Climategate

McKitrick on flawd Data in FinancialPost
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988&p=1

I refer you to an article on the BBC site ;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm
Authors;
Mike Hulme is professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change
Dr Jerome Ravetz is an independent scholar affiliated to the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University

Anthony (and the Mods),
Here is my logo design:
http://www.channelcatalina.com/cglogo
Tks! Jim

I don’t see the free-for-all part. This is from The Truthorator
Truthorator.com. The web site is very bare, so I’m not sure exactly who wrote it, but here goes:
Global Norming Concensus Proves Climate Strange Is Real
December 2nd, 2009 by admin
Using a highly reliable measuring system know as the five senses, human
beings in their billions have come to the conclusion, that the only
certainty about the weather on planet earth, is that it keeps on
changing in very strange ways. Some times hot, sometimes cold, sometimes
wet, sometimes dry. This mind blowing discovery that affects all our
lives has been dubbed Global Norming. Otherwise know as Climate Strange.
What effects this will have on future generations nobody knows, but one
thing everyone agrees on is that the effects of Global Norming will be
devastating.
To help alleviate the terrifying effects of Climate Strange a panel of
experts has been formed to collate scientific research from around the
world into a series of reports to the United Nations, detailing exactly
how strange Global Norming might be. As a result it has been found
without doubt, through a data modelling process called normalisation,
that the normality of strange climatic behaviour will continue for ever.
Everyone with a brain and even those without, now agree that this will
result in the complete annihilation of mankind at an unknown point in
the future. To ensure that this does not occur a system of global
governance or Globatorship has been formed to organise the
pre-annihilation of all peoples likely to be affected by the devastating
effects of Climate Strange – which politicians agree will occur in
direct relation to the amount pigmentation in their skin and/or money in
their bank account or pocket.
This is to be financed by a Hardon tax that will help facilitate the
study of the constantly rising and falling temparature and moisture
levels at the very center of the Global Norming phenomena. But
opposition is mounting as humans and animals alike, complain that Hardon
is essential to all life on earth. But the absense of Hardon in the
creation of plant life and in the upper atmosphere has left the
pro-human lobby without a voice at the negotiating table.
Agreement on action to combat Climate Strange, is being sought at the
highest levels at a summit in Copenhagen, where world leaders are
meeting to discuss how far they are willing to go to save the planet.
Through a show of normal behaviour that includes blocking out all
information to the five senses, while demonstrating their own Hardon
emission limits, they hope to convince each other and the world that
Climate Strange can be controlled by the members of a coming
Globatorship.
However concerns are growing that Global Norming theory is a sham after
scientists were caught acting extreme abnormally themselves, by
falsifying results and corrupting the review process to get more
funding. The climatology community has rallied round, stating that this
is in fact perfectly normal behaviour for scientists and therefore
confirms the Global Norming hypothesis, even as their credibility
continues to melt.
Despite this, world leaders are attempting to reassure the public that
should Hardon emmissions exceed mandated levels, the merging of the EU
and the UN into an EUgeNic Globatorship will guarantee pre-annihilation
for all, after the capture and trading of emissions, before Global
Norming gets out of control and things become even more strange.
Please forward this message via links and emails to all the presidents,
prime-ministers, senators, commissars, member of parliament,
ambassadors, rabbis, priests, imans, gurus and real people that you
know, to help them understand the absurdity of the United Nations
climate change agenda and open their senses to the strange
climatological normality that is the weather.

Dec 2, 2009, 8:01 P.M. ET
Climategate: Science Is Dying
Science is on the credibility bubble.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.
. . .
What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously “unprovable” theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.
. . .
If the new ethos is that “close-enough” science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

Some more articles to peruse:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
Good Op Ed by Dr Lindzen:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

CSIRO scientist resigns after climate report censorship.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frfku0-1225806539742
Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.
The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JillianBandes/2009/12/03/democrats_censor_climate_skeptics_in_congress

Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice – YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
kettle
black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message
so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000
To: Christian Azar , christian.pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
Cc: “‘David G. VICTOR'” , ‘Katarina Kivel’ ,
N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, frtca@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.camuffo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scohen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pmfearn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfoley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pgleick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ahs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rwk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, diana.liverman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mccarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ogilvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barrie.pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pollard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nj.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, h.j.schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gyohe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leonid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Steve et al,
I’ve been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
points, I
will add my thoughts. I should say I have been more involved in all the exchanges
between
Mike and MM so I’m probably biased in Mike’s favour. I will try and be impartial,
though, but
I did write a paper with Mike (which came out in GRL in Aug 2003) and we currently have
a long paper tentatively accepted by Reviews of Geophysics. With the latter all 4
reviewers
think the paper is fine, but the sections referring to MM and papers by Soon and
Baliunas
are not and our language is strong. We need to work on this.
Back to the question in hand:
1. The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in GRL
in
1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So,
acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous
precedent.
Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model
code available is something else.
2. The code is basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In the GRL paper (in 2003 Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the series we use together. The result is pretty much
the same as MBH in 1998, Nature and MBH in 1999 in GRL.
3. As many of you know I calculate gridded and global/hemispheric temperature time
series
each month. Groups at NCDC and NASA/GISS do this as well. We don’t exchange codes
– we do occasionally though for the data. The code here is trivial as it is in the
paleo work.
MBH get spatial patterns but the bottom line (the 1000 year series of global temps) is
almost the same if you simply average. The patterns give more, though, when it comes to
trying to understand what has caused the changes – eg by comparison with models. MM
are only interested in the NH/Global 1000-year time series – in fact only in the MBH
work
from 1400.
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics (for want of
a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other series that I’ve produced,
Keith Briffa has and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper’s work has produced a slightly different
series
but we don’t get bombarded by MM. Mike’s paper wasn’t the first. It was in Nature and
is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to concentrate their effort onto one
person as they did with Ben Santer after the second IPCC report.
5. Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don’t we all decide not to work with or
co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will say
that MM are disingenuous, but I’m not sure how many of you realise how vicious the
attack on him has been. I will give you an example.
When MM came out, we had several press calls (I don’t normally get press calls about
my papers unless I really work at it – I very rarely do). This was about a paper in
E&E, which when we eventually got it several days later was appalling. I found out
later that the authors were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
article
appeared. So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done by
like-minded colleagues. Anyway, I’m straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs people
to Mike’s site and also to E&E and the MM’s site. MM have hounded us about this for
the last four months. In the MM article, they have a diagram which says ‘corrected
version’ when comparing with MBH. We have seen people refer to this paper (MM)
as an alternative reconstruction – yet when we said this is our paragraph MM claim they
are not putting forward a new reconstruction but criticizing MBH 1998 !! We have
decided to remove the sentence on our web page just to stop these emails. But if a
corrected version isn’t a new or alternative reconstruction I don’t know what is.
So, in conclusion, I would side with Mike in this regard. In trying to be
scrupulously
fair, Steve, you’ve opened up a whole can of worms. If you do decide to put the Mann
response into CC then I suspect you will need an editorial. MM will want to respond
also.
I know you’ve had open and frank exchanges in CC before, but your email clearly shows
that you think this is in a different league. MM and E&E didn’t give Mann the chance
to
respond when they put their paper in, but this is a too simplistic. It needs to be
pointed
out in an editorial though – I’m not offering by the way.
I could go on and on ….
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 15/01/2004 +0100, Christian Azar wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word. If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire debate.
Yours,
Christian
——————————————————————–
Christian Azar
Professor
Department of physical resource theory
Chalmers
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=387&filename=1074277559.txt

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

http://www.henrypayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/1127ClimategateFictionUFSCOLOR.jpg