Climategate grows to include other research institutions

UPDATED: By Douglas J. Keenan – special for WUWT

Phil Jones tried to hush my paper. SUNY Albany won’t discuss the investigation my paper initiated. And QUB ignored my three FOI requests for their data.

I used to do mathematical research and financial trading on Wall Street and in the City of London; since 1995, I have been studying independently (for more details, please see my web site).  Some of the e-mails leaked in Climategate discuss my work.  Following is a comment on that and on something more important.

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent.  The e-mails show that Tom Wigley, one of the most highly-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate, thought my paper was “valid”.  They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to get the journal editor to not publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York, where the research was conducted, carried out an investigation.  During the investigation, I was not interviewed: contrary to the university’s policies, federal regulations, and natural justice.  I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release, but I was not allowed to see the report: truly Kafkaesque.

The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud.  The leaked files contain the defense against my allegation.  The defense is obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record.  It is no surprise, then, that the university still refuses to release the report.  More details on all this, including source documents are, here.

Relatedly, my paper (§2.4) demonstrates that, by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the urbanization research.  Yet Jones continued to rely on that research in his work, including in his work for the latest report of the IPCC.

The biggest concern with global warming is, arguably, that warming itself will cause further warming.  For example, the polar ice caps reflect sunlight back into space (thereby cooling Earth); if the caps shrink, due to warming, then they will reflect less sunlight, and so Earth will warm further.  It is claimed to be possible that Earth warms so much that it reaches what is called a “tipping point”, where the global climate system is seriously and permanently disrupted—like when a glass of water has been tipped over, and the water cannot realistically be put back into the glass.

There is much scientific debate over how much Earth has to warm before it reaches a tipping point.  No one knows for sure.  About a thousand years ago, though, there was a time known as the “Medieval Warm Period”, when much of Earth appears to have been unusually warm.  It is not currently known just how warm the Medieval Warm Period was.  Clearly, though, the warmth then was below the tipping point, because Earth’s climate continued without problem.

Suppose that during the Medieval Warm Period, Earth was 1°C warmer than today.  That would imply that the tipping point is more than 1°C higher than today’s temperature.  For Earth’s temperature to increase 1°C might take roughly a century (at the rate of increase believed to be currently underway).  So we would not have to be concerned about an imminent disruption of the climate system.  Finding out how warm the Medieval Warm Period was is thus of enormous importance for the study of global warming.

It turns out that global (or at least hemispheric) temperatures are reflected by the climate in western Ireland; for a short explanation of that, see here.  Trees grow in western Ireland, of course, and each year, those trees grow an annual ring.  Rings that are thick indicate years that were good for the trees; rings that are thin indicate the opposite.  If many trees in western Ireland had thick rings in some particular years, then climatic conditions in those years were presumably good.  Tree rings have been used in this way to learn about the climate centuries ago.

Queen’s University Belfast has data on tree rings that goes back millennia, in particular, to the Medieval Warm Period.  QUB researchers have not analyzed the data (because they lack the expertise to do so).  They also refuse to release the data.  I have been trying to obtain the data, via the UK Freedom of Information Act, since April 2007.  The story is scandalous.

As the above illustrates, the problems in global-warming science are with more than just the few directly involved in Climategate.  Indeed, I think it would be unreasonable to suppose such.

Finally, in light of all the slander going around, maybe I should add this: I have received no payment of any kind from any entity for any work that I have done since 1995.

Douglas J. Keenan


For some background, see these two guest posts at WUWT:

Ring-a-Round 2: Queens University Belfast v Doug Keenan

Another UK climate data withholding scandal is emerging

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
P Gosselin
December 1, 2009 9:34 am

I( expect the web of manipulation will broaden much more.
I’m encouraged to see Drudge, Hot Air and talk radio hammer away at this. Public iopinion will be needed to pressure more investigation.

Henry chance
December 1, 2009 9:36 am

“I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release.
But I was not allowed to see the report. Truly Kafkaesque”
This reminds me of the Dark Ages. What are they thinking?
The school needs to be sued. They have a report on you and do not own you or information on you. Maybe some of the medical malpractice attorneys can get a few million out of these stonewalling institutions.
“This era brings some wrongfull termination lawsuits. These files are private but not private for you.

Jack Green
December 1, 2009 9:40 am

The plot thickens.

Mike Bryant
December 1, 2009 9:41 am

The Climate Apple is rotten to the core.

Ron de Haan
December 1, 2009 9:43 am

It does not surprise me at all.
Simply click the DDC technical support team page of the IPCC website
What do we have there:
IPCC Working Group I
Technical Support Unit
C/o University of Bern
Zähringerstrasse 25
3012 Bern
Phone: +41 31 631 5616
Facsimile: +41 31 631 5615
IPCC Working Group II
Technical Support Unit
C/o Carnegie Institution for Science
260 Panama Street
Stanford, CA 94305. USA
Phone: (+1) 650-462-1047
Facsimile: (+1) 650-462-5968
IPCC Working Group III
Technical Support Unit
C/o Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Telegraphenberg A 51
14473 Potsdam
Phone: +49 331 288-2472
Facsimile: +49 331 288-2640
Technical Support Unit IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
C/o Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi,
Hayama, Kanagawa
240-0115 JAPAN
Phone: +81-46-855-3750
Facsimile: +81-46-855-3808

December 1, 2009 9:46 am

The highly influential Lord Stern today has a message for Doug Keenan, WUWT readers and others:
“you’re muddled” and he adds “‘I think it is very important that those with any kind of views on the science or economics have their say – that does not mean that unscientific muddle also has the right to be recognised as searing insight.”
He added: ”If they are muddled and confused, they do not have the right to be described as anything other than muddled and confused.”
The muddled among us should recall that the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was released in October 2006. In the Review, climate change is described as an economic externality. Regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading are recommended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course he’s being very polite.

December 1, 2009 9:47 am

Fantastic…my own university system joins ClimateGate. Different campus…same culpability.

December 1, 2009 9:48 am

Anybody else sat behind a Websense web filter?
This category is filtered: Potentially Damaging Content. Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information, and are blocked by your organization.

December 1, 2009 9:49 am

Sir Walter Scott – “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”
It is high time criminal complaints be lodged – any lawyers / judges amongst the 3 million+ viewers here?

Henry chance
December 1, 2009 9:49 am

It is now safer for whistleblowers to come out.
Looks like Jones leaves a trail of tarnished studies.

December 1, 2009 9:52 am

I’ve been following science fraud stories like this for some time. Here’s a more detailed synopsis: click. More here.

December 1, 2009 9:54 am

“Whom are you going to believe, me or your lying thermometers?”

December 1, 2009 9:57 am

With Climategate it won’t be the crime that takes them down it’ll be the coverup.

December 1, 2009 9:58 am

The wonderfully talented Lord Stern continues to warble in spite of all the evidence of fraud in research as this thread yet again highlights.But then economists manipulate data all the time so perhaps he thinks this is acceptable behavior .His latest is at this link
Mind you this guy is not a real Lord,he is a pal of Brown and Blair.He is also a nephew of Donald Swann who co-wrote some amusing ditties,perhaps he is continuing a family tradition

December 1, 2009 10:01 am

I just love the unwinding of all of theses stories and the inquisition of the IPCC will hopefully commence which in turn will result in the disbandenment of the whole organistation and the burning at the steak of all of its high priests.
Now, where can I get a “Vote for WUWT as president”?

December 1, 2009 10:05 am

The Wegman report showed deep interconnections among these researchers. The tentacles reach far and wide and the Jones emails are most likely the tip of the iceberg. This is a climate mafia and will be just as hard to bring down as the Sicilian version.

Evan Jones
December 1, 2009 10:06 am

The vice governor of the province demanded to see the letter. Perry replied that it was impossible. The letter could not be seen by anyone other than the emperor or one of his princes. But if the governor himself should appear, he would be shown a copy of the letter . . .
Odd that Perry was more open in the conduct of politics than scientists are in the conduct of science.

Henry chance
December 1, 2009 10:06 am

Case Summary
The allegations concern two publications. These are:
Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), �Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land�, Nature, 347: 169
Gang green is a crime syndicate. Jones in a normal world would be punished for his role in covering a fraudulent paper.

Evan Jones
December 1, 2009 10:11 am

Fantastic…my own university system joins ClimateGate. Different campus…same culpability.
I fee your pain. (M.A., Columbia University.)

December 1, 2009 10:16 am

Interesting. One wonders if there is a hidden backlog of researchers who will now want to ask some pretty narky questions about how their articles were treated in peer review. If so, climategate could “ooze disgruntlement” among the academic community for a considerable period, and it will be increasingly difficult for the MSM to sit on it.
The public will put up with a little bad news, if it is allowed to move on. But a steady drip-drip of controversy will be more effective at getting attention of mainstream public opinion.
BTW the BBC evening news just did an article about the challenge of convincing the public of climate change (including a word from Benny Peiser). Any mention of climategate from the BBC? No!

December 1, 2009 10:18 am

When will somebody knock at our doors?

December 1, 2009 10:18 am

Arijigoku (09:57:38) :
“With Climategate it won’t be the crime that takes them down it’ll be the coverup.”
LOL. Just like Watergate.

December 1, 2009 10:18 am

There is nothing useful in the whole climategate affair, a total reset is needed, after the UN IPCC is disbanded and buried.
The wealth transfer scam has been fully exposed.

December 1, 2009 10:32 am

Sunspot number: 0
Updated 30 Nov 2009
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 8 days
2009 total: 251 days (75%)
Since 2004: 762 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
Solar wind
speed: 264.6 km/sec
density: 0.6 protons/cm3
In 23 more spotless days we will have 300 more solar minimum days longer than the typical solar minimum.

December 1, 2009 10:33 am

@ Mike Bryant (09:41:10) :
The Climate Apple is rotten to the Gore.

December 1, 2009 10:39 am

If I were Mr Keenan I would consult with a lawyer. If the efforts of the Team prevented him from gaining grant money, employment, etc… a civil suit could be in order. Keenan’s lawyer could then supeona documents, emails, and depose an entire host of individuals.
I can just imagine the fear that must be steadily growing amongst many of the Team as this entire affair continues to gain notice.

December 1, 2009 10:40 am

Kudos to Doug Keenan for his multi-year pursuit of these miscreants. It reads like something that, I don’t know, a Michael Crichton would have written.
Surely there are grown-ups around who realize that this type of lying, cheating and manipulation erodes trust and is very dangerous for democratic policy-making institutions?

December 1, 2009 10:42 am

My understanding is that you had uncovered fraud in Wang’s research but the university has whitewashed Wang’s research and dismissed your claims. However, since you had found the evidence of the fraud yourself and published that in your paper, I presume there must have been some sort of reaction from the scientific community. And I presume you still have the evidence available. Why don’t you post your findings on WUWT or CA so it at least reaches a wider audience?

December 1, 2009 10:42 am

Of course ‘Climategate’ could have been a completely different story.
Instead, we could all be discussing how doomed we are because the leaked emails document how the earth is really warming uncontrollably and that we are already too late to stop it. And other messages showing the scientist’s ongoing concern about the word getting out to the general public that there really is nothing we can do.
But no. The messages do not back up the demands that we must act now. Instead we have the experts discussing internally their inability to document the threat they are proclaiming is upon us.

December 1, 2009 10:43 am

The Dutch agricultural university of Wageningen joins in for it needs help in obtaining 100 million euros in grants.
From: Mike Hulme
To: “Kabat, dr. P.” , “Schellnhuber (E-mail)”
Subject: Re: Letter of Support
Date: Wed Feb 12 15:45:03 2003
Cc: “Alex Haxeltine (E-mail)”
I will certainly make sure a letter reaches you for Friday. And Good Luck!
At 14:07 12/02/03 +0100, Kabat, dr. P. wrote:
Dear Mike, John, Alex:
referring to out tel. conversation yesterday with Alex, hereby our request for a letter of support/recommendation on behalf of Tyndall for our national Global Change Initiative programme proposal called “Climate changes the spatial planning”, (“Climate for Spatial Planning Spatial Planning for Climate); unofficially known to you I guess as as “Netherlands Tyndall-like initiative…)
After we have successfully passed the first round of the selection last year with the Dutch Government, we are know in final stages of submitting the final proposal/business plan (deadline 17/2/03 – next Monday). The proposed programme has a total budget of 100 million Euro, of which 49 million is requested from the Government, rest contribution of public and private institutions. As a part of this programme we are aiming to set up Netherlands Centre of Excellence (partly virtual) institute, modelled after Tyndall. Leading parties in this effort are all well known to you:
Wageningen (kabat)
VU Amsterdam (vellinga)
RIVM (metz)
KNMI (Komen)
ICIS (Rotmans)
ECN (Bruggink)
plus another almost 50 parties.
Could you pls send us a short letter of support, in which you indicate the importance of this initiative for advancing this type global change science, European dimension, UK – NL collaboration, etc, etc? We need to receive this by Friday, so send also by fax pls (apologies for the rush). Letter is to be addressed as follows:
Prof. Dr Pavel Kabat
Science Director
Netherlands National Research Initiative “Climate changes the spatial
planning”, (ICES KIS 3)
I attach 3 documents as background of our proposal
Many thanks for your kind help!
Pavel, Pier en colleagues
<> <> <>

December 1, 2009 10:44 am

Rich (09:48:15) :That text appears only if you are running an updated windows version, check with an older version in other computer and it will not appear.

December 1, 2009 10:51 am

The State Broadcaster in Ireland ,RTE ,has failed to mention Climategate in any of its shapes and forms and failed to respond to my email of November 23rd. Today the published and broad cast this
I have again emailed them at with this
“Your Environment Correspondent Paul Cunningham has failed to deal with the small matter of corruption and manipulation of data by the CRU and University of East Anglia which is the subject of widespread condemnation in Scientific circles. Not to inform the general public of this other side to the story is a failure to provide balanced information. Will RTE rectify this bias? ”
to be continued……..

December 1, 2009 10:51 am

An interesting article in Fox News about the UN Agenda for riding the climate change horse.,2933,577827,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r5:c0.040549:b29144456:z10

Ron de Haan
December 1, 2009 10:55 am

tarpon (10:18:46) :
There is nothing useful in the whole climategate affair, a total reset is needed, after the UN IPCC is disbanded and buried.
The wealth transfer scam has been fully exposed.
You forgot to mention the Obama Administration and the entire European Union and all those that have infiltrated our scientific institutions, government bodies and MSM to “serve the case”.
At the same I am extremely grateful for the world wide web and the blogs.
Without them we are dead meat.

December 1, 2009 10:56 am

JonesII (10:44:30) :
Rich (09:48:15) :That text appears only if you are running an updated windows version, check with an older version in other computer and it will not appear.
Or better yet, switch to Ubuntu. If you want, it can be booted from and run from a CD.

December 1, 2009 10:58 am

The Earth is flat. By spewing more carbon into the atmosphere, mankind is making it even flatter. Keep this up and it will soon become concave, then when it rains, we will all drown! STOP BREATHING, EVERYONE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

December 1, 2009 10:59 am

OT – I know WUWT had a post on this, but Google is all over the board on this climategate issue. They are blocking several links and the total number of hits has been acting like a loose speedometer ?

December 1, 2009 11:00 am

Just a sincere expression of support for you Douglas. I followed your efforts and hope that they can still help to focus more light on the ClimateCoverUp.

December 1, 2009 11:04 am

Big News: AP is reporting that Phil Jones is stepping down until the “independent” investigation has reached its conclusion:

December 1, 2009 11:04 am

For anyone who’s interested.
Live Broadcast of Munk Debate on Climate Change.
18:45 EST (6:45 PM)
Panel Discussion with Elizabeth May, George Monbiot, Bjørn Lomborg, and Lord Nigel Lawson.
To sign up, go to:

December 1, 2009 11:05 am

How will Gore, the “god” of Gorebull warming be implicated. He is making 10’s of millions of dollars on this scam.

Ron de Haan
December 1, 2009 11:07 am
Jack Green
December 1, 2009 11:07 am

The very best thing about this whole Climate’fruad’gate is? It’s the coverup not the crime that will do these people in. It appears that they are and were covering up the fraud while at the same time taking in boat loads of research money. Somebody should be burned at the stake for this one.
Obama: “I just want to spread the wealth around.”

Steve S.
December 1, 2009 11:07 am

“Climate science email controversy headed for Capitol Hill airing”
Will Holden and Lubchenco parrot RealClimate?
Of course. Nearly verbatim. They’re rehearsing right now.
Climate science email controversy headed for Capitol Hill airing
By Ben Geman – 11/30/09 02:28 PM ET
A House hearing Wednesday will likely provide a forum for debating what widely-circulated emails among climate scientists do or don’t reveal about the state of global warming research.
The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing on climate science will feature two top administration officials: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, and Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Look for Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who co-sponsored the sweeping House climate bill that passed in June, to solicit testimony about the strength of research showing dangerous warming trends.
The committee will “explore with climate scientists from the Obama administration the urgent, consensus view on our planetary problem: that global warming is real, and the science indicates that it is getting worse,” the hearing notice this afternoon states.
But also look for Republicans to ask about emails among climate scientists that were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K.
Climate change skeptics say the messages show an effort to squelch findings that undercut the case that global warming is occurring. The scientists and their supporters, however, say they have been intentionally taken out of context.

December 1, 2009 11:09 am

“Rich (09:48:15) :That text appears only if you are running an updated windows version, check with an older version in other computer and it will not appear.”
Nothing here W7 x64.

December 1, 2009 11:13 am

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
(AP) –
LONDON — Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.
The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.

December 1, 2009 11:23 am

I don’t see the need to restrict this to “Research” institutions. I can think of several political institutions that are also involved. John Holdren comes to mind, as well as his boss, and various other political organisations and NGO’s.

December 1, 2009 11:23 am

Someone in this thread quoted Lord Stern as if he was an expert on climate science.

December 1, 2009 11:25 am

Carlo (11:13:03) :
UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
(AP) –
LONDON — Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review

Heh, good stuff!!

December 1, 2009 11:27 am

I am calling BS on the lost raw data claim … given that to get to their “value-added” data they would have had to run their programs/hacks against digital data … that means someone converted the paper and magnetic tape data into a database of some sort, most likely a simple text file … but a text file on a hard drive … later this was converted to a real database I’m sure …
The point being that there is no way the actual data is gone … They are hiding it …
[REPLY – I agree completely. I made the same point in WSJ comments. ~ Evan]

December 1, 2009 11:29 am

Phil Jones is stepping down so perhaps you’re getting a little payback.

December 1, 2009 11:29 am

all CRU servers and data backups need to be locked down NOW to allow it to be reviewed/researched by non-CRU tech and scientists.

December 1, 2009 11:35 am

AP is reporting that Phil Jones has stepped down. Saw it posted at Jeff Id’s blog.

LONDON (AP) — Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

December 1, 2009 11:36 am

CRU will publish the data accodring to the Telegraph (apologies if this is already posted, couldn’t see it).
However, if you note the comments nothing much has changed.
Looks as though they still intend to hide behind the IP of the original data owners.
“Professor Trevor Davies, the university’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: “CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

Steve S.
December 1, 2009 11:39 am

They have long adopted the make it up as you go approach.
“Dr. John Holdren and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, both world-renowned experts on climate change”

December 1, 2009 11:40 am

The word for today is Tort, as in “tortious interference”.
We need to accept that government bodies and their running dogs are not going to pursue this matter. I have long been an advocate of Tort Reform, but this is one case where US civil law will reap a bountiful harvest.
Sue the bastards!

Henry chance
December 1, 2009 11:42 am

Two schools get mention in this thread. if a school has a climate department, they also have a burden to review textbooks and their records practices. From 10 days ago and forward, a school has no choice but to release any and all records under FOIA laws. I know some faculty have faulty records and will balk. They have no choice. Blocking information ruests and non cooperation is a symptom of bad record keeping and even fraudulent records.

December 1, 2009 11:42 am
December 1, 2009 11:44 am

@ tallbloke I used the words “The wonderfully talented Lord Stern ” .I was of course taking the pi** 🙂

Lucas Taylor
December 1, 2009 11:49 am

Check this out everybody: live debate on the internet tonight between Monbiot, Lomborg and Lord Lawson:

December 1, 2009 11:50 am

“prestigious”, damn at least AP have a sense of humour.
Anyone else having google come up with nonsense when searching for climategate?

P Wilson
December 1, 2009 11:50 am

alleagra (09:46:36) :
Its possible that the man who thought all the ships in the bay were his considered his critics to be muddled

December 1, 2009 12:03 pm

@Richard, 9:49 “It is high time criminal complaints be lodged – any lawyers / judges amongst the 3 million+ viewers here?”
Yes, there are several attorneys reading/commenting on WUWT (I am one such). However, attorneys are very limited in what we can write on public forums such as this. We cannot, for example, solicit work. We are allowed to make general comments, as long as no client confidentiality is compromised.
Also, criminal complaints are brought by prosecutors at the state or federal level, which is a very small percentage of attorneys (writing about attorneys in the U.S. only – things may be different in other countries.) The crimes would be “white collar crimes.”
Judges in the U.S. must remain impartial, and cannot be involved until the case is brought before them. Judges are also extremely limited in what they can say in public, or write.
There are a host of non-criminal matters that will likely be brought against certain persons, (civil matters), which may include issues such as fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and some others. Plaintiffs in such legal actions would be those who can show a direct harm resulting from the alleged acts of defendants.

December 1, 2009 12:05 pm

crosspatch (11:35:27) :
They had better get it right: This is no small matter, and the public is watching with keen interest.
Hiding a Hot Potato under your coat is a recipe for getting burned.

December 1, 2009 12:20 pm

In a normal world, I would expect some of the politicians who knew this was a fraud from the get go, to weasel out, by nobly calling out for a suspension of policy efforts and a freeze on funding. If any don’t, I will no longer consider the universe normal and certainly won’t consider these politicians “sane”.
Sane (yet slimy) politicians know when to bail out. Perhaps they do still know, but are just staging for their announcements to come.

Indiana Bones
December 1, 2009 12:29 pm

tarpon (10:18:46) :
There is nothing useful in the whole climategate affair, a total reset is needed, after the UN IPCC is disbanded and buried.
The wealth transfer scam has been fully exposed.

Because theft is not a “transfer.” Theft by deception is called FRAUD. People who engage in fraud are criminals.

December 1, 2009 12:31 pm

That’s the problem with internal investigations. Sounds like the AG needs to look into this.

Bill P
December 1, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Munk debates tonight…
Somewhere I have heard this debate format referred to as “Oxford-style” debate, and it sounds familiar to what we’ve seen with the Intelligence Squared debates. Wherever they originated, they are richly entertaining to listen to, refreshingly honest, and extremely informative. For those who haven’t seen one, you might take a look at one of these (edited version of two past I-squared debates below on NPR)
Global Warming is Not a Crisis
Is Reducing Carbon Emissions Worth the Cost?

December 1, 2009 12:42 pm

RE: Stern.
They ARE all being very polite,aren’t they? Watson Vs Singer. Now Stern. No rudeness,don’t let the mask slip. Science is a civilised,process based pursuit. I don’t know how you break the media embargo except by contacting ones’ political representatives – and then contacting them some more – and telling everyone you know down the pub or in your sculpture class or on the bus.Maybe posting flyers. How about a picket outside CRU?

December 1, 2009 12:48 pm

Someone called DennisA has commented on the Stern piece in the Telegraph today.
I think it’s worth repeating if I may since it puts Stern’s views in perspective.
“The Grantham Institute which Lord Stern heads was set up in Feb 2007 by US billionaire Jeremy Grantham:
Mr. Grantham will sit on the management board of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, along with Imperial’s Rector Sir Richard Sykes who will chair the Board; Carter Roberts, President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund; and Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense.
At the same time, Grantham set up a sister institute at Imperial College, London. A common advisory board will oversee the work of both Institutes.
The Grantham’s total investment of over £24 million, made through the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, is one of the largest private donations to climate change research.
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, CBE, FRS is the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London
“Committed to ensuring that climate research is used to advise governments and influence policy, Sir Brian was a member of the Royal Commission that first proposed a 60% target for reduction of UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. He also acted as a scientific advisor to the Stern Review, credited with pushing the issue of climate change to the centre of the political agenda in the UK, and was a member of the IPCC assessment team recently awarded the Nobel Prize.”
Most of the members of the UK Climate Change Committee are based at or associated with Imperial College and LSE and many of them with the World Bank and IPCC. Their powers of control over UK emissions targets will soon be enshrined in law.
So UK Climate Policy is now directly influenced by WWF International and Environmental Defense and cross-linked to IPCC.
Lord Stern is heavily involved in carbon trading advice via the company IdeaGlobal, and its offshoot IdeaCarbon, which he helped to found:
Established in 1989, IDEAglobal is an independent, global research organization, with its headquarters in Singapore, and subsidiaries in New York and London.
IDEAglobal has over 80 full time research staff as well as access on an exclusive basis to a group of expert academics at the London School of Economics, as well as an active Advisory Board of former central bankers and former CEOs of investment bank.
Lord Nicholas Stern,
Advisor to IDEAglobal Group, parent company of IDEAcarbon
Author of the seminal Review on the Economics of Climate Change and former Chief Economist at the World Bank, currently the IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of Economics, heading a new India Observatory within the LSE’s Asia Research Centre and also a Visiting Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford. He was Adviser to the UK Government on the Economics of Climate Change and Development, reporting to the Prime Minister from 2003-2007.
Dr. Samuel Fankhauser is a Principal Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics. He also serves as Chief Economist at Globe International, the international legislator forum.
He just happens to be a member of the climate change committee and sub-committee on mitigation, (ie Carbon trading).
In 2007/08, Fankhauser was Managing Director at IDEAcarbon:
IDEAcarbon’s premier strategic advice service has been created to give senior decision makers tailored intelligence about key developments in climate change policy and the evolution of the carbon markets.
There is more, much, much more. “

December 1, 2009 12:53 pm

I’m glad but not surprised to see Doug Keenan stepping up here. He was one of the targets of the Crutape Letters. He was accusing Wang (rightly IMO) of professional, er, something like malpractice – in a situation where Wang was also a firstrate fundraiser for SUNY. I suspect there are many more revelations to come.
Titanic, the water is still coming in. If you declare emergency (= transparency that includes us), you won’t look so good now, but you will save more lives later on.
The whole of Science is up for reform. The captains of NAS, Nature, Royal Society, that’s you. And this time, Citizens Science will simply not go away. Thank God.

December 1, 2009 1:04 pm

This is a very,very worrying development I think.I copied my response to StuartR on Mike Hulme,Jerome Ravetz using the BBC to push the ‘post-normal science’ agenda.
Very interesting,StuartR!!!
Several people here have mentioned Jerome Ravetz regarding ‘post-normal science.’ and Mike Hulme made a statement about it a few days ago.This is another branch of the scam in the making imo.
StuartR permalink
This on BBC:
“Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz”
“Show Your Working’: What ‘ClimateGate’ means”
“How well does the public understand professional peer review, for example, or the role of a workshop, a seminar and a conference in science?”
“A Citizen’s Panel on Climate Change (CPCC)?”
Not read it in depth, it seems an essay on a post-IPCC world, appears to me like a lot of familiar woolly talk of getting the public to see it the scientists way, rather than backing the scientists out of the political PR sphere.

December 1, 2009 1:15 pm

Roger Sowell (12:03:58) :
In the UK, if the DPP, (Department of Public Prosecutions), fails to prosecute for reasons of perceived insufficient evidence or perhaps political expedience; an individual or organisation can bring a private criminal prosecution.
I believe they can subpoena police evidence too, though I may have to stand corrected on that point.

December 1, 2009 1:17 pm

Lomborg has tactfully accepted AGW, which is a shame. Lord Lawson is a fine man but a politician and not a scientific heavy weight. So what purpose will this debate serve? They will discuss policy, adaptation and the like but not the fundamental premises of AGW.

December 1, 2009 1:18 pm

Update on the Irish State Broadcaster RTE. I had a reply from their Environment Correspondent who assures me that he did a brief mention of “climategate” [but not using that term ] on one of the chat shows on RTE and that UAE was [i]briefly[/i] mentioned on the main lunchtime news today. I am assured that as Cop draws closer that the subject will be expanded and covered in more detail . I have sent another email offering to go on air in another chat show Wed AM ,as they say,stay tuned 🙂

Ron de Haan
December 1, 2009 1:20 pm

Jeff (11:27:12) :
“I am calling BS on the lost raw data claim … given that to get to their “value-added” data they would have had to run their programs/hacks against digital data … that means someone converted the paper and magnetic tape data into a database of some sort, most likely a simple text file … but a text file on a hard drive … later this was converted to a real database I’m sure …
The point being that there is no way the actual data is gone … They are hiding it …
[REPLY – I agree completely. I made the same point in WSJ comments. ~ Evan]”
Of course they are hiding it.
It’s the ultimate proof in a legal case.

Frederick Michael
December 1, 2009 1:27 pm

Wow. This thing is picking up stream really fast. No, that’s not the right word. Is it that it’s starting to “snowball”? No that’s the word I’m looking for.
I got it; it’s a “tipping point!”

December 1, 2009 2:13 pm

Now the ‘shredder’ starts, there must be others out there who will come forward, but how long have we got before the man with the white paint pot visits? There is no one I know who believes utterly in the matra from Copenhagen. It is the media perception that must be woken up to give this impetus just as much as the factual elements so graphically referred to the e-mails. I suggest we all phone the media esp. the BBC

December 1, 2009 2:20 pm

Science … commits suicide when it adopts a creed
Thomas Huxley

Tim Clark
December 1, 2009 2:23 pm

Sowell (12:03:58) :
There are a host of non-criminal matters that will likely be brought against certain persons, (civil matters), which may include issues such as fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and some others. Plaintiffs in such legal actions would be those who can show a direct harm resulting from the alleged acts of defendants.

What about a class action suit? The harm being increased taxes paying for fraudulent work, or increased utility bills. I know, hard to prove, but the CASE ITSELF would be priceless.

December 1, 2009 2:24 pm

Thought you guys would like this. There’s a group called “We are change” in Chicago that confronted Al Gore about Climategate at a Borders book signing:

Good video. Normally I wouldn’t feel comfortable with this sort badgering, confrontational speech, but to me this is the Left being confronted with their own tactics. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Since Gore will not answer questions about his own AGW advocacy, this is what people are left with.

December 1, 2009 2:25 pm

forfismum (11:44:36) :
@ tallbloke I used the words “The wonderfully talented Lord Stern ” .I was of course taking the pi** 🙂

Worry not, my irony detector is not rusty.
My comment was aimed at alleagra (09:46:36) :

DJ Meredith
December 1, 2009 2:45 pm

My personal award goes to Henry chance for coining “Gang green”!!!!
(….unless noted previously, that is)

Craig Loehle
December 1, 2009 2:49 pm

A year ago Jones revisited the China problem and found a huge UHI effect:
Jones, P.D., D.H. Lister, and Q. Li (2008), Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008JD009916
So much for the work Keenan is questioning being “robust”

Craig Moore
December 1, 2009 2:54 pm

OT but related. I would like to see WUWT revisit Steig’s Antarctica outcome in light of these additional revelations of hiding the supporting data ball. Possibly, the University of Washington should be scrutinized as well.

December 1, 2009 2:59 pm

Now this is going to leave a mark.
Beck had James Delingpole on his show and for anyone that was watching the show that hadn’t looked at or even know about the Harry Read Me text file now knows. Mr. Delingpole was asked what would be the one thing people should look at and that is where Mr. Delingpole pointed to and stated that they should Google “Harry Read Me”.

December 1, 2009 3:30 pm

Roger Sowell (12:03:58) :
@Richard, 9:49 “It is high time criminal complaints be lodged – any lawyers / judges amongst the 3 million+ viewers here?”
There are a host of non-criminal matters that will likely be brought against certain persons, (civil matters), which may include issues such as fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and some others. Plaintiffs in such legal actions would be those who can show a direct harm resulting from the alleged acts of defendants.

Most of those are going to be scientists whos careers had been compromised. It would not be easy to prove that in the court and payoffs would be fairly small, not very attractive for lawyers to take it on contingency and too risky for many to finance out of pocket.
Fraud was committed, but it would be hard to show damage for individuals harmed and put specific amounts of money to the damages.
Normally government should be the one bringing criminal charge here but we know it is not very likely to happen.
Would it be possible to bring class action suit with taxpayers as class members?

Alan Wilkinson
December 1, 2009 3:38 pm

Lord Stern is not only arrogantly wrong about many things, but pompous and obnoxious to boot.
Were his publications peer reviewed?

April E. Coggins
December 1, 2009 3:39 pm

“Possibly, the University of Washington should be scrutinized as well.”
I agree. Let’s start with Phil Mote.

Craig Moore
December 1, 2009 4:02 pm

April E. Coggins,
you sparked a memory iof this fiasco:
Funny how there is a reoccurring scenario of bullying and suppression.

April E. Coggins
December 1, 2009 4:15 pm

Craig Moore: Bingo!

December 1, 2009 4:30 pm

Mark Miller,
I am opposed to anything that encourages book burning.
We do not need ‘new world order’ stuff to take down Gore’s bs.
Gore’s bs, exposed, takes down Gore. Frankly it almost sounds LaRouche-like.
The use of burning book imagery, for someone in my generation and background, is a total turnoff.
That said, I am totally in favor of heating up Gore’s public presence. He has received a ridiculous amount of soft ball, cream puff, vapid fawning coverage. He obviously has few resources to actaully deal with thought demanding questions. He clearly, as he proved by his incredibly ignorant understanding of geology 101, gets in over his head in the wading pool.
We just need to get him out into the pool without the support he depends on to see him as he is.

Roger Knights
December 1, 2009 4:41 pm

Jordan (10:16:15) :
“Interesting. One wonders if there is a hidden backlog of researchers who will now want to ask some pretty narky questions about how their articles were treated in peer review. If so, climategate could “ooze disgruntlement” among the academic community for a considerable period, and it will be increasingly difficult for the MSM to sit on it.
“The public will put up with a little bad news, if it is allowed to move on. But a steady drip-drip of controversy will be more effective at getting attention of mainstream public opinion.”

That’s my view of it too. What went around will be coming around, good and hard.

December 1, 2009 4:54 pm

Stern is a buffoon. Being very busy he clearly doesn’t have the time or inclination to look at the “evidence,” as you can see from his reference to the ice cores. These demonstrate conclusively that CO2 lags temperature. If he doesn’t know this, his views are worthless. Sadly they are also hugely influential.

December 1, 2009 5:07 pm

This is all beginning to read like a bland but classical segment of a turn of the century novel where an old and very trusted friend retires to the den of a dignified gentleman to partake of a postprandial brandy and a communal cigar.
Alas, come morning the butler stands accused at his master’s side, as the friend and mistress leave quietly by the servants’ entrance.

Craig Moore
December 1, 2009 5:15 pm

OT, April, too bad the Cougars could not adapt to the UW climate change. 30-0. Ugly has a score.

April E. Coggins
December 1, 2009 5:29 pm

Craig Moore: Not only am I a global warming denier, I am also a bad football season denier. What score? ; )

Craig Moore
December 1, 2009 5:42 pm

April, UW Huskies 30 the Pullman WSU Cougars 0 in the Apple Cup

December 1, 2009 6:20 pm

So let me get this straight, in Copenhagen they are going to potentially agree to cut global carbon emissions from 47 billion to 44 billion tonnes, a drop of 7%.
And this is going to help stop the human Co2 contribution “tippin the balance” how exactly?
I am so muddled….

December 1, 2009 7:14 pm

This reminds me of the Cold Fusion fiasco twenty years ago.

April E. Coggins
December 1, 2009 8:23 pm

Craig Moore: That was a wink at the end. But now that I think of it, Cougars have won five of the last seven match ups. If I was a CRU Team member, I could create a graph that would “prove” that Cougars are the superior team. And I might be able to get other Cougars to peer review my work. Hmmmmm? I can see it now, one big press release reaffirming that Husky fans are flat earthers and are probably in collusion with Big Oil, Big Tobacco and other Bigs. I wonder if I could find or invent a Cougar publication that would print my conclusions? Oh yeah, and if you don’t send me all your money, you will die. Or at the very least, you might not win another game.

December 1, 2009 9:22 pm

Also, someone should look into the data (or try to get it released) from
Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment

December 1, 2009 9:32 pm
December 1, 2009 9:50 pm

Thanks for pointing out the book burning. That flew right by me. I just saw it as a symbolic thing. Book burning is actually not that uncommon these days with books going out of style. I would hope that this is just a case of books going electronic, but I do worry a bit that people are just not reading altogether. A few years ago I heard about a used book store in town closing down and burning some books it could not unload. It wasn’t some political effort to ban books. They were just disposing of some books nobody wanted.
As for Al Gore, I kind of hate saying this, because I see him as a man of talents that could be put to better use. The problem is he’s been an elitist, cowardly, and hypocritical opportunist. He has some technical knowledge. From what I’ve heard about him, he really did have something to do with helping to create the modern internet, as it became known in the 1990s, in a technical sense. He misstated his role. He did not “create the internet”, as he said in his interview on Larry King. Also, I recently watched an interview with Carl Sagan from 1996 (his last), and he said that Al Gore was scientifically literate. That’s striking since you wouldn’t know it by what Gore has expressed outwardly. He’s had a thing for fossil fuels for as long as I can remember. He hates them. He hates the internal combustion engine. As best I can tell he hates manufacturers, since they pollute. I don’t understand it. These are the things that enable him to live the way he does, and reach as many people as he does. From what I’ve heard his own house is not “green” by “green” standards.
Comedian Dennis Miller had a theory about Gore, and it might be accurate. He said he didn’t think Gore really believed in this stuff, and he was like some character in a pirate movie he brought up (I can’t remember) who would go around to the natives and show them flashy things so they would ooh and ahh at him. It’s sure made him wealthy, and it looks like he hopes it will make him wealthier still. In that sense he’s as unethical as an Enron executive, hoping to get rich on a fantasy.

Keith G
December 1, 2009 10:18 pm

Douglas Keenan is to be commended for his courage. Two quotes from Voltaire come to mind:
“…the safest course is to do nothing against one’s conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death.”
And to all the would-be Keenan’s out there that have not yet stood up:
“Every man is guilty of all the good he didn’t do.”

December 2, 2009 12:06 am

Re: tallbloke (11:23:18) :
“Someone in this thread quoted Lord Stern as if he was an expert on climate science.
I am at a loss to know why you should think that! I am well aware that Stern knows only what he chooses to read (he majored in maths and is an economist) and that is evidently hightly selective. You should read my posts more carefully. I would have thought it obvious that Stern’s comment was made in blissful ignorance of what’s actually been revealed over the past few weeks. We can hardly imagine him sitting down to read WUWT. I also later make it clear that Stern has vested interests in promoting AGW.

December 2, 2009 12:48 am

The NCDC has thoroughly “cooked” the basic data that goes into CRUT and GIStemp (The GHCN thermometer selection). Climategate will not be nearing an end until NCDC, NOAA, NASA GISS and the whole lot of hangers on have been opened up and hosed clean…
I’m sorry to hear of your pain at the hands of QUB and SUNY, but not surprised. It’s what happens when folks have power and privacy in which to apply it…

Ron de Haan
December 2, 2009 6:06 am

This e-mail links CRU with the Free University of Amsterdam (Dr. Peter Thorne) and
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Benjamin D. Santander
with the work of Christie and Douglas et al and also mentions Revkin and “political hay”.
Another Smoking Gun and and a further “growth” of ClimateGate?
Who is familiar
From: Ben Santer
To: Peter Thorne
Subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort]
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:04:05 -0800
Cc: Carl Mears , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , Phil Jones , Tom Wigley , Steve Sherwood , John Lanzante , Dian Seidel , Melissa Free , Frank Wentz , Steve Klein
Dear folks,
Thank you very much for all of your emails, and my apologies for the
delay in replying – I’ve been on travel for much of the past week.
Peter, I think you’ve done a nice job in capturing some of my concerns
about the Douglass et al. paper. Our CCSP Report helped to illustrate
that there were large structural uncertainties in both the radiosonde-
and MSU-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change. The
scientific evidence available at the time we were finalizing the CCSP
Report – from Sherwood et al. (2005) and the (then-unpublished) Randel
and Wu paper – strongly suggested that a residual cooling bias existed
in the sonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change.
As you may recall, we showed results from both the RATPAC and HadAT2
radiosonde datasets in the CCSP Report and the Santer et al. (2005)
Science paper. From the latter (see, e.g., our Figure 3B and Figures
4C,D), it was clear that there were physically-significant differences
between the simulated temperature trends in the tropical lower
troposphere (over 1979 to 1999) and the trends estimated from RATPAC,
HadAT2, and UAH data. In both the Science paper and the CCSP Report, we
judged that residual biases in the observations provided the most likely
explanation for these model-versus-data trend discrepancies.
Douglass et al. come to a fundamentally different conclusion, and
ascribe model-versus-data differences to model error. They are not
really basing this conclusion on new model data or on new observational
data. The only “new” observational dataset that they use is an early
version of Leo Haimberger’s radiosonde dataset (RAOBCORE v1.2). Leo’s
dataset was under development at the time all of us were working on the
CCSP Report and the Santer et al. Science paper. It was not available
for our assessment in 2005. As Leo has already shared with you, newer
versions of RAOBCORE (v1.3 and v1.4) show amplification of surface
warming in the tropical troposphere, in reasonable agreement with the
model results that we presented in Fig. 3B of our Science paper.
Douglass et al. did not use these newer versions of RAOBCORE v1.2. Nor
did Douglass et al. use any “inconvenient” observational datasets (such
as the NESDIS-based MSU T2 dataset of Zou et al., or the MSU T2 product
of Vinnikov and Grody) showing pronounced tropospheric warming over the
satellite era. Nor did Douglass et al. discuss the “two timescale issue”
that formed an important part of our Science paper (i.e., how could
models and multiple observational datasets show amplification behavior
that was consistent in terms of monthly variability but inconsistent in
terms of decadal trends?) Nor did Douglass et al. fairly portray results
from Peter’s 2007 GRL paper. In my personal opinion, Douglass et al.
have ignored all scientific evidence that is in disagreement with their
view of how the real world should be behaving.
I don’t think it’s a good strategy to submit a response to the Douglass
et al. paper to the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). As Phil
pointed out, IJC has a large backlog, so it might take some time to get
a response published. Furthermore, Douglass et al. probably would be
given the final word.
My suggestion is to submit (to Science) a short “update” of our 2005
paper. This update would only be submitted AFTER publication of the four
new radiosonde-based temperature datasets mentioned by Peter. The update
would involve:
1) Use of all four new radiosonde datasets.
2) Use of the latest versions of the UAH and RSS TLT data, and the
latest versions of the T2 data from UAH, RSS, UMD (Vinnikov and Grody),
and NESDIS (Zou et al.).
3) Use of the T2 data in 2) above AND the UAH and RSS T4 data to
calculate tropical “TFu” temperatures, with all possible combinations of
T4 and T2 datasets (e.g., RSS T4 and UMD T2, UAH T4 and UMD T2, etc.)
4) Calculating synthetic MSU temperatures from all model 20c3m runs
currently available in the IPCC AR4 database. Calculation of synthetic
MSU temperatures would rely on a method suggested by Carl (using
weighting functions that depend on both the surface type [land, ocean]
and the surface pressure at each grid-point) rather than on the static
global-mean weighting function that we used previously. This is probably
several months of work – but at least it will keep me off the streets
and out of trouble.
5) Formal determination of statistical significance of
model-versus-observed trend differences.
6) Brief examination of timescale-dependence of amplification factors.
7) As and both Peter and Melissa suggested, brief examination of
sensitivity of estimated trends to the selected analysis period (e.g.,
use of 1979 to 1999; use of 1979 to 2001 or 2003 [for the small number
of model 20c3m runs ending after 1999]; use of data for the post-NOAA9
This will be a fair bit of effort, but I think it’s worth it. Douglass
et al. will try to make maximum political hay out of their IJC paper –
which has already been sent to Andy Revkin at the New York Times. You
can bet they’ve sent it elsewhere, too. I’m pretty sure that our
colleague JC will portray Douglass et al. as definitive “proof” that all
climate models are fundamentally flawed, UAH data are in amazing
agreement with sonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change,
global warming is not a serious problem, etc.
One of the most disturbing aspects of Douglass et al. is its abrupt
dismissal of the finding (by Sherwood et al. and Randel and Wu) of a
residual tropospheric cooling bias in the sonde data. Douglass et al.
base this dismissal on the Christy et al. (2007) JGR paper, and on
Christy’s finding of biases in the night-time sonde data that magically
offset the biases in the day-time data. Does that sound familiar? When
did we last hear about new biases magically offsetting the effect of
recently-discovered biases? As Yogi Berra would say, this is deja vu all
over again….
I hope that one of the papers on the new sonde-based datasets directly
addresses the subject of ‘error compensation’ in the day-time and
night-time sonde data. This would be important to do.
It’s unfortunate that Douglass et al. will probably be published well
before the appearance of the papers on the new radiosonde datasets, and
before an updated comparison of modeled-and observed tropospheric
temperature trends.
I’d be grateful if you could let me know whether you are in agreement
with the response strategy I’ve outlined above, and would like to be
involved with an update of our 2005 Science paper.
With best regards,
Peter Thorne wrote:
> All,
> There are several additional reasons why we may not expect perfect
> agreement between models and obs that are outlined in the attached
> paper.
> It speaks in part to the trend uncertainty that Carl alluded to – taking
> differences between linear trend estimates is hard when the underlying
> series is noisy and perhaps non-linear. Work that John and Dian have
> done also shows this. Taking the ratio between two such estimates is
> always going to produce noisy results over relatively short trend
> periods when the signal is small relative to the natural variability.
> Also, 1979 as a start date may bias those estimates towards a “bias”, I
> believe (this is unproven) because of endpoint effects due to natural
> variability that tend to damp the ratio of Trop/Surf trends (ENSO
> phasing and El Chichon) for any trend period with this start date. Given
> the N-9 uncertainty a reasonable case could be made for an evaluation of
> the obs that started only after N-9 and this may yield a very different
> picture.
> It also shows that the model result really is constrained to perturbed
> physics, at least for HadCM3. Unsurprising as convective adjustment is
> at the heart of most models. Certainly ours anyway. This result was
> cherry-picked and the rest of the paper discarded by Douglass et al.
> In addition to this, the state of play on the radiosondes has moved on
> substantially with RAOBCORE 1.4 (accepted I believe, Leo Haimberger
> should be in this – I’m adding him) which shows warming intermediate
> between UAH and RSS and I know of three additional efforts on
> radiosondes all of which strongly imply that the raobs datasets used in
> this paper are substantially under-estimating the warming rate (Steve
> Sherwood x2 and our automated system). So, there’s going to be a whole
> suite of papers hopefully coming out within the next year or so that
> imply we at least cannot rule out from the radiosonde data warming
> consistent even with the absurd “mean of the model runs” criteria that
> is used in this paper.
> For info, our latest results imply a true raobs trend for 2LT in the
> tropics somewhere >0.08K/decade (we cannot place a defensible upper
> limit) ruling out most of the datasets used in the Douglass paper and
> ruling in possibility of consistency with models.
> Douglass et al also omit the newer MSU studies from the NESDIS group
> which in the absence of a reasonable criteria (a criteria I think we are
> some way away from still) to weed out bad obs datasets should be
> considered. Placing all obs datasets and the likely new raobs datasets
> would pretty much destroy this paper’s main point. There’s been a fair
> bit of cherry picking on the obs side which needs correcting here.
> Peter
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 15:40 -0800, carl mears wrote:
>> Karl — thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say
>> Some further comments…..
>> At 02:53 PM 12/4/2007, Karl Taylor wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 2) unforced variability hasn’t dominated the observations.
>> But on this short time scale, we strongly suspect that it has
>> dominated. For example, the
>> 2 sigma error bars from table 3.4, CCSP for satellite TLT are 0.18 (UAH) or
>> 0.19 (RSS), larger
>> than either group’s trends (0.05, 0.15) for 1979-2004. These were
>> calculated using a “goodness
>> of linear fit” criterion, corrected for autocorrelation. This is a
>> probably a reasonable
>> estimate of the contribution of unforced variability to trend uncertainty.
>>> Douglass et al. have *not* shown that every individual model is in fact
>>> inconsistent with the observations. If the spread of individual model
>>> results is large enough and at least 1 model overlaps the observations,
>>> then one cannot claim that all models are wrong, just that the mean is biased.
>> Given the magnitude of the unforced variability, I would say “the mean
>> *may* be biased.” You can’t prove this
>> with only one universe, as Tom alluded. All we can say is that the
>> observed trend cannot be proven to
>> be inconsistent with the model results, since it is inside their range.
>> It we interesting to see if we can say anything more, when we start culling
>> out the less realistic models,
>> as Ben has suggested.
>> -Carl

Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-2486
FAX: (925) 422-7675

December 2, 2009 6:28 am

tokyoboy (19:14:53) :
“This reminds me of the Cold Fusion fiasco twenty years ago.”
Maybe not.
“AFP: Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough”

Craig Moore
December 2, 2009 6:54 am

April, enough of your skeptic charts. Cougar Gold is just spilled, sour milk, and, and,….. 😉

December 2, 2009 10:55 am

I have archived a full recording of the Apple Cup if anybody wishes to see it. Replay, watch every minute closely, and you still get 30-0.
go dawgs!
woof! Woof! WOOF!
Interestingly, according to that Seattle Times article 30 is not only the number of unanswered points that the dawgs hung on the cougs, but it is also both the revised percent by which mayor Nichols would claim Cascade snowpack had fallen and the number of years that Moss estimates that Cascade snowpack has been effectively stable.
If you are interested in more I hear you can get a BS in numerology at WSU.

Craig Moore
December 2, 2009 5:24 pm

Eric, I think numerology is an apt description for the revealing belief structure behind climategate. Crossing Dogs and Cats leads to little Cogs in the climate debate. Anybody other than me see the snow depth over at Cheney, Washington last year? That was some snow pack.

%d bloggers like this: