For those of you who don’t know of the blog Bishop Hill, let me say that he is a succinct and careful writer who has earned praise from many (including myself and Steve McIntyre) in taking a difficult niche subject such as the Hockey Stick and paleoclimatology and condensed into into a readable form for the layman. He’s also writing a book about it called: The Hockey Stick Illusion
In his latest post, Climate Cuttings 33, he gives a list of interesting issues he’s identified. I’ve reproduced it below for WUWT readers to consider. Be sure to visit his blog and have a look and drop an encouraging word. – Anthony
If you are interested in more on global warming material, check out Caspar and the Jesus Paper and The Yamal Implosion, or check out the forthcoming book.
General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.
In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.
- Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
- Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
- Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
- Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
- Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
- Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
- Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
- Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
- Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
- Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
- Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
- Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
- Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
- Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
- Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
- Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
- Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
- Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
- Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
- Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
- Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
- Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
- Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
- Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
- Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
- Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
- Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
- Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]
- Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
- Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
- Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
- Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
- Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
- Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
- Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
- Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
- Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
- Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
- Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
- Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
- Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
- Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
- Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
- David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
- Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
- Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
- Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
Sponsored IT training links:
If looking for 646-205 exam help then head to 350-030 training program for guaranteed success and get free download link for next 640-863 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting to see a few AGWers that frequent this site picking low hanging fruit. How about Phil and Nick try and spin the emails about deleting previous emails for FOI requests? How about you two spin doctors try and spin the obvious conversations about getting around FOI requests using inside information from the government.
How about you two …PRATS…try and spin that these are scientists OPENLY discussing their confirmation bias?? How about you two discussing the open discussion about media manipulation? How about the emails to known activist groups and media? Are you going to spin this as science??? Where is your own conscience! SHAME on you both! Shame on you for defending individuals that have made a mockery of the founding principals of science. That scientists keep an open mind. That scientist do not act as activists! That science is reproducible…meaning that all code and data HAS to be released. Where is your OUTRAGE that there are emails specifically talking about doing the opposite.
FREE THE DATA, FREE THE CODE, FREE THE DEBATE.
You two especially have now lost 100% of any credibility now on this site or any other. You are shills. You don’t defend a rapist by pointing out that he didn’t kill the woman! What we DO have absolute evidence of is activist science…confirmation bias….non reproducible results…efforts to conceal code and data….we have the rapist with his thing in the woman…and you want to argue that he used a knife instead of a gun…so we should ignore the whole affair? SHAME ON YOU
E.M. Smith has an observation on CRUTAPES on chiefio.com 11/21/09:
“So here we [see] evidence for ‘inbreeding’ between NCAR and CRU. That GIStemp uses “NCAR” format data files about STEP2 – STEP3 then merges with HADLEY CRU SST in STEP4_5 continues to argue for excessive “group think” and shared design / code between the temperature series. So when folks point out that Hadley CRUt and GIStemp agree, maybe it’s because they have extensive overlap in design goals, frequent exchange of “ideas” and common input data, internal work files, and processes… ”
I apologize for including for the third time this quote in Science Mag from Eric J. Barron, Director of NCAR (UCAR, Colorado), but it gives the plot away:
“Will US cities or states simply pick one climate model as a basis for decisions? Will the information be defensible AS THE BEST AVAILABLE? THE LEVEL OF AUTHORITY REQUIRED DICTATES THAT A NATIONAL CLIMATE SERVICE BE ESTABLISHED.” (My emphasis — 30 Oct 2009, p. 643)
Most religions in their heyday desire global/cosmic domination and some still do (Islam, marxism). The Warmists claim everything for their GreenGod ClimateChange and are into massive excommunitions. The Inquisition was being established by the likes of Hadley-CRU, NASA-GISSTemp, UCAR-NCAR and its global domination was to be headquartered in/at UN-IPCC. Obama has been doing his duty to the believers through of his cabinet and agency appointments. Fraud put him in office.
How many others have been piggy-backing on this religious aggression?
Certainly global corporations who are having trouble making profits from traditional manufacturing and services (regular, disciplined free-market capitalism) and so have turned to the Warming Scam and Government Graft to line their (upper maagement) pockets. Note what they have done to the media through their ownership.
SHOW ME one iota of science and the scientific method in all this fraudulent research. Astounding. Abominable.
mike roddy (09:15:02),
When you made your diagnosis, you forgot to add “M.D.” to your name.
Here is how Mann justifies “hide the decline”:
“Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.”
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html
This explanation is in disagreement with the explanation posted by Jean S at CA. To say the least. Do we know for sure that Mann used instrumental values to pad the series?
Gavin is up to his old ways at RC. Screening posts to craft the debate to appear heavily favoring the AGW-CRU/hack email/Team message.Once again to mislead visitors into presuming there’s no “charts, graphs, raw data” in the skeptic’s critiqiing.
I’ve had multiple germane and cogent posts obstructed just as the e-mails reveal is their standard operating procedure for the advancement of robust science.
The despicable abuse of science and corrupting of open public debate observed in the CRUhack continues at RC.
Jim (09:09:39) :
I have already sent this information to my Congressmen. The sooner we start and the more persistent we are, the better.
*********************************
Me too. If anyone out there knows somebody on a Congressman’s staff, try there. This would seem a perfect opportunity for a more conservative legislator to get some ink.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
Peter (08:34:37) :
A bit OT, but have you noticed that RC are now allowing all sorts of comments in?
Are they trying to appear open and transparent, or are they trying to convey the impression that nobody seriously questioned the ’science’ before this story broke?
I’d sincerely like to see what they have excluded. Succinct archetypical statements of common sense that cannot be rebutted with bs are never allowed.
“So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling.”
At about 17.50 London time, BBC regional news ‘Look East’ has just shown a piece bout the CRU hack-in and interviewed local AGW demonstrators who thought it was ‘disgusting’ etc, etc. The slant was generally pro-CRU and its staff were said to be shocked by the affair.
P Wilson: Here’s a Q for Phil clarke:
What did Keith Briffa mean when he wrote with some scepticism that temperatures 1000 years ago were probably as warm as today? He expresses grave doubts about the reliability of tree rings as a temperature proxy
I would speculate that 10 years ago, when the mail was written, that was his opinion. There has been a lot more research published in the intervening decade. As facts change, so do opinions.
I cannot find your other quotes in the file linked to, so I cannot tell the context, if you could point me at the file(s) so I can read round the very few words you’ve reproduced I may be able to respond adequately.
The term ‘manufactured bias’ is most probably being used in its mathematical of engineering definition of ‘a systematic deviation of a value from a reference value’, used in statistical testing. Again, without the context I cannot be sure, but it seems a good example of an attempt to imbue a perfectly legitimate and innocent phrase with a sinister interpretation.
One final thought for the true sceptics. The thief who stole these emails says he has released a ‘random selection’. Gavin Schmidt, who is in a position to know, says that the unreleased mail contains much good scientific discussion.
So whatever conclusions are drawn, are drawn from the subset of the mail that the thief wants you to see, not ‘the whole truth’. That’s a REAL ‘manufactured bias’ for you.
The trolls are marching in Norwich,UK today against the theft. The BBC says that Jones et al could have had their bank account details stolen and the MP says that it is 99.99999% certain that man is causing climate change.
They are not going to let go of their funding this easy.!!
Steamboat Jack,
Can’t we send this information even to liberal legislators? Shouldn’t we assume that even liberal legislators are interested in the truth?
Bill Illis (07:51:36) :
Dr. Hans von Storch comments on his webpage.
http://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/
Doesn’t sound very sympathetic to his peers, does he?
It is a criminal act to destroy requested data after receiving a UK Freedom Information Request unless you would normally destroy it before the 20-day deadline for response. See here (pdf):
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/fep004practicalguidancedestructionv1.pdf
So if Phil Jones’ statement in 1212063122.txt refers to deletion of emails requested by a specific FoI, then he broke the law.
The proper course of action would then be for the requester to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner, who in my experience is honest. If that fails for non-obvious reasons, then there’s the option of a private prosecution.
Jones may argue that stolen emails are tainted, but there are precedents for such material being allowable as evidence. For example in a recent case the German FSB (Secret Service) bribed an ex-employee of a Lichtenstein bank to steal a list of the bank’s foreign clients. The Germans then used the list to prosecute German nationals for tax evasion, and (it is reported) sold it to the UK tax authorities to use it for the same purpose.
It’s not clear from the Jones emails if he was destroying information against a specific request. Does anybody here know?
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:25:45 -0400
From: Thomas C Peterson To: jim.obrien@coaps.fsu.edu
…….No one has proven models are capable of long-range forecasting. Modelers write and review their own literature – there are millions of dollars going into these enterprises, so what would you expect?
Publication volume shouldn’t impress anyone. The simple fact is we demonstrated in a straightforward and reproducible way that the actual trends over the past 30, 20, and 10 years are outside of the envelop of model predictions … no one has disputed that finding with an alternative analysis – even when presented before congressional hearings where the opportunity for disagreement was openly available. I hope this helps relieve some of your concerns. Regards, Tom Peterson
********************
Nick Stokes (08:24:06) :
The fact that Mann is sceptical about the MWP (as is well known) is irrelevant.
**********************
In court this would be termed a “corroboration,” not “irrelevant.”
I cannot get my head round the idea that a section of the public service seems to think that communications between publicly funded colleagues in relation to matters of critical global significance would not be a matter of public record for anyone to pick over in the future. Those emails are of historical significance for heaven’s sake.
If the world is to go down the route of global energy rationing then it is forever going to be important as to how it came about and whether it was the right thing to do.
The disconnect with reality amongst so called professionals is utterly unbelievable.
****************
Phil Clarke (10:13:07) :
P Wilson: Here’s a Q for Phil clarke:
What did Keith Briffa mean when he wrote with some scepticism that temperatures 1000 years ago were probably as warm as today? He expresses grave doubts about the reliability of tree rings as a temperature proxy
I would speculate that 10 years ago, when the mail was written, that was his opinion. There has been a lot more research published in the intervening decade. As facts change, so do opinions.
************************
There are recent, 2009 emails that express skepticism that tree rings are userful temperture proxies. They knew this 10 years ago, and they still know it.
I cannot find your other quotes in the file linked to, so I cannot tell the context, if you could point me at the file(s) so I can read round the very few words you’ve reproduced I may be able to respond adequately.
Peterxema (10:11:38) :
Incredible to watch, the focus was on finding some who would express shock and horror and while the concerns for personal data being distributed is valid the implications were only briefly mentioned while most time was for the “outraged”.
They often put their news items on this page but currently still showing Fridays programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/lookeast/latest_stories/
The next bulletin will be at about 10.15pm and will set up to record it in case repeated.
For info, this is the local BBC news for the area where CRU is located.
I posted this question at Gavin regarding the correctness of splicing instrumental data onto proxy data. Unfortunately it did not survive the censorship. The non sequitur posts did though.
Excerpt from Pres. Eisenhower’s Farwell Address:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
And so, it seems, while we have done reasonably well in coping with the military-industrial complex, our public policy has indeed become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. And this elite are destroying us.
Thief = Robinhood. Returning to the people what is rightfully theirs.
why should we be surprised that climate scientists manipulate the data. It happens all the time in numerous scientific disciplines. The only difference is that until now scientists wrote letters instead of sending emails. It is the use of computers that have caught them out but it is obvious the same sought of thing happens and has happened since science as a job was invented. Take one example, C14 dating methodology. When this was first introduced 20 to 30 years ago the C14 laboratories had problems in persuading historians and archaeologists to use their services. In particular Egyptologists complained that C14 consistently brought up dates too early for the New Kingdom period. What happened, the lab boys went away and came up with calibration – which effectively made New Kingdom dates, as ascertained by the academic historians, in line with their model. To do this they made use of a C14 plateau in the mid first millennium BC – yet there are numerous plateaus throughout the Holocene. The inference is that the evidence was reframed just as Jones and Mann and others have massaged temperature data. It sticks out like a sore thumb they have manipulated the data precisely because they refuse to release the code to prove their conclusions. If it was in any way genuine they would not be frightened of releasing it and this is precisely what comes across in these emails. They must avoid at all costs in letting other people outside their circle checking up on them. It would be embarrassing. Steve McIntyre has done us all a service by being so dogged in his relentless sifting of the small amount of data he has managed to wring from the climate models. Perhaps after all this subsides we can have some blogs on other scientific fixes
Email transformed litigation utterly. You cannot get rid of this stuff. That fact has been known in the trade for years, and by the public: how many corporate defendants and politicians have been caught by their own cyber-scribbles? Here we have the “best and brightest” of the AGW camp, too stupid or arrogant to note that they were creating a record of their own crimes and immorality, busily feeding one another’s enthusiasm for more and worse behavior.
The plaintiffs and prosecutors are going to have such fun with this.
“Gavin Schmidt, who is in a position to know, says that the unreleased mail contains much good scientific discussion.”
If that is true, then Gavin should have nothing to fear and should immediately release ALL the documents, in their context and entirety.
Phil Clarke (10:13:07)
So whatever conclusions are drawn, are drawn from the subset of the mail that the thief wants you to see, not ‘the whole truth’. That’s a REAL ‘manufactured bias’ for you.
Release the data and methods, Phil. Problem solved/Scientific Method resumed.