by charles the moderator
Many of you know me by my sometimes flippant moderation comments here. Sometimes concern is expressed over my anonymity since Anthony occasionally berates some who comment here for hiding behind anonymous Internet handles. Anthony long ago accepted my personal reasons for maintaining my anonymity and I have personally contacted others who expressed concerns and have given them explanations to which no one to date has refused to accept.
I am the head moderator here, with administrative as well as moderation privileges. I supervise the other moderators and sometimes publish posts, or correct typos as needed. Despite the accusations from Drs. Mann, Hansen et al., I have yet to meet my corporate overlords, view my directives from above, or receive a single cent for my hundreds of hours of services.
Here’s the story of how I was one of the very first to see the CRU files and what transpired.
On Tuesday November 17th I was at my desk, browsing the web and moderating at the same time when the now infamous post came in from user FOIA at 6:25 PST.
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
This is a limited time offer, download now:
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
Sample:
0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
… and so on.
As I noted previously in The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation, when I saw this comment I immediately embargoed the comment and placed warning brackets around it for the other moderators. I have been a ‘net user long enough to be very very concerned about downloading files off a Russian server, so the first thing I was concerned about was that this was an attack on us and our users. I downloaded the file and scanned it for viruses and Trojans and it came up clean. Then I stated viewing the contents and once I saw what we had, I started firing off emails to Anthony who was in Europe at the time – such as this one less than 2 hours later:
From me:
It looks real. It looks like it contains code from MBH 98 to CRU indexes. It has over a thousand emails.
And this a few minutes later.
From me:
No bad stuff detected. This from a real mole or one of the most elaborate hoaxes ever produced.
emails from Mann, Briffa, Jones.
Reviews of papers by Jones. Code and much much more.
Anthony Watts – wrote:
ok you’ve opened it I take it? No virus or trojan detected?
A
I talked to Anthony on the phone and we decided not to go public until Anthony returned, for all sorts of reasons including potential legal issues. In this first couple of hours I also burned a CD for Steven Mosher and gave it to him, and I also contacted Steven McIntyre. I swore both of them to secrecy until Anthony returned from Europe and he could be fully involved in the process. At this time none of us knew of the upload to realclimate.org or had noticed the “a miracle just happened” post on climateaudit.org. We believed we were exclusively sitting on The Pentagon Papers of our decade and had no knowledge that links were disseminated elsewhere.
For the next day the two Steve’s were constantly on the phone, with Mosher reading email after email to McIntyre. I had not given the link to Mosher as I was trying to control any traceable spread of the information. We had no idea where this was all headed and caution was in order. I made Steven Mosher promise to not electronically send a copy to Steve McIntyre, but I gave him a CD he could ship to McIntyre as long as it arrived after Anthony had returned from Europe. They were extremely anxious to go public and Mosher kept begging me for permission and my response was very low key. “If this is as important as it appears to be, then two or three days won’t make any difference, besides, we need to keep my word to Anthony”.
Then on the morning of the 19th we became aware that CRU was in lockdown mode and sending word that files were circulating on the Internet. I immediately found the comment on Jeff ID’s site by simply doing a Google search on the ftp site link. Jeff hadn’t noticed this post because he was out hunting during the above period. This was a game changer, CRU was trying to lock down the files and we were not exclusively in possession. Anthony was in the air about to land in Dulles but the cat was now out of the bag and Steve Mosher started posting on Lucia’s blog and about the same time I posted an email on Bishop Hill’s blog in the Caspar and the Jesus paper thread under the username devilinthedetails. I believe Steve Mosher may have contacted Tom Fuller around the same time.
Just as this was all breaking open, our anonymous leaker expressed concern that their revelations were being ignored or missed, a comment which I no longer have as I overwrote it with the following:
[A lot is happening behind the scenes. It is not being ignored. Much is being coordinated among major players and the media. Thank you very much. You will notice the beginnings of activity on other sites now. Here soon to follow. ~ ctm]
Now I get to go all Andy Rooney Paul Harvey [D’0h! ~ ctm] on y’all. Many wonder why I selected Steven Mosher to be the first recipient of the files. Well, I knew he was eminently qualified to examine them, much more qualified than myself. Proximity was also a factor. Steve Mosher is my roommate. So I saw him sweating on the phone with Steve McIntyre for a day and a half while I was calmly making coffee in the kitchen espousing patience. And since this story is too important to have any contributors remain anonymous, my name is Charles Rotter and I live in San Francisco. And that’s the rest of the story.
“Then I stated viewing ”
Should not that be “started viewing”?
Just a moderator in waiting. 😉
Thank you all for your courage and bravery — and of course the brilliant work keeping us informed.
Now and observation. In the past week we have 3 accounts of the events of 17-19 Nov by all the key players — accounts coming 2 months after the fact. One wonders if the investigations in the UK are driving this?
1) “Climategate—The CTM story” (the above story)
2) “The Mosher Timeline” on climateaudit.org
ttp://climateaudit.org/2010/01/12/the-mosher-timeline/
3) “Peer-to-Peer Review (Part III): How ‘Climategate’ Marks the Maturing of a New Science Movement” — the brilliant three part expose on bigjournalism.com
http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/12/peer-to-peer-review-part-iii-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement/
Its interesting to get a little backstage view of one of what Glenn Reynolds calls the Army of Davids.
March On!
Brer Fox (09:14:45) :
at your link:
Keith Briffa: older conspirator whose blunders lead the others to all but abandon him
I have wondered if Keith Briffa had felt that his time in ‘the team’ was coming to an end and so he became the leaker. But that is only a guess. I don’t know Keith Briffa from Adam. I can’t know if he’d do that.
i’ve seen a couple cooments that Bay Area commenters would like to buy ctm a drink or a lunch, etc.
I’d suggest that Bay Area commenters have a little party for ctm and mosher. I would attend and I’d pitch in on costs.
Climategate: The CRTtape Letters is available now, linkage found on Lucia’s website:
14 January, 2010 (17:02) | Data Comparisons Written by: lucia
Mosher and Fuller’s “Climategate: The CRUtape Letters” is now available. We’ve all been tantalized and want to learn what SteveMosher was up to during the days before the big break, and to read any other secrets they may have run down.
To buy your copy, click here!!
Written by lucia.
https://www.createspace.com/3423467
Sorry, don’t know how to embed links.
You left out the initial “h”:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/12/the-mosher-timeline/
Harold Blue Tooth (15:23:50) :
i’ve seen a couple comments that Bay Area commenters would like to buy ctm a drink or a lunch, etc.
I’d suggest that Bay Area commenters have a little party for ctm and mosher. I would attend and I’d pitch in on costs.
******************
Count me (and my credit card) IN
Anthony and Charles
The following may rate a separate thread in WUWT.
The Met Office Hadley Centre publishes a Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset going back to 1659 for monthly averages and 1878 for monthly and daily maximum and minimum temperatures.
On analysis, these disclose what could be taken as an attempt to somewhat colour perceptions , if you take my meaning. There are two issues:
(1) An “unusual” charting technique which creates another version of the well known “Hockey Stick”.
(2) Puzzling discrepancies between the rapidly rising monthly averages and the daily data, which is most laborious to handle, but which shows hardly any increase.
HOCKEY STICK
The monthly data from 1659 is quite linear, with no evidence of any exponential increase late in the twentieth century, which might have been expected if the human originated global warming hypothesis was valid.
The linear nature of the data was checked by subtracting the linear trend from the monthly data and examining the residuals, which show no trend (R squared 8E-06).
However the MET show a very nice Hockey Stick, by:
(1) Using anomalies based on 1961 – 1990, amongst the highest levels of the linear trend. This gives the impression of a long hockey stick helped by the charting method, which emphasises the zero line and hides the long-term trend.
(2) The long-term trend is further hidden by truncating the data by eliminated the 1659 – 1771 period, which contains the lowest temperatures.
PUZZLING DISCREPANCY
The monthly data covers average temperatures for the long period from 1659 to 2009. This is increasing in a linear trend of 0.26 degrees per century, with no sign of and acceleration as already noted. However, if you isolate the period from 1878 onwards, then the trend during this shorter period rises to 0.9 degrees per century. This discrepancy seems to be an artefact of the different periods, as again there is no sign of any acceleration.
The puzzle comes in when you download daily maximum and minimum figures for the same shorter period, from 1878 to 2009. The maximum temperatures show a linear trend of 0.09 degrees per 100 years, while the minimums have increased by an even slower 0.06 degrees per century.
In other words, there have been negligible increases in the daily maximum and minimum temperatures in this part of England for over 130 years, but the monthly averages have increased steadily by 0.9 degrees per century, not dissimilar to the published global figures.
How can this be? Have I made some stupid mistake, or …………..
The MET’s version of the hockey stick can be found at: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
The data can be found by downloaded from: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/data/download.html
I hope you find this all of interest.
I love it!–
paullm (17:46:46) :
I luv it – true confessions at wuwt, although they pale compared to those at CRU…!
When will Mosher and Fuller’s “Climategate: The CRUtape Letters” be available on Amazon?
If Moshpit needs help with getting the book on Amazon I have some contacts. Have him e-mail me.
My address is on the sidebar at:
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/
Of course you can also pick it off from this comment.
Charles, Anthony, Steve & Steve,
You have done an absolutely superb job in handling this. I think you should henceforth be known as “Four Unmaskateers” 🙂
And while I’m here, since some folks have raised the question of who the leaker might be … there has been considerable discussion over at CA on this. I think it was Bender who pointed out that a common thread in the emails is reference to the SRES … which prompted me to add the following…
Hmmmm … A few days ago, when I was putting together
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/the-delusions-of-climate-modellers-revisited-part-1/ ,
I went to Sonja B-C’s E&E link. There I eventually found a paper by Castles & Henderson – which wasn’t really a paper, but a series of correspondence, that I planned to use for “Part 2″ of the above Much to my regret I merely bookmarked it, rather than d/l … but there is a later paper responding to critiques & “extending” their original.
The “flavour” can certainly be captured by a quick read of:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we06.htm
which is reinforced by:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/22/ian-castles-on-ipcc-economic-assumptions/
It’s all about the faulty foundations of the SRES – and the IPCC’s “response” (which has an all too familiar dismissive ring to it)
So, (with apologies to Charles Dickens) ….
Put the case that someone totally outside the CRU crew had been doing some independent research and had figured out – and was thoroughly disgusted by – what had been going on (anyone with common sense would be able to spot the problems). Put the case that this person either had the skillset required to “grab” the files [restore from backup tapes, perhaps?] or at least knew someone with appropriate access who did – and/or had been gathering nuggets for some time.
Considering that communication probably also took place using other means besides emails (water fountains, cafeteria, pub, telephone, hallways, open doors, etc), and considering that it’s not unreasonable to think that the decision on the FOI request might well have been communicated to Jones on the 12th (or even the 13th in the a.m.), he doesn’t strike me as the type who would keep such “good news” to himself.
Put the case that Jane W. Blower – one way or another – got wind of this decision, decided that it was time to strike and she and/or her accomplice spent the next 4 days putting the package together … After reading Castles & Henderson, I would probably want to filter on SRES and the key players.
From where I’m sitting, the emails served primarily to confirm that which all you great sleuths had uncovered about the “science” over the years. FWIW, When I first read Castles & Henderson (even though I’m not an economist – or a “climate scientist”) I was astounded. So, I came running over here [to CA]wanting to shout Eureka! – until I found the post I mentioned above … then I decided to bide my time.
[Reply: Yes, we’re all volunteers here. But Big Oil and Big Tobacco still send us our monthly checks. ~dbs, mod.]
I always get my share of the money in used $20 notes delivered in manila envelopes.
hro001 (21:14:33) :
I pointed out the SRES in my discussion with bender. This is one of the topics I didnt get to in the book, but it was clearly in the crosshairs when the file was constructed
M Simon. book went up earlier tonight.
https://www.createspace.com/3423467
Maybe we should do a book party?
north beach? the marina? or the TL?
I wonder if city lights will pick it up?
steven mosher (00:34:24) :
M Simon. book went up earlier tonight.
https://www.createspace.com/3423467
Good luck with the book Mosh, I hope it does well for you.
How’s the pda coming along?
I repeat though, amongst all the excitement about the CRU codes, no-one seems to be able to say WHAT misleading plots got published, and exactly what misleading message was given out as a result. Until this is established, it’s just a big kerfuffle over nothing.
kzb,
You are right, though the easily-accessed emails tell us much that has been long suspected.
One point, directly affecting the data, hit my eye at once, and that was the “Fudge factor adjustment” to the raw CRU data. I am not up to finding the first description of this manipulation – it may have been here – but I look forward to the maths whizzes elucidating it.
Charles, if your and Mosh’s egos can stand any more stroking, very well done.
AusieDan (19:28:46) : you did read the notes didn’t you: as they reference http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/ParkerHorton_CET_IJOC_2005.pdf
and also state that the “daily” series starts from 1772?
What difference does the choice of baseline year make to the shape of the plot?
Charles for President!! 2012.
Thanks Jeff Wood, I look forward to finding out what published plot resulted from the “fudge factor” code too. I hope someone can establish this beyond reasonable doubt, because that would be proof of blatent scientific fraud. Only then can we say “Gotcha !” At present it is too early for this I am afraid.
steven mosher (00:40:14) :
Maybe we should do a book party?
——————————————————-
if i’m invited i’m in !!
steven mosher (00:40:14) :
Maybe we should do a book party?
******************
Great idea, but let’s keep the carbon footprint lower than COP15, OK ??
“It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.”—Mark Twain
Good work, Charles!