.
There is much more of an interesting thing going on now. With all the drifters
now deployed measuring SST, the % of ships making measurements in now
only about 40% of the total – whereas it was all in the late 1990s. In comparisons
over the last 10 years it seems that ships measure SSTs about 0.1-0.2 higher
than the drifters/buoys. As the 61-90 base period is ship based, it means
recent anomalies are colder than they should be (by about 0.1 for global mean
T in the last 2 years).
Working on a press release with MOHC about the Nature paper.
We’ve been though page proofs with Nature, but these don’t yet include figs.
There is a long series of e-mails in 1233245601.txt. About half way down there is this snippet (Ben writing to Rick):
“Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
out of being wrong.”
Looking at the other files, there’s a 13MByte file “master.dat”. Hmmm???
Shurley Knot – I want to address your thinking…
A few days into January of the year 2000 the Y2K “epidemic” looked silly in hindsight. This may not be the tipping event for AGW, but all the data (scientific, political and public opinion) reflects that we are closer to the “tipping” point today then anytime in the last twenty (20) years. If you cannot accept that, then you are part of the hoax and that is unfortunate.
So much good could have been accomplished around the world with all the time, money and effort wasted on the AGW scam. Personally, I find the indoctrination and fear mongering of the children to be the most criminally negligent aspect of the AGW gang…
Yep, seems to be temp data from around the world.
My my my, what ugly things you find when you lift a rock.
The investigation needs to be completed. Preliminary analysis indicates that their bunker mentality has lead them to commit serious errors. Personal and Professional. If that is true then the perpetrators of this scheme need to be severely punished to the full extent that the law and their peers allow.
Everyone who has taken organized personal abuse and been obstructed by these people and hung in there should be mightily proud.
One thing that strikes me as a citizen of the US is that if Copenhagen could be signed and enforced then as a US Citizen if I exceeded my quota of CO2 while carrying out perfectly legal activities, such as living, I would be subject to paying money to the US Government for it. That money would then be handed by them to an outside unelected and unchallengeable authority.
That being the case a user fee tax is being charged within the US on behalf of that outside unelected and unchallengeable authority.
I seem to remember that “Taxation without Representation” was a concept abhorent to the people here. Perhaps it will be again.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=127&filename=933255789.txt
“From: Adam Markham
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, n.sheard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: mrae@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so
far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50%
of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a
particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public
splash on this they need something that will get good support from
CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
“The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999,
p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam”
Re: Steve Hempell
I don’t know if anyone else has posted on this as I haven’t had the opportunity to scan all the comments.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php
When I read this it seemed to me to be a devastating commentary on the state of dendrochronology and the “team” in particular.
Yes, I ‘ve read both of the commentaries at PowerLineblog. They really show what a good attorney can do with a stack of emails and a narrative.
Compelling stuff….both (so far) are a must read.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php
Everyone needs to listen up about this debate. POUND on the FOI issue.
Pound on it. why? because the technical issues ( manns trick) and the science issues ( model sensitivites, SSTs ) all of those issues are PLAYING ON THEIR BATTLEFIELD. you get that. their battlefield. Even if you are right, you lose because they own the journals. get that. They own the journals and the battle of science is fought there UNTIL we reform the journals. our battlefield is FOI.
the battlefield we can win on is FOI. free the data; free the code; free the debate. Without the data you can’t debate effectively. without the code, same thing. If you attack on the science they will always have a defense. But they have no defense, no credible defense, to transparency in science. Science depends on it. Focus your efforts on the FOI issues.
They get it. That is why they try to change the rules for AR5.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=998&filename=1249045162.txt
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=927&filename=.txt
“”Hi Phil
> >
> > Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a
> public talk and
> > noted
> > that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or
> so and 2008
> > doesn’t look too hot.
> >
> > Anticipating the sceptics latching on to this soon, if they
> haven’t done
> > already, has anyone had a good look at the large-scale circulation
> > anomalies
> > over this period? I haven’t noticed anything consistent
> coming up in the
> > annual climate reviews but then I wasn’t really looking.
> >
> > Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!
> >
> > Hope all’s well with you
> >
> Mick
Ugh…
I have a heads up for those harping on “hiding the decline in temperature”.
It’s will be easily argued that it’s not really temperature.
It can be claimed with some confidence that it instead refers to the recent decline in tree ring proxy data in which rings do match T early century, but later fail to do so, resulting in the plot of tree ring widths to decline as thermometer data trends up. That this “divergence problem” has been published about by Briffa in ‘Nature’ means claims of a cover up are easy to deny.
So if you want to keep using Jones’ quote as being damaging I suggest saying they were trying to hide the fact that their temperature proxy graphs decline but beware of accusing them of trying to hide the face that thermometer graphs have declined. Otherwise they can too easily win in a public debate about this.
Searching for ‘the decline’ I get these as other relevant use of “the decline”:
(1) This levelling is coincident with the
>> start of a density decline – we have a paper coming out in Nature
>> documenting the decline. In relative terms (i.e. by comparison with
>> increasing summer temperatures) the decline is represented in the ring
>> width and basal area data as a levelling off in the long-timescale inrease
>> ( which you only see when you process the data as we have). [Briffa]
(2) The Nature paper on the decline story is now officially accepted and I still hope it may come out before Christmas or at least shortly afterwards. [Briffa]
(3) (Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.) [Jones]
“Mick Kelly wrote:
> Jenny
> UEA should send the final invoice on the old contract within a day or two. I
> am trying to see it before it goes to check it is for the right amount. In
> case I fail and it’s not the right amount, please let me know asap!
> Thanks
> Mick ”
Red flag. Mick Kelly is an interesting character in this….
This may have been already cleared, but I now have no time to scan all the postings, so anyone please tell me (exactly or roughly) how many files were there in the hacked body. Thanks.
Some have said (at realclimate) that this is simply the common banal chatter between scientists. Maybe so, but it doesn’t disprove that they specifically did conceal evidence and that they refused to operate in good faith and with due diligence, and that they did manipulate data that was”inconvenient” to the conclusions they were “expecting.” For me, the AGW CO2 theory was bogus on the basis of simple physics and thermodynamics, machiavellian emails through CRU, or not. Their conclusions and that of the IPCC were simply bad science and were for the use of political and monetary gain. That is, I felt the theory was busted before these current revelations. It’s almost a denoument for me, as I expected something like this would happen, sooner or later. Not necessarily through hacking, if it was a hack. Or if the hacker was an “inside” person who had enough of the deceit and covert operations in what should be the science of the planet, literally and figuratively, especially as several governments are considering economic and political suicide based on this pile of bovine excrement.
One caveat, for myself, I suppose. When I was learning science in school, this was back when they taught science, not politics and religion. So, those younger than I am may have had a different view and all I can do is invite them to read. Go to the old library and look for science books with original copyright dating back to at least the 80’s or earlier, in order to learn physics without the Al Gore tint.
Hi Paul, tallbloke
Paul Vaughan (15:18:21) :
Re: tallbloke (12:22:28)
It could also be important to search “1976″, “climate shift”, “regime shift”, “arctic dipole”, “dipole anomaly”, “2007″, etc.
I have searched under ‘magnetic’ and this is only significant entry (all in capitals!!!):
From: Tom Wigley
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: past 1000 yr
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:58:16 -0600
WE SAY *NO* LOW FREQ FORCING. C-14/Be-10 ARE PROXIES FOR MAGNETIC FIELD CHANGES. THERE IS NO ADEQUATE THEORY RELATING THESE TO LUMINOSITY CHANGES — IN FACT THEORY SUGGESTS THEY ARE *NOT* RELATED. SO WE ARE SUGGESTING A DIFFERENT FORCING HISTORY, WITH IMPLICATIONS AS IN THE FIGURE. NO SOLAR-INDUCED LIA, IN ACCORD WITH THE PROXY CLIMATE RECONSTRUXIONS. FURTHER, THERE IS SOME RECENT WORK SUGGESTING THAT PART OF THE C-14/Be-10 CHANGESW ARE DUE TOCHZNGES IN THE *EARTH’S* MAGNETIC FIELD.
Something came to me while reading some of these emails.
Does anybody else get the feeling that this collection of files and emails is EXACTLY the type of material that someone would want to claim as being “lost” or “destroyed” so as to be withheld from an FOI request?
Almost as if this particular batch of material was rounded up from the UEA servers and sequestered away. I haven’t read all the emails, but is there anything in this which ISN’T controversial?
*****************************
t-bird (09:28:05) :
This is amazing. I just searched for ‘Penn State’ and in the first e-mail there’s talk of how 50-year smoothing wipes out the effect they’re looking for.
Filename: 1168883146.txt
If my first search and first click turned up ’science in action’, how much is there in this archive?
********************************
I know it would be noisier, but why not just do a decadal average, the plot the averages centered a the middle of the decade? This would get rid of the end effects. The current decade could just be averaged to see where it approximately lands. All this statistical mumbo-jumbo is part of the problem here.
For systematic access to all emails in blocks of 10 start with :
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/cruemails2.php
Now if the the search word or phrase could be ‘cached’or highlighted (Google style) THAT would be a big help in searching.
O/T … Now the whole world has sprung a leak:
Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment
Well what a surprise. Can someone run down to the nearest hardware mart and buy a couple dozen pipe joiners? Looks like we’re gonna need ’em.
>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:08:22 +0100
>To: “Rob Wilson” , “Rosanne D’Arrigo”
>
>From: Tim Osborn
>Subject: Re: Fw: D’Arrigo et al, submitted
>Cc:
>
>Dear Rob and Rosanne,
>
>I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as IPCC
>reviewer! The data archiving issues are a separate issue because I
>think there’s no need for the data you used to be publicly available
>until the paper is actually published, and I would hope that the
>editor would respond appropriately. But the other comments could
>clearly influence the editorial/review process and this is very
>unfair when your paper has already been reviewed by
>others. McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper
>was published if he wished to criticize certain aspects, and that is
>the route he should have followed. He tried to stop publication of
>a paper that I was a co-author on, Rutherford et al. (2005), by
>contacting the editor of J. Climate with various criticisms –
>fortunately the editor told him firmly that the route to take was to
>submit a comment after publication. However, in our case the paper
>was already in press. In your case, with the editor’s decision
>still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to
>influence the decision in your case – and this certainly should not happen.
Police! That man is interfering with the peer review system!
Smokey (14:24:38) :
……………
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1853
“It may have escaped your notice, but I am not Phil Jones, neither is Mike Mann, and nor is anyone else associated with the RealClimate.”
…all he is really saying is that he is not Phil Jones, and neither is anyone else.]”
Except Phil Jones, no one else by the name of Phil Jones “associated with” realclimate. It may have escaped Gavin’s notice that the poster he replied to was not speaking to and did not mention Gavin by name, nor did he refer to Gavin.
In (#587) poster Biff Larkin asked “So, are you RealClimate guys going to let Steve McIntyre have a look at your data or not?”
In (#604) he asked about “The data that Jones says he would rather destroy then turn over to McIntyre.” That’s when Gavin tries to disassociate Jones from the “group”, IMO the “Hockey Team”, and to distance realclimate from the controversy:
“I stress that this has absolutely nothing to do with anyone at RealClimate”.
So who is “associated” with realclimate, and why would it not be reasonable to ask about Jones in a post submitted by the “group”?
“From: Phil Jones
To: Michael Mann , Tim Osborn , Malcom Hughes
Subject: Re: draft of Yamal RealClimate post
Date: Thu Oct 1 10:56:44 2009
Cc: Gavin Schmidt ”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1031&filename=.txt
“Here are a few important mods to your piece. Don’t mention Keith has been off ill.
Remove the bit about provenance and about access to more data. We’ll go into the latter in the longer bit next week. We’ll send the piece we’re putting up later – or give you the link. Rest of your piece is great – especially the bit on how science should be done. Keith has also picked up in the bit we’ll post that McIntyre has put in the caveats but lets others say the outrageous things in comments or on other blogs.”
Here’s the post “Hey Ya (mal)”, submitted by “group”:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/#more-1184
Just as soon as it is backup and running, everybody go and donate some $ to Climate Audit so Steve can buy a second gerbil for his server!
Ah, I’m getting it now. Whew!
Indeed they are not trying to hide the recent decline in temperature, either the 40s-70s one or the 1998-present one. They are trying to hide the fact that their hockey sticks only have alarmingly straight handles compared to modern years if they include proxies that utterly fail as proxies in modern years, for which they have NO explanation except that perhaps stressed trees in certain locations may have matched 50 early century years of temperatures by chance alone (!). So what they are trying to hide is in fact much worse than hiding a decline in temperature. What they are trying to hide when they say “hide the decline” is that their hockey sticks are broken since they fall apart (the handle curves too much to have the blade alarm people) if they don’t use very inconvenient data that declines in value, meaning fails to track temperature.
They are trying to hide the fact that their key data series fail to track temperature.
From: “Tim Osborn”
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [Fwd: Re: data request to SCIENCE for 1120514]
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 08:22:22 -0000 (GMT)
Reply-to: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Keith – see below. I bet it won’t be the end of the episode! – Tim
—————————- Original Message —————————-
Subject: Re: data request to SCIENCE for 1120514
From: “Jesse Smith”
Date: Mon, March 6, 2006 8:03 pm
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
————————————————————————–
Dear Dr. Osborn,
Thank you for your clear and careful response to the requests made by
Dr. McIntyre, which we forwarded to you: it was quite satisfactory, we
believe, and will greatly help Brooks (Hanson) in crafting his reply to
Dr. McIntyre. I hope that this will be the end of this episode, but if
it is not, we will be in touch again.
—–
They invent titles as easily as they invent data — the warmists can’t help themselves!