Ok, the little blog is running about 9 times higher volume than my old record. This means there are a lot of new people who are interested in understanding this issue. Believe me that as a technical blogger, the replies and emails read differently than if you’re checking this out for the first time. So one of the things I do is try to explain the issues the best way possible so not everyone has to be a climate scientist to figure this stuff out. It doesn’t always work but here we go.
Despite what RC says, there are several glaring problems in these emails which Gavin Schmidt is working feverishly to gloss over. Here are the items I have a problem with.
- Discussion of interference with IPCC procedures to block low-warming reasonable and published papers.
- Discussion of removal of climate reviewers who are open minded to low-warming papers. The fact that in GRL this apparently occurred after these discussions is a problem.
- Discussion with the government about denial of FOIA to any climate audit blogger. FOIA is not meant to be for non-controversial topics it’s SPECIFICALLY for the contriversial ones. Free speech doesn’t protect nice words, it protects strong words.
- Data manipulation discussions. These are mostly hinted at except for a few instances but they are real and directed only toward strong warming.
So now I have to provide evidence of these problems. Let’s look at RC’s reply which provides a nice foundation for our discussion.
This is a paragraph from Gavin’s post:
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Gavin has done a nice job declaring that there is no conspiracy but how true is it. I don’t know what people expected a conspiracy to look like but in my experience they are typically very simple structures by friends with a common goal or incentive. First, before you claim what incentive, I have this link posted by Lubos demonstrating 22 million US dollars were distributed to phil jones since 1990. Twenty TWO million!! I’ve got to say, I could do a lot with that money and that sort of number will incent people to not mess up the story the money handlers want. Also, we shouldn’t skip the fact that these emails are chock full of expenses paid travel to exotic places, Bejing, Shanghai, Tahiti on and on.
So let’s look at some of the emails. It’s way too difficult to go through all of them but I’ve read most. This article will get insanely long if I put the whole email in so I’ll give a reference number and enough to take the comments in context.
-1089318616.txt
Phil
To: “Michael
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004Mike,
[snip personal][snip off topic]
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Obviously this is a simple conspiracy of two to keep a paper from participation in the IPCC. What’s more, they apparently have the power to do it! The paper is likely MM04 which was quite accurate in my view but that’s beyond the scope of this article. The boys are not concerned with the suppression of low warming views in the least. It never crosses their minds ‘what if we’re wrong’?
A long email with some evidence for collusion to remove an editor from GRL. The full email can be downloaded if youre interested and the file name is 1106322460.txt:
Michael wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
[snip]
I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon et al paper. These were all pure crap.
There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now, unfortunately…
Mike
[snip-irrelevant]
Thanks Tom,
Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something might be up here. What a shame that would be. It’s one thing to lose “Climate Research”. We can’t afford to lose GRL. I think it would be useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and potentially Mackwell (I don’t know him–he would seem to be complicit w/what is going on here).
If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it could be taken through the proper channels. I don’t that the entire AGU hierarchy has yet been compromised!
[snip]
mikeAt 04:30 PM 1/20/2005, Tom wrote.
Mike,
This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
[snip]Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
[snip]
Tom.
Michael wrote:
Dear All,
Just a heads up. Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences that causes m some unease.
I think we now know how the various Douglass et al papers w/ Michaels and Singer, the Soon et al paper, and now this one have gotten published in GRL,
Mike
It makes one wonder, how can the AGU community be “compromised” by people with different opinions? This can go on forever but let’s conclude it with this beautiful piece email from Mike.
At 15:29 15/11/2005, Michael wrote:
[snip]
The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have “Climate
Research” and “Energy and Environment”, and will go there if necessary. They are telegraphing quite clearly where they are going w/ all of this…Mike
So how does this evidence of an active wish to remove an editor of Geophysics Research pan out? Gavin laid it out for us in a manner which is apparently supposed to allay concern of conspiracy in his latest thread.
[Response: This is a typical over-reaction. Perhaps you are unaware that almost all journals demand that you submit names of potential reviewers as part of the submission? Perhaps you are unaware that 6 editors of Climate Research resigned because of the way the Soon and Baliunas paper was handled? Or aren’t scientists allowed to give their opinions to colleagues? – gavin]
So lessee, do 6 editors resigning in concert give confidence that no collusion to replace other editors is involved? Ain’t buyin’ it. In my opinion there is clear evidence in these and many other emails for collusion to force consensus. It’s been a standard point of the Air Vent that consensus is an unnatural state for any group. Put 5 people in a room and ask the wall color! In this case the ring leader appears to be Mike (coach). He was working very hard to insure that the ‘team’ pull in the same direction. I encourage readers to find other examples of collusion to maintain consensus in this pile of emails and post below. Last names removed.
Let’s move on to FOIA. Again, it’s a small simple conspiracy. I’ve read all the FOIA emails by searching the email directory from the zip file.
Active blocking of freedom of information requests. Now keep in mind that freedom of information is the same as freedom of speech. The rules are provided to force controversial information to be allowed. There IS NO REASON for FOIA protection to non-controversial data. Yet the AGW guys worked closely with the local government to insure that NO FOIA from CA or any CA readers get proper attention!! None.
No conspiracy gavin? Here’s the FREEDOM of information requests email. 1228330629.txt
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.
So if you have an unquestioned warmist viewpoint or you feel that questioning a science that desperately hopes to add trillions in taxes is too troublesome, you can ignore FOIA. The FOIA only applies to people who want to ‘actually understand’ not leftists. This is exactly what I would expect from a third world country. This is what you get in Cuba or Venezuela. The FOIA isn’t created protect easy government questions, it protects hard ones. Please forgive us for wanting to know why we’re giving millions of dollars to these people for undisclosed papers?
Sorry, lost my temper. How can a person be convinced to ignore the law from a FEW HALF HOUR SESSIONS!! Gavin.. this IS a problem!
Again, I would encourage others to locate other examples of FOIA corruption and post them – last names removed – in the comments.
I’ll finish this post which has taken too much time with the manipulation of data. Gavin did a particularly good job of stepping in the poodo on this one. Here Gavin describes a poor choice of words.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
However, Gavin’s claim of out of context doesn’t hold water. Hiding the decline has been one of the key points at the Air Vent since it’s inception. In Mann 08 this well known problem with non warming data was addressed as shown in the following plot.
Ya see, they took the inconvenient purple curve and chopped the data back to the yellow line which had very poor correlation to tempareature – no consistent warming. Through some Mathemagic Michael Mann pasted on information from other upsloping proxies. — Instant warming. See hockey stick posts above.
This procedure is very well known and blindly accepted amongst the advocates WRT Briffa MXD. The same people who we now can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt have taken over paleoclimatology. After replacing open minded people, the advocate editors don’t even question the lopping of data, who knows what horrors it would do for their careers. If you pulled this garbage in ANY other science it would be laughed out of the building but from these emails Mann, Briffa and Jones are in charge of this situation.
So, my point this morning HERE was – this problem is known by 100% of all paleoclimatologists. Really everyone knows. So having the foreknowledge that everyone does this to Briffa MXD and other series, why would Jones make the following comments at TGIF with respect to his knowledge of this email:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while theother two got April-Sept for NH land N of
20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil
And his comment was:
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”. “That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
Well before the real climate post, my point was that EVERY PALEOCLIMATOLOGIST KNOWS DAMN WELL WHAT CONEXT THE COMMENT WAS MADE IN. Nobody’s speaking out because they are all on the team. Unfortunately for them, RC doesn’t read here often enough. Here’s what I said before the RC post:
These ‘divergence’ issues are widely widely widely known and discussed in paleo literature and the SOB Phil Jones knows exactly what he meant!!! He was just too honest in his email.
How many “widely”‘s a re required is personal taste but remember Gavin just flatly agreed with my point.
it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).
and this
so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight)
That is exactly the point Gavin. The inconvenient data has been chopped off (in plain sight), the data has been replaced (in plain sight), with the components of a hockey stick (in plain sight). Now don’t you think it’s um…..interesting that a brilliant guy like Gavin seems to miss this point?!!!
It’s flat, proven, in your face, no question…… advocacy. Climate science is corrupt, Gavin, Mann, Briffa, Osborne and Jones are complicit in my opinion. How can a reasonable minded individual conclude otherwise.
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck my guess- -a duck.
The evidence is endless in these emails, I haven’t begun to scratch the surface here. Here is another goofy response by Gavin to the weight of the evidence.
But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.
To which I answer, what if they are ” in context”.
Now the police are involved and this comment has been added to RC.
“We are aware that information from a server used for research information
in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,”
the spokesman stated.“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm
that all of this material is genuine.“This information has been obtained and published without our permission
and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from
operation.
What would you say if you were in damage control? The emails are genuine or they cannot be verified?
Collusion, corruption, manipulation, and obstruction are the climate standards.
To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@virginia.edu>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
it.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
the Air Vent 
Gee these emails are a great how to;
How to deal with Steve McIntyre
How to deal with Japan
How to deal with risks that are too low
How to deal with the IPCC
How to work with WWF
http://www.twawki.wordpress.com
Jeff, I worry that the issues are getting muddled. The press can’t grok all the nuances of data manipulation or of the efforts to rig the peer review process. They only deal well with one, high impact issue. What they can understand is the destruction of data to avoid FOI disclosure. IMO, the whole focus should be on the felony obstruction charge. If Jones and Mann get indicted, the whole house of cards will fall.
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
Thank you for this post.
These emails need to be scoured. Every admission of wrongdoing, in both the legal and professional respects, need to be methodically cataloged and indexed.
Here’s one, about changing data, from 1257874826.txt
“One final thing – don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be
changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also
a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may
be down to SST issues”
Jeff, you could also point to where Gavin and Mike admit to manipulating the comments at RC. That’s a pretty interesting read too.
Great post Jeff. This is bad and there is no way Gavin can spin that. Tim Blair had a great comment regarding Gavin’s “no grand conspiracy evident in the emails” monologue. He mused Gavin was saying it with a sense of relief.
It is interesting how the chips appear to be falling in three directions:
Sensational – data manipulation – this seems to grab the headlines, but as you mention, it is only hinted at in a few places. What is hinted at is pretty incriminating as it seems confirm our worst suspicions regarding why every “error” made by the team goes in the same direction.
Legal – The FOI shenanigans – This will probably cause a few individuals to loose the sleep as it could end in job loss or worse. I doubt anything will ever come of it beyond personal embarrassment, but the legal implications are not something I would want to have hanging over my head.
The sham of peer review – this is the big boy, IMO as the the term “peer-reviewed” will never carry the same weight in this field again. They clearly had a long-standing pattern of abusing the system to prevent “contrarian” views from being published. The key steps:
1) Withhold data/methods/code from those questioning their results (McIntyre, McKittrick, Keenan, etc.). Force them to reverse engineer the methods and make assumptions. Some assumptions will inevitably be mistaken
2) Attack the mistaken assumptions as clear evidence that the author is a fraud, the paper is garbage and is not worthy of publication
3) Pressure the journals/reviewers not to accept the paper based on its alleged inferiority and errors
4) After paper rejection, criticize those questioning their findings as not being peer reviewed
5) If a paper does get through, attack the journal as bush league (e.g. E&E) or go after the editor to prevent reoccurrence (e.g. GRL)
6) Repeat as often as needed
What is really surprising in reading the emails is that they genuinely seem to think this is how the system should work. There doesn’t seem to be any hint of uncertainty, or uneasiness. This is their process and they make the rules, that is just the way it is.
It is enjoyable and heartening to read their fretting about blog posts in the later emails. They can’t believe anyone takes this stuff seriously (it isn’t peer-reviewed!) but you can tell they are clearly annoyed and concerned by its impact. It reminded me of British generals complaining how the American revolutionaries wouldn’t fight by the rules of war (the rules the British had instituted, of course). How can a bunch of hick farmers be defeating the greatest military on the face of the Earth?! They’re cheating!
Well, if you look at the ADAM pdf in the documents, it certainly would give someone reason to protect their position if it looked like their work was going to be the basis for regulating the entire economy of Europe and possibly the world. That gives one quite a lot of power, at least at first. But sadly, history shows us that once such power is obtained by the government, the scientists that facilitated the power grab are abandoned.
#5
This whole thing reminds me of the policical correctness movement run amok on campuses some time ago. Groups or individuals which did not conform to the “correct” orthodoxy were shut down or shamed into submission. It was an apalling thing to witness. The cause of political correctness justified just about any type of action to control behaviour of others. Respect of rules, morals, democracy, rights, laws, etc only mattered for those that conformed.
Jeff,
Is below an accurate statement pertaining to Briffa and Steve M’s attempts at getting him to release data?
“He [Briffa] couldn’t release the data 3+ years ago because it belonged to his russian colleagues who instructed that it was not to be made public until they published it themselves, they were still working on the paper.
McIntyre btw was sent the data by those Russian colleagues back in 2004 but he didn’t realize it was the data. So his FOI requests were for data he already had (not his fault tho)”
Jeff:
Great job. It would be interesting to compile a list of Gavin emails. Do you have a sense of how many emails from Gavin are in this cache?
Also do you have a sense that there are more to come?
Finally, has anything of interest shown up from initial looks at the code and data?
The emails are on wikileaks.org now:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009
Is global warming a smokescreen for the real fascist NWO agenda of controlling the world’s flow of information? After all, Al Gore is a senior advisor to Google…
Can search all the emails by keyword here: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
I know little of that site or its credibility.
Thanks Jeff. Great post. 🙂 Reading Gavin’s responses on RealClimate is very interesting. He must have almost supernatural powers of repression. Or, can he really not see how incredibly biased he and his group is? To me it is profoundly disappointing that someone who is in that influential of a position is simply unable to be the slightest bit objective. One of my favorite Gavin responses is below.
WOW! They are discussing this on “Red-Eye” on Fox News! Surprised me!
Interesting backstory of soon papers here
“If you pulled this garbage in ANY other science it would be laughed out of the building”: I have had new, naive research students try to pull the trick of suppressing or manipulating data that they disliked. Instead of roaring at them, it would seem that I should have recommended a career in Climate Scientology.
Jeff
You wrote;
” *Discussion of interference with IPCC procedures to block low-warming reasonable and published papers.
*Discussion of removal of climate reviewers who are open minded to low-warming papers. The fact that in GRL this apparently occurred after these discussions is a problem.”
As you know I tend to blog about historic precedents for our climate, with a particular interest in the Little Ice Age thermometers that predate the Giss (1880) and Hadley (1850) set.
There are numerous examples of how a truncated record fails to show the preceding climatic variations which demonstrate that 1880 was a low point in that cycle, so not surprisingly temperatures have risen since.
I pointed this out to Gavin yesterday with the innocemt question as to why measure from valley to summit and scare everyone, when measuring summit to summit would give an entirely different answer.
The question appears to have been deleted. Why? I am invariably polite and wwell informed. Is it an example of ‘them’ not wanting to listen to what ‘us’ have to say?
If the referees only want to hear one side of the story it is no wonder that relatively few peer reviewed sceptical papers are ever published.
In the EU funding is specifically not permitted if you want to tell the other side of the climate story to the official one.
I think Blogs like this one are rapidly making printed journals redundant but they will never be accepted as a source of ‘scientifc’ information unless they are ‘peer’ reviewed.
I would be happy to put my work forward for this process but it would never get accepted.
Tonyb
Sorry about the serial postings Jeff. It is amazing to me that all of these people with Dr. in front of their names can’t seem to think their way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to peer review, science and politics. The conclusions of Dr. Goodess are [self-snip]. I’d love to see the team emails/letters to the reviewers. I’m sure they’d be priceless as well.
It gets better, or worse, depending on one’s point of view.
I, like many others, put in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for their temperature data and like everyone else got the bum’s rush.
Now i know why- see email below;
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to
abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one
at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all
about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing
with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental
Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very
supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief
Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is
going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t
know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures. [The
number of FOI requests.]
The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data
Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the
email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he
pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my
emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2
months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if
anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI – it is
supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit
rating !
I am now going to make an official complaint to the UK Information Commissioner about this
clearly unlawful obstruction
Why not call it what it really is?
I think this whole climate change story has been one big fraud.
Taxpayers have been taken to the cleaners, bigtime.
At WUWT I offered to contribute $500.00 to a legal fund that seriously takes on this corruption, this rot. And I hope others will join in.
If everyone contributes $5, $10, $20 or $50 – then we have got a serious war chest.
My checkbook and pen are waiting right here!
If someone finds, organises, whatever, a law office ready to take on this rot, then send me an e-mail, and the check will be on the way.
Kondealer,
Good for you! That’s the way.
Note how they tried, judged and sentenced Steve McIntyre without any kind of legitimmate legal process. Did they invite Steve to allow him to present his defence? Of course not. They set up their own little kangaroo court to assure the decision they wanted.
I hope you read my post above. Let me know if a legal fund for legal action comes about.
I check in at this webaite every day.
“ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO I DELETED LOADS OF EMAILS, SO I HAVE VERY LITTLE – IF ANYTHING AT ALL.”
Amazing!
Jeff C: What is really surprising in reading the emails is that they genuinely seem to think this is how the system should work.
Well it doesn’t surprise me much, I think they have revealed their modus operandi on RC for quite a while. This is classical group think. Probably many of them, if not all, think they’re still the white knights fighting the big bad black knight of oil industry etc. They’re so convinced if the cause that they don’t even notice that they’ve lost touch with real science. They’re also so close to implementing their ideas on a global scale that they’re in a really paranoic mode.
I don’t think this is about power for most of them, it’s about defending their religious cause.
Hmm – Fox News, the Drudge report and Rush Limbaugh, eh? Real class.
Meanwhile, half my country is underwater because nobody can be bothered to do anything about global warming. Thanks, America!
Jeff, could you put a pack of all your private correspondence with Anthony Watts, Stephen McIntyre, Lucia Liljegren, RyanO, Marc Morano and anybody associated to a think tank on a server, so we can download and have a look?
I mean, you are so honest and transparent that there is nothing in there that can be pulled out of context, right?
Anonymous
I guess you are British So am I. Substantiate your absurd statement that half the country is under water. A small part of Cumbria and a bit of Scotland perhaps.
It’s not even a record if measured as the Met office officially do from 9am to 9pm instead of taking a random 24 hour period to prove a point.
Lots of rainfall events surpasses this (serious and tragic as it is) It was caused by a stalled rainfall conveyor- a natural event nothing to do with climate change.
Care to comment?
Tonyb
Neven , jeff has not pulled anything out of context, it is all IN context and the people responsible are quite revolting and dare I say it corrupt. Sorry but this is not how science works.
One assumes “anonymous” refers to GB, of which a small part is ‘under water’ and which has nothing to do with global warming. We shall ignore the genetic fallacy he also commits.
Well done Jeff, well done vindication feels good does it not?
Neven fails at trolling.
“This is what you get in Cuba or Venezuela.”
Gonna have to disagree with you there, Jeff. If this had happened in Cuba, and this information got out, all the scientists in question would be up against a wall smoking their last cigar. Those kinds of governments don’t like having their budgets fucked with.
“is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence”
Except when we see they’ve plainly been colluding to suppress publication of any “scientific evidence” that disagrees with their worldview, or release of data that might allow scientists to question said evidence, what price that “weight”?
What is clear is that it’s not so much a hoax as massive collective self-delusion and team-think. They know what answers they want to see, bend the data to produce them and “know” anything or anyone that dares to question them must be wrong. “No data, just a gut feeling” as J might say. SteveM is an “idiot” because even when he’s right scientifically, he’s getting the “wrong” answer so he must be stupid. The hockey stick was published because none of themk cared about checking the science of something which had the “right” answer. And even now, they’re blind to the revelation of everything they did wrong because to them, the ends justify the means.
Do we know which FOI officers need to be sacked and/or jailed (along with much of the Met Office) for conspiracy to break the law?
Here’s one of many other email examples:1106338806.txt
Tom,
I’ll look at what you’ve said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don’t know the other panel members. I’ve not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:35 21/01/2005, Tom wrote:
Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply.
The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so
they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code
would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written
one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
Sorry I won’t see you, but I will not come up to Norwich until
Monday.
Let me fill you in a bit (confidentially). You probably know the panel
members. We were concerned that the chair would be a strong person.
It is Jerry Mahlman — about the best possible choice. Richard Smith
is the statistician — also excellent. Dave Randall, too — very good.
As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen — but at least he is a smart
guy and he does listen. He may raise his paper with Gianitsis that
purports to show low climate sensitivity from volcanoes. I will
attach our paper that proves otherwise, in press in JGR.
Preparing the report has been a good and bad experience. I think
I had the worst task with the Exec. Summ. — it tied up most of
my time for the past 3 months. The good has been the positive
interactions between most of the people — a really excellent bunch.
I have been very impressed by Carl Mears and John Lanzante.
At meetings, John Christy has been quite good — and there were
good and positive interactions between John and Roy and the RSS
gang that helped clarify a lot. Outside the meeting, in the email world,
he has been more of a pain. He has made a lot of useful suggestions
for the ExSumm — but he keeps accusing the AOGCMers of
faking their models (not quite as bluntly as this). In the emails there
are some very useful exchanges from Jerry Meehl, Ramaswamy and
Ben detailing the AOGCM development process. We will be
writing a BAMS article on this in the summer — much of what happens
in model development is unknown to the rest of the community. The
‘faking’ idea prompted me to write a tongue in cheek note — also
attached. As far as I know, John will not raise this particular issue
in his dissentin views.
To accommodate dissenting views, the report will have a “dissenters’
appendix”, with responses. You will get this at some stage — the
deadline for dissenters to produce is Jan 31, and we will not finish
our rebuttals until mid Feb. The dissenters are John C, and (far worse)
Roger Pielke Sr. All of the rest of us disagree with these persons’
dissenting views. Roger has been extremely difficult — but the details
are too complex to put in an email. On the other hand he has made
a number of useful contributions to the ExSumm and other chapters.
Suffice to say that he has some strange ideas (often to do with the
effects of landuse change) that are interesting but still, in my view,
speculative — but testable.
We have yet to see the dissents — and it would not be ethical for
me to say any more than I have already.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Phil wrote:
Tom,
[snip]
The IPCC Chapter with Kevin is now with WGI in
Boulder. We did put you down as one of our
potential reviewers. Don’t know whether you’ll
have time or whether WGI will select you –
regional balance etc.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:59 21/01/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
Tom Karl told me you will be on the VTT review panel. This is
very good news.
Unfortunately I will not be at the meeting on the 23rd — I will
be in midair half way across the Pacific to spend a couple of
weeks in Adelaide.
I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean
that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give
it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah).
I will be at CRU next Mon, Tue, Wed in case Sarah did not
tell you.
Thanks,
Tom.
Ok, here’s a big one.
Thanks Phil,
We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations
showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.
We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
Regards, TOm
Phil said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990)
paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to
submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers
to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press
in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in
the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested
JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.
In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization
at two sites in China.
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil
What does it mean when the law only applies when you want it to. Keep in mind these FOIA requests are for the single most used temperature dataset on earth. These FOIA’s are to see how the thermometers are combined, which thermometers are used and how urban warming is corrected.
In GISS global ground data many corrections are added in. The correctins are very very poorly vetted and CREATE MOST OF THE WARMING SIGNAL. If you’re new to climate science, it’s quite amazing. Now even more amazing is that HadCRUT’s dataset has a HIGHER slope and is therefore the most commonly used. Besides the basic bigger warming implications, the implications to paleo reconstruction math are HUGE and nuanced. The big upslope rate is very helpful to make unprecedented temperatures. YET WE HAVE NEVER SEEN HOW THE TEMP CURVE IS ASSEMBLED.
From these emails we know why other advocate scientists don’t care to see the code. Jones is in charge after all. However, this code and data are key to understanding the nature of the curves. There may be no smoking gun again, it more likely is just be a little tweak here and there.
Now we’ve received a copy of some code but it may be considered work product even though it’s been requested. I’m very concerned about ownership of this code and so far unwilling to do anything with it. We do have a right to know in my opinion.
The real key is that the governments (who fund climate science) were easily convinced to ignore FOIA and prevent exposure of this very serious issue. I note a pattern of hiding the code. I’m not sure why they worry about the code so much so when I look into it, if there’s a big no no, it’s getting posted either way.
I’ve decided to save the casually curious from the need to download 61MB of stuff, unzip etc. by sticking the emails (with addresses futzed and some phone numbers ditto) on my webserver along with a fairly basic search engine.
Now anyone can search for “M&M” or “FOI” and see everything that shows up – no need to rely on journalists or bloggers potentially selectively quoting emails. Also if you see a quote on a page with a somewhat cryptic reference such as “1103647149” or “1103647149.txt” you can paste the numbers in to the “Open” box and get the file displayed for you.
The tool is here
http://www.di2.nu/foia/foia.pl
In the OP, could you clarify how the IPCC selection process is supposed to work? You need to make it clear (if it is clear) that Phil didn’t have the authority to have peer-reviewed papers, even actually bad ones, excluded from IPCC. Otherwise – if it simply comes down to a question of whether the paper was bad or not – then Phil wins by default.
#35, As you may or may not be aware, there have been a certain amount of emailing back and forth with the IPCC to determine exactly who and how these decisions were made. Again, Steve McIntyre is the focus of that as well – he does a lot of important work on transparency. The IPCC laid out a specific structure to accept or decline specific information. Of course the rules are set up to sound impartial but my understanding is there is a single person in charge of each chapter.
I’m not sure who was in charge of which particular chapter but if you read the Keith and I comment there are two things which are clear.
1 – it takes a coordinated effort to block the papers.
2 – They are prepared to go outside the rules to get it done.
“They are prepared to go outside the rules to get it done.”
Rules are for the little people.
Re #24, Anonymous: “Meanwhile, half my country is underwater because nobody can be bothered to do anything about global warming. Thanks, America!”
Anonymous. Have you checked whether there is any local subsidance of the land mass in your area that could explain apparent sea level rise? For some reason, those reporting sea level rises (strangely very different numbers from place to place) fail to disclose that local subsidence is often a major factor. Example – CSIRO in Australia.
I think the most disturbing that has surfaced so far is this coordinated deletion of emails, and Phil Jones shamelessly telling Ben Santer “About 2
months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little”. I really wonder what the content of these mails with Briffa prior to AR4 really was? Was it related to the “1945 problem” since he mentions that in the same mail?
You know, one of the takeaways for me from these emails is that most of the people in the emails show a good deal of integrity (agreeing with Trenberth there, I suppose). In particular, Kaufman, Overpeck, Cook, Esper, d’Arrigo, and Briffa (off the top of my head) come off as wanting to do good science. Briffa displays a lot of confirmation bias – but, to be perfectly honest, for the most part he seems to legitimately want to get the right answer. I think his problem may be that he’s too convinced that you can pull a climate signal from a tree.
.
The other, more unfortunate major theme is that those in the dendro/paleo community seem to feel that only they have the expertise to comment upon what they do . . . which is almost never true of any field. The blindness with which they examine W&A and A&W defenses of MBH (while at the same time declaring MBH to be a methodological mess and mentioning some of the same issues MM raised) is truly astounding. These otherwise bright people really can’t see clearly there. Quite odd.
.
They also seem to feel they are above FOI, simply because they happen not to like CA and Steve M and think he does shoddy work. I don’t think there’s anything most of them are trying to hide (honestly, there will be no bombshells once all of the CRU data and code is released – and it will be 😉 ); they just seem to feel that they should be the gatekeepers of the information. They don’t seem to understand or believe in the purpose of FOI – which is that the law was written to expressly prevent people in their positions from being allowed to be the gatekeepers. They will probably learn a difficult lesson WRT FOI out of this.
.
Lastly, I don’t think my opinion of Mike Mann can go any lower. He is the most manipulative, scheming, collusive, arrogant, and utterly blind scientist I have ever read correspondence from. The fact that he freely floats around MBH code to his buddies (with the caveat that it not get to the “wrong” hands) well after Steve, Wegman, and others requested the code is simply deplorable.
.
After having read through these, I do not believe most of the scientist in there are dishonest. Phil Jones shows some occasional integrity issues, but Mike Mann trumps everyone in that department.
.
What an asshole.
Actually, to clarify, Phil Jones shows enough integrity issues that UEA really ought to consider whether he’s fit for his post.
.
But it’s telling that Mike Mann made Phil uncomfortable at multiple points.
#40, Ryan, I don’t like agreeing with people so often. It’s against my nature.
You are completely right, the emails do show a substantial amount of integrity from all kinds of individuals. My list may be a bit different but there are a few who see themselves as ‘bus drivers’ and those seem to be the ones beating down any possible differences in message.
For those who don’t read here often, Mann is my own least favorite scientist. His work is mathematically and morally bankrupt in my opinion. The thing Mann does so well in his emails is never go off message – his emails are very carefully worded. Every time he sees any resistance he attacks and attempts to surround the wagons and remove the resistance by any means possible. He always has an excuse and will NOT admit even the smallest problems. It was revealing to see his work behind the scenes.
There is one email from Keith just tearing apart one small aspect of Mann’s work, I’ve left it out because it serves no other purpose than an attack. Mann works very hard to never criticize anyone on the team by email. Off the team or suspected to be partly off the team — boom!!
In other words, Mann is a master manipulator who’s intended message is all consuming. Hansenesque.
Ah, Phil “hide the decline” Jones. That makes him sound like a character in a Welsh village. I can just hear him complaining “I’m the only Climate Scientologist in the village”.
And, of course, there’s Mike “self-opinionated verbiage” Mann. Forgive me if I am indulging myself; I’m enjoying this.
Abour what think Jones about FOIA
In file “jones-foiathoughts”:
Options appear to be:
– 1/ Send them the data
– 2/ Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
– 3/ Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
Lovely, is’nt it ?
Mann is trying to spin this line:
(my emphasis added)
saying that “trick” simply means “formula.” Y’know, we “non-climate scientists” being plain dunderheads wouldn’t understand this scientific nuance.
OK, I’ll bite. Let’s try that:
Nope…still sounds fishy to me.
How about:
Gee, no matter how I replace “trick” that “…to hide the decline” bit just sticks out there. Sorry Michael, still sounds a tad dishonest to me.
#45, The funny thing is that Jones email flat states the exact complaint that any sane scientist would have with this. Hide the divergence, remove the offending data, cover the problem whatever.
They cannot chop data they don’t like. Why is it that all the several papers which do this are passed through peer review without question?
Yeah, it seems Mann doesn’t get it either. The whole point that they are admitting in that email is that when the data doesn’t say what you want, torture it until it does. Really pathetic. That these people are referred to as “scientists” is disgraceful.
Jeff,
OT — I missed getting “blowed up” by about 30 minutes today. Timing is everything. 😉
Getting more traction now.
MSNBC is carrying the Washington Post article.
In my view the revelations in these emails will produce nothing new. What I predict will happen is that the main stream media will look at the reaction to these “outings” as something bad about the (over) reaction of the skeptics to them and mostly ignore the major issues involved. The partisan media on the right will at some point probably go a bridge too far and the main stream media will jump on that as confirmation that the emails are being taken out of context and over interpreted.
In a perfect world where nobody had preconceived and biased points of views these emails might, taken together, change some opinions, but unfortunately that is not the case. The primary interest I have in this episode is the reaction of the advocacy groups like RC and how far they will go in defending the tone of these emails. The trick “trick” explanation is already way over the top.
Taken together, I do not see in these emails innocent attempts by some of these climate scientists to do good science coming through, but, in contrast, I see a tendency throughout to produce some coordinated conclusions about AGW. That state of affairs is nothing that cannot be deduced by the aware and attuned layperson from the public statements of these scientists. It is that situation, however, that is the most disconcerting to me about the “scientific” approach to AGW and its effects. It also increases the subjective uncertainty factor that I add to any objective uncertainties (sparse as they are) that might come out of these scientists’ published works. Think also how when only good news to the consensus is “allowed” that that good news, legitimate as it may be, is never allowed to be countered by some bad news
Think on the tone of those emails (which rather emulate the tone at RC) and then try to image one these climate scientists producing a work that might directly go against the consensus. They would, I think, take on rather immediately the groups’ apparent depiction of a Steve M or Pat Michaels as a badly motivated and/or incompetent participant in the discussion.
Remember this? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
I wonder if – perhaps after letting this bake for a few days – anyone would be willing to contribute praise for those scientists who once attempted to (and perhaps still do) publicise the truth.
Do you know of any of that 700 who have continued to fight for rationality and integrity? Or, any who went to the dark side? That sort of thing. I can’t claim sufficient inside knowledge to comment much.
hmm, my faith in the UL FOI system has been shaken a bit. It seems like Phil Jones has been able to corrupt the FOI officers inside of UEA. If these people happen to be reading this thread, they should be very careful how they respond to the next wave of FOIs. There will be an investigation of the FOI process and the FOI people need to be on the right side of this.
Ryan O writes: “(honestly, there will be no bombshells once all of the CRU data and code is released – and it will be ); ”
Ryan, I beg to disagree: the hadcrut is the surface temperature record all IPCC models claim to emulate as a proof of their validity. The stonewalling data and process in making the hadcrut is highly suspect and these people took “unprecedented” -LOL- actions to protect it. I believe that when hadcrut will be open to replication the proverbial stuff will hit the fan…
Magellan #8
“He [Briffa] couldn’t release the data 3+ years ago because it belonged to his russian colleagues who instructed that it was not to be made public until they published it themselves
Incorrect. The rissian colleague sent Briffa the Yamal Data inline in an email in 1996. There is not stipulation not to pulish it or communicate it elsewhere.
0844968241.txt
From: “Tati*na ”
To: k.
Subject: Rashit
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 96 13:24:01 +0500
Dear Keith,
enclosed are data concerning Yamal chronology.
1 – list of samples: 139 subfossil samples (checked only),
covered time span from about 350 BC and 18 samples from living
trees (jah- from Yada river, m- and x- Hadyta river, por- from
Portsa river);
2 – general chronology (1248 BC – 1994 AD). I have some little
doubt about 360 BC – may be it is false. It was found that
in chronology I sent you before 155 BC was false ring;
3 – ring widths of living trees from Yada and Hadyta;
4 – ring widths of living trees from Portsa. Some of them didn’t
include in chronology, because were not measured at that time;
5 – ring widths of subfossil trees. Zero means that ring didn’t
find on sample.
I don’t send description of collection sites, deposits and etc.
for the present. Some details you can find in our article
(Shiyatov,…., Loosli). By the way, do you know something about
its fate?
Please, inform me if you have any questions about these data.
Sincerely yours,
Rashit Hantemirov
begin 644 data.arj
M8.HH`!X&`0`0“*;FU-*(9M32B$…
Anyone able to parse a .arj file? 🙂
#55 Not likely. CRUTEM has a vast dependence on the GHCN network, which is quite open for scrutiny. While there are certainly issues with GHCN, there are no smoking guns. There is nothing there that “disproves” the increase in temperatures over the last century. There are issues that call into question the magnitude of that increase . . . but nothing that will make the increase go away.
.
So when all of the data is finally released, there will be 95% GHCN and 5% other stuff. The impact of the other stuff may be measurable, but it is unlikely to be significant. There are likely to be minor issues with the way they collate, homogenize, and grid. Again, these may have a measurable impact, but they are unlikely to be significant.
.
The question about ground temperatures will come down to the usual suspects – UHI, land use, equipment changes, and calculational changes. The amount of information that release of the full CRU data will contribute to this is minimal as the vast majority of the CRU data is already public domain.
.
The primary reason that many of us who submitted the FOI requests for the CRU data and code is that this should be something that is entirely in the public domain. It should be something that is auditable by both official and unofficial auditors. Having it in the public domain will help drive corrections and improvements to the code. It allows sensitivity studies (“what-if’s”) to be done by people who may not share the apparent CRU agenda. It will help weed out those criticisms of CRUTEM that are baseless and provide a solid foundation for those criticisms that need to be addressed.
.
Given that I feel the real question in AGW is not whether it is happening (I believe it is) but rather one of magnitude, even those little corrections matter to me. For others . . . well, maybe not so much. I think people who are expecting massive revelations when the official CRU code/data are released will be very disappointed – just as the release of the GISS code showed a buggy, poorly documented, squirrelly method of computing temperature, but not one that screams fraud or dishonesty (and maybe not even significant inaccuracy).
Interesting how they continue to claim that peer-reviewed literature is the only true science, yet they also claim they can “redefine what peer-review literature is!”. This no different than Ben & Jerry’s saying, “We can say without equivocation that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is the best because we compare it to Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.”
BTW, if you want to download these files, just do a search for FOI2009.zip. You’ll need a bit torrent client to download the zip file, but it’s showing up on LOTS of bit torrent download sites. It’s everywhere – they can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
The emails take a lot of time to go through, and most are just vanilla. There are some rather creepy pdfs, including one that outlines how to handle the media and skeptics, how to properly promote their agenda. The data sets are harder to unearth, since they require special database software to open.
There is also a letter to an Albany scientist regarding discipline he will go through for publishing a paper that states some of the monitors have very likely been moved, referring to temperature monitors. Not sure why he is being disciplined for this, because moving monitors around to get the data they want is pretty common for global warming supports.
The emails are definitely the smoking gun. I have a feeling we won’t get hearing the end of this one for quite a while. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in light of the Copenhagen climate conference!
Well done, everyone. We just knew in our guts these people were fudging the numbers. Now we have proof in their own words.
–
They seem to be VERY concerned about tree ring data from Yamal in Siberia. Evidently it is not fitting their thesis. Lots of emails on this one.
–
A little OT, but the conservative blog Powerline has a very good write-up of the Yamal saga that ties together the bunker mentality shown in the emails during this time. He really drills down into how Mann had no idea if Steve’s findings were correct, but was already formulating a damage-control response to discredit him. It isn’t pretty.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php
John Hindraker (the author) is an attorney not a scientist or engineer, but he does a fantastic job tying the story together in terms the lay reader can understand. It is a compelling read and really drives home Ryan’s points in #40 regarding Dr. Mann.
Powerline is influential and widely read. This should help the non-technical crowd better understand how damning these emails are and is a fine example of what a good journalist could do with material. We’ll see if any step up to the task.
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
So, 4 years later, means 11 years, does that make it a “statistically significant” yet?
First timer here and am most grateful to Jeff M for this site. I’m a political hack, not a scientist, and have always been on the fence w/Climate Change/Global Warming fearmongering. Any time a politico such as Al Gore is involved then you know it’s all about ego, power and enriching oneself. Hence, why I’ve remained suspicious.
That said, I read somewhere in this thread a name that I had not realized was associated w/funding the Global Warming/CC meme and want to learn a bit more about your understanding of his involvement…George Soros. Could you point me to articles, links, previous posts, etc that links him to all of this?
Soros is a very dangerous man IMHO and appears to have his greedy little hands in much of what we are experiencing in the policymaking arena these days. Thanks in advance for assisting me.
Incidentally, notice in 1029966978.txt that Hantemirov thanks Keith for editing his paper, but chides him for going beyond the data, and then declining to be mentioned as a coauthor!
🙂
Btw, this story is all over the political blogs and you have a helluva lot of supporters and fans. Keep up the great work!
#62 D2i
Start here and see if you can get a connection through to Soros.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
Thanks for the Powerline Blog link Jeff C. That was an *excellent* summary of that group of emails. 🙂
The test of of whether or not these AGW promoters are behaving in a way that is acceptable is to ask yourself this:
If I found out that my 401-k, or 403-b money manager was behaving with my money as these scientists were behaving towards the truth, disclosure and accurate reporting as demonstrated in in these e-mails, would I leave my money with them?
Would I consider their behavior professional or ethical?
Would I continue to trust their reports of the condition of my investments?
On the basis of what the scientists in these e-mails are claiming, the world is on the verge of investing literally trillions of dollars. Entire industries are being marked for destruction.
Now that we see a very small example of how they treat the data, the methods of processing the data, their lack of integrity irt peer review, and how they treat those who dare to question them, are those decisions still made with confidence?
Ryan O wrote: “There is nothing there that “disproves” the increase in temperatures over the last century. There are issues that call into question the magnitude of that increase . .”
I think the magnitude is an important issue given how scientists refer to these records to determine their model parameters etc. Question is, what are the adjustments that have been made and are they scientifically justifiable? How many adjustments, for example, have been made using “methods” such as this one?
“Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
re: Tallbloke #56
The file is encoded twice (I think), once uu encoded for the purpose of making it a text file for email purposes, and apparently as a compressed arj archive. If you save the email with a .uu extension, you could remove the uu encoding using winzip and then deal with the arj encoding separately. Unfortunately it appears the file was truncated. Here is the results reported by winzip:
Loaded from 0844968241.uu: ‘Rashit’ (data.arj): data.arj part 1 begin UUdata
data.arj data.arj – No End found
Winzip did not provide the partial results, so I’m not sure if partial data would have anything useful.
#48, Jeff Id said: “They cannot chop data they don’t like. Why is it that all the several papers which do this are passed through peer review without question?”
Jeff, as a published medical researcher, I am appalled that data chopping and massaging is accepted as method of procedure for these guys. When my colleagues and I create or borrow a dataset for a study, we may filter the set to eliminate patients that fail inclusion criteria (patients who, for varying objective reasons, don’t belong in the study) but we are not at liberty to adjust included patient stats to fit an outcome or smooth over inconvenient blips. Those blips tell us there is something important that needs to be understood, not swept under the carpet using swag data manipulation tricks with an intent to further massage other data references to make them agree as has clearly been admitted to in these e-mails.
Sometimes those blips show us that our hypothesis is flawed or incomplete in some way. Whether our hypothesis is proven to be rigorous or less so by the blips, knowledge is gained. Sometimes it is not what we find in support of the hypothesis that is important but rather what we didn’t find that is of greater importance. When one resorts to “tricks” to chop off or fit the data, they do so knowing full well that knowledge is being given a back seat to outcome.
#69 Color me naive, but I’m fairly certain that series was simple a “what-if” example. It indicates what they want to happen with a reanalysis, but does not necessarily suggest that they will force it to happen if the data do not support it.
.
I know for a fact that people often talk these “what-if” scenarios only to find out the position cannot be supported by the data. You need something much stronger to show that they have deliberately manipulated the SST record to get what they want.
.
ERSSTv3 –> 3.b is a much stronger example of what you are trying to say. 😉
#65 Tallbloke – thanks for the link.
re: Tallbloke #56
I think that data is in the folder FOIA/documents/kbtree
Anybody know how to interpret tree core data? It looks to be
there.
#71 Watcher
Thanks for that. I think the main point is that Hantemirov didn’t place any restriction on passing on the data, which is the excuse used by Briffa for not supplying data to Steve McIntyre.
#40 RyanO (November 21, 2009 at 9:59 am)
Ryan, I agree that most of the scientists show integrity in these emails. The one email that gives me pause, though, is 1252164302.txt. This one opens with: “D et al – Please write all emails as though they will be made public.” I’m thinking Phil Jones attempts to heed by this in some of his emails, but some of his other emails severely question his integrity. And, obviously, Mann is incapable of hiding his zealotry. Perhaps he should use his “trick” and mix some of his colleagues’ statements in with his own. 🙂
With regards to your statement about the CRU data, I agree there will be no bombshells. It’s just not possible to adjust the data in a way that impugns the entire dataset – they would, after all, need to keep the temperatures within some reasonable range of all the other datasets so as to not raise any red flags. If indeed some questionable adjustments are being made, they would be of the variety to serve PR. That is, to promote the “worse than we thought” headlines – “the hottest year on record”, “the most record highs”, etc. I do wonder, though, about minor adjustments magnifying the model run outputs.
Dave
#62 D2i
Good starting place for George Soros and The Shadow Party
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977
Ryan,
The likely outcome from release of all the data, methodology, etc will likely be the same as it was when Briffa finally released his — “Oh my god, these people are incompetent!” The smoking gun will not be some example of outright fraud. It’s the revelation that the “experts” behind the curtain are worse screwups than the great Oz.
Look at what happened when Mann’s work was finally exposed. Or when y’all took Steig’s mess apart. Or when Anthony Watts showed how incompetent the management of the temp sites. Or how badly flawed Tom Peterson’s attempt to put together a talking points response.
Or Rahmstorf’s ridiculous joke of a study. Every time people find out what they are really doing, they are exposed as jokers and incompetents.
I know what you’re saying, Ryan, but I find the amount of thought that’s gone into such a specific “what if” adjustment a little too much.
“This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip”
I cannot see how the words “one needs to have” are consistent with the idea of an impartial reanalysis. It sounds to me like “we can’t just get rid of it altogether because then the data wouldn’t “look” right and could raise awkward questions”. I need some of your “naivete” to help me see this in a different light! 🙂
#80,
I wonder if you would mind pasting that email up – last names ph# and emails removed if you don’t mind. It was a good one.
Forgive me if it’s already here somewhere.
Jeff, your request for the letter has lead me to find the reply! The reply is a lot more reassuring but I still can’t help feeling that “Tom” was looking for something he didn’t get a response to. Reply followed by original below:
1254147614.txt
From: Phil
To: Tom
Subject: Re: 1940s
Date: Mon Sep 28 10:20:14 2009
Cc: Ben
Tom,
A few thoughts
[1]http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/preprint/2009/pdf/10.1175_2009JCLI3089.1.pd
f
This is a link to the longer Thompson et al paper. It isn’t yet out in final form – Nov09
maybe?
[2]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle
-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
is a link to wattsupwiththat – not looked through this apart from a quick scan. Dave
Thompson just emailed me this over the weekend and said someone had been busy! They seemed
to have not fully understood what was done.
Have looked at the plots. I’m told that the HadSST3 paper is fairly near to being
submitted, but I’ve still yet to see a copy. More SST data have been added for the WW2 and
WW1 periods, but according to John Kennedy they have not made much difference to these
periods.
Here’s the two ppts I think I showed in Boulder in June. These were from April 09, so
don’t know what these would look like now. SH is on the left and adjustment there seems
larger, for some reason – probably just British ships there?
Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, but the adjustments won’t reduce the 1940s
blip but enhance it. It won’t change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug
45.
I expect MOHC are looking at the NH minus SH series re the aerosols. My view is that a
cooler temps later in the 1950s and 1960s it is easier to explain.
Land warming in the 1940s and late 1930s is mainly high latitude in NH.
One other thing – MOHC are also revising the 1961-90 normals. This will likely have more
effect in the SH.
With the SH around 1910s there is the issue of exposure problems in Australia – see
Neville’s paper.
This shouldn’t be an issue in NZ – except maybe before 1880, but could be in southern
South America. New work in Spain suggest screens got renewed about 1900, so maybe this
happened in Chile and Argentina, but Mossmann was head of the Argentine NMS so he may have
got them to use Stevenson screens early.
Neville has never been successful getting any OZ funding to sort out pre-1910 temps
everywhere except Qld.
Here’s a paper in CC on European exposure problems. There is also one on Spanish series.
Cheers
Phil
At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom wrote:
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
I wonder if there will be more emails released at a later date.
Jeff – I see that RC actually allowed a post of yours to go through and even more amazingly, Gavin responded to it. I am flabbergasted!
@#57 Ryan O said
November 21, 2009 at 12:56 pm
#55 Not likely. CRUTEM has a vast dependence on the GHCN network, which is quite open for scrutiny. While there are certainly issues with GHCN, there are no smoking guns. There is nothing there that “disproves” the increase in temperatures over the last century. There are issues that call into question the magnitude of that increase . . . but nothing that will make the increase go away.
I think people who are expecting massive revelations when the official CRU code/data are released will be very disappointed – just as the release of the GISS code showed a buggy, poorly documented, squirrelly method of computing temperature, but not one that screams fraud or dishonesty (and maybe not even significant inaccuracy).
With all due respect, you might want to take a look at what has been posted so far about GISTEMP at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/ . A lot of the analysis bears directly on GHCN, which, as you point out, feeds HADCRUT. If HADCRUT is anything like what has been posted so far about GISTEMP, it would appear to be no wonder that they would not want to disclose the raw data and code under unless forced to do so. GISS has already very quietly made a very large correction to GISTEMP and GHCN last weekend without giving any credit to why they did it.
I am sorry about the length of this post, but only after reading the many different post is it possible to get a real flavor for how the “thumb has been on the scales.” I have pulled short quotes for each country and region and have edited them very lightly for brevity. I would urge the interested reader to take the time to read as much as possible. The host seems to be an unapologetic “denier” but his work seems top notch and very transparent.
Mostly Colorado: They really did make the Colorado Rockies “As Flat As Kansas”!
Las Vegas/New Mexico(ish): Pretty flat area, but we still get everything over 2000 m deleted.
W. Texas/New Mexico(ish): Oh. Everything in the “Under 1000 meters” band again… Wonder where it all ended up this time? … All “WARM GRASS” and Airports again…
W. Colorado/Utah(ish): Again everything going down slope to one destination at 1475 meters: One single place. The Airport at Grand Junction…
Nevada/Central California: Just to show I’m not cherry picking, here is an odd case that goes sort of the other way. Maybe it’s an artifact of the areas involved leaking off to somewhere else, maybe not. But this block has a “melt up” to the a single high desert location…Ely, Nevada
up to Wyoming: Well, everything gets squashed again, but it looks like we get two thermometers this time… and the “under 1000 meters” pulls even in the home stretch. We get 2 more airports (North Platte and Casper).
Oregon/N. California: And there we have The Great Dying of Thermometers takes out both the low end and the “at altitude”, leaving just the one Medford thermometer.
Montana/Wyoming area: Here we see the other two altitude bands, with a 2:1 ratio of higher elevation, nuked in one go. Leaving just a nice warm airport that even this report has looking like it’s around the 2000s, but is in fact just barely over 1000 meters.
some kind of Idaho and Oregon: Oh… Looking like maybe only 2 thermometers survive and they are in the “under 500 meters” and “under 1000 meters” ranges… so what are the(y)? (Boise, ID and Pendleton, OR) Mrffpt. Another “2 Airports” in cities. Both of them far lower elevation than the surrounding mountains.
More Montana and then some: Once again, in the “final hour”, we get the stations at altitude wiped out, and we end up with this survivor: The Airport at MISSOULA … elevation at 972 meters reported or 1046 meters from the map for “nearby” terrain. Not quite the same as MULLAN PASS or ANACONDA.
New Mexico area: We have the very familiar elimination of the upper altitudes, and the concentration into one place and, wait, hang on a minute… isn’t that last line “2006″? But that would mean we have NONE of these left any more!
UPDATE: 17 November 2009: Well, it looks like somebody “got a clue” at GISS. (Or maybe when they felt the heat, they saw the light…). They decided to put back the missing US Thermometers.
Under Andes, what Andes?
Nuke Bolivia: Notice that while one thermometer manages to straggle into 1990, it gets shot that year … Guess the easiest thing to do was just Nuke Bolivia. Hey, it’s high and cold… and doesn’t have a single hot tropical beach in the whole place. Heck, I’d bet their airport doesn’t even get much traffic… We’ll keep it in the baseline period though (but GIStemp will fill in the “anomaly map” with thermometers stretched from 1000 km away that are used to fill in the Grids and Boxes from 1200 km away. So we can have Bolivia on the “anomaly map” even if we don’t have any thermometers there…
Even Brasil, who knew?: And I found the same pattern you will see below. After the initial spread of thermometers in the early years (and through the GIStemp baseline period) we have the erosion of the “up to 1000 meters” band and the growth in the lower elevations of 100 and 200 meters.
64% below 200 meters. Just look at the 1000 meter band melt and even the 300 meter band being eroded. But we’ve added something over 1000m, surely that’s a sign of good faith coverage? … Brasilia: inland, on the edge of the Amazon, and near the equator… And when we look at the nature of the sites more southernly than the 20 S mark, we find them in the warm band near the coastal areas.
Argentina: The “above” 1000 m is melting away, and the 500 – 1000m is gaining. Leave the mountains, head for the plains. But the “under 100 m” is gaining nicely too. Now adding up to exactly 1/2 the country. Why would you want to be in the mountains if you could be in the nice warm air of Buenos Aires with a beach view? … Notice that 68% of the thermometers are from above 40 S and bellow 25 S latitude; with 48.5% from between 40S and 30S or about the latitude of Buenos Aires. Who needs Patagonia, anyway. Nothing down there but cold and glaciers…
Chile – Head to the Beach: Those 200-300 m sites just had to go… Now 30.8% of Chile is below 50 m and another 46.2% is between 50 m and 200 m. That is, 77% of the country is below 200 m in elevation. Last time I looked, there was this large spine of the Andes in Chile. Guess someone thought it would be better ’spineless’… The interesting feature to me is the way the ‘below 50 S’ band shrinks while the ‘below 35 S’ gains. We are once again seeing a run away from the Patagonia latitude and toward Santiago latitudes. I am left wondering, though, if those northern deserts were prone to cold nights…
Peru too: So here we have a staggering 70.8% of Peru below 300 m elevation. I can hardly say “Peruvian” without the word “Andes” queued up and ready to follow. Yet from a thermometers point of view, the country is mostly lowlands.
Ecuador: Same story. The erosion starts mid mountains, then undermines the peaks and it all ends up headed for the beach. … Gee, now 66.6% are below 100 m.
Colombia: Yes, them too. You know, when a pattern hits 100% over 1/2 dozen countries, it is not an accident. This is not an accidental statistical artifact of thermometer change in Latin America. This, IMHO, must be a deliberate removal of mountains from the record so that warmer lowlands and coastal areas dominate. I can think of no other way for the pattern to arise where the mountains are removed, but the tropical beaches kept. Every Time. … We have 70.3% below 500 m and 29.6% below 50 m and 22.2% of them at below 20 meters and down to the beach.
Venezuela: A familiar story. Though this time it starts at elevation and only after W.W.II does it make a run for the beaches. We now have 55.7% below 100 m and 62% below 200 m elevation. And 93.7% below 1000 m.
Conclusion: So I’m sitting here asking myself, just where does GIStemp look to find a “nearby rural reference station” for all the cold snowy parts of the Andes when they have been substantially removed from the record? Where does it find the 10+ it tries to find to average together? … FWIW, if there are less than THREE it just gives up… Without at least 3 “nearby rural” and representative COLD stations, at best it can fabricate a complete fantasy. At worst, it can spread tropical warmth into frozen mountain peaks. What good is a UHI adjustment based only on other cities, airports, and tropical swamps or beaches? … How can you compute the snowy mountains from a Tropical Jungle or Hot Desert? … Simply put: You can’t.
Canada – Rockies, We Don’t Need No Rockies: Almost half of Canada is (represented by stations) below 50 m elevation and 55% is below 100 m elevation.
Pacific Islands:
New Zealand: Nothing over 100 m in elevation. Flatter than Kansas. (Though in fairness, it looks like the mountains are not in the Kiwi history either).
Australia: Not that you folks down under had much altitude to spare to begin with, but now more than 1/3 of the readings are “on the beach” in altitude… Everything over 100 m is just melting in the rain and headed for the beach… And the old reports from elevation are kept in for the “GIStemp baseline” period, so GIStemp will be comparing mountain baseline records to beaches today.)
Indonesia: Over 3/4 at the beach, and nothing over 200 m (with darned near nothing over 100 m).
Japan: Japan too is washing into the sea… If you look at just the 2009 year, even more mountains have been decapitated: … That one last mountain just had to go!
Hawaii: I think we all knew about the observatory on top of The Big Island being left out of the record; but I did not realize that other places were being systematically taken out and shot too. … So as of now, no place in any of the Hawaiian Islands is above 50 m. … And this is a valid comparison to a “GIStemp Baseline” period with about 10% – 15% “up slope” how again?
Malasia: Now this is an interesting case. In the ’60s ’70s and ’80s during the “GIStemp baseline” interval, we have a bit of thermometers at altitude (above 1000m). But not after.
Gistemp Baseline: This picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Pdoindex_1900_present.png) shows the GIStemp baseline set exactly on top of the cold phase of the PDO, one of the more major ocean cycles with the largest impact.
The Thermometer Great Dying: One final note: There has been A Great Dying lately for thermometers. Since about 1990, there has been a reduction in thermometer counts globally. In the USA, the number has dropped from 1850 at peak (in the year 1968) to 136 now (in the year 2009). As you might guess, this has presented some “issues” for our thermal quilt. But do not fear, GIStemp will fill in what it needs, guessing as needed, stretching and fabricating until it has a result. … In Japan, no thermometers now record above 300 meters. Japan has no mountains now. For California, where we once had thermometers in the mountain snow and in the far north near Oregon; there are now 4 surviving thermometers near the beach and in the warm south. But GIStemp is sure we can use them as a fine proxy for Mount Shasta with it’s glaciers and for the snows and ice of Yosemite winters. Basically, it’s better to have put 1000 stations back in and be short a few, then to be short all of them. … And what do we find? We find that the record for 2008 cools dramatically when you use all the thermometers. … There is a 0.6 C “Selection Bias” in the U.S.A. temperature record from deleting the USHCN thermometers in GIStemp.
Asia (minus Russian Siberia and China): In two earlier postings we looked at Russian Siberia and China in isolation. In both cases we found that thermometer changes dominated the pattern of temperature change. … But what does Asia look like if we set aside these two (admittedly large) areas? Is there more evidence for stability when thermometers don’t move around so much? Or is there more digging to do here? … The short form is: With SIberian and Chinese changes taken out, the rest of Asia is remarkably stable and shows no evidence for “Global Warming”.
Antarctica: I’m having a bit of trouble figuring out how you can measure the cold interior of a high plateau desert 2000 to 3000 km inland when the thermometers are all migrating out to the beach at sea level…
Mexico: Contrary to what you might expect, the red bits mean dry, not hot, and the blue bits are not cold. …. The “Blue Bits” are in the Tropical / Megathermal band, as classified via the Koppen Climate Classification system, described here. … And so are the bulk of the New Thermometers In Old Mexico… With each one of these continent or country focused investigations I learn a new trick. For New Zealand, it was “delete the one really cold island and hide it in some gratuitous changes”. For California it was “move all the thermometers from the mountains to the beach”. For Australia it was the march of the thermometers north. … Here, for Mexico, I learned that there is more to migration than latitude. A large bolus of thermometers were added, but the latitudes were very similar; and frankly, a lot of Mexico is hot. To make most sense of it took a map of climate zones. When looked at in the context of that map, we can see that a lot of the thermometers are added in the hot, tropical, “megathermal” band. Yes, there is a bit of fluff elsewhere to act as a bit of cover, but the bulk of the action is a broad addition of thermometers in the tropical hot part of Mexico. … Once again, we have thermometers with an allergy to snow and that seem to have altitude sickness. Only one heads to the hills, while a dozen run away… Anyone for a Hot Vacation in Old Mexico? The places where new thermometer were placed would make a decent itinerary for a tour of the warmest parts. Many are a ways from the beach, though. Wouldn’t want any “ocean moderation” if we can avoid it. But they are on the beach on the Gulf of Mexico side. If you’ve ever been there, you know that “moderation” is not one of it’s features… ( 99 F and 99 % humidity one horrid day on the Gulf Coast comes to mind… moisture condensed on me because I was cooler than the dew point as I stepped outside).
New Zealand: That far south near Antarctic Island just had to go! … When dealing with a small place that has a large impact on the surrounding Grid Boxes and Zones (up to 1200 km in all directions from an island), the deletion of a single near polar island can cause the thermometers 1200 km north to be extended “down south” (via the “reference station method” in GIStemp).
China: In 1958, the numbers stabilize at about 400. This holds with astounding stability up until 1989 – 91; when if falls off a cliff to less than 40. … But there is also a surprise jump at the end. Just like Russia, we get a few added back in in 2008. That jump to 73 is demanding attention… Two are added in the deep south as “WATER”. … A batch near the middle are “TUNDRA” that looks to be in Tibet … But a lot of these are flagged as DESERT or HOT DESERT.
Russia (European): At the 2002 – 2005 band, we see a bit of “winnowing of the north” and “juicing of the south”.
Canada: Here we see that three northern bands have been gutted entirely (in 2009). There are now NO thermometers (as of 2009) in the 65-70, 70-75, and 80-85 bands. 1992 saw the 80-85 band die. 2009, the others. Due to the general slaughter of thermometers, that 75-80 band is ONE thermometer (Eureka, CA). … That’s right. ONE thermometer for everything north of LAT 65. Who needs Northwest Territories, The Yukon Territories, or Baffin Island anyway… GIStemp can just estimate it from the satellite ice map projection synthesis interpolation estimates. (Yes, it does that…). (From Eureka’s Wiki page:) Winters are frigid, but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic. … I guess now we know why it was kept… With one thermometer in the frozen north, GIStemp must fill in from the south. Look for record warmth in the “Arctic North” of Canada in 2009.
California: (Only 4 stations left, all on the beach (before last weekend’s reinstatement?):) San Francisco, Santa Maria, Los Angeles, San Diego.
I am amazed that this is making main stream headlies, since they want to hush this up! Global warming, or is it “climate change” now? is a scam and always has been. The only thing big enough to affect the earths climate is the sun and it’s cycles and natural catastrophies from huge volcanoes, and I an not sure that would do it on a global scale. The eart replentishes itself on a daily basis. They are also finding oil in what was once dried up wells. They sucked it dry, and they are filling back up agan.
Politics controls science now because they control the funding for most of it. Even the scientist at the FDA revolted last year against the agency for supressing real science.
#85 – Phil
Phil Jones?
Nice try with the spin control You cannot stop the signal!
You might want to start preparing yourself for a real PITA prison, because that is where you are going.
When you get out you may want to look into McDonald’s, that will be the chief employer for former AGW/CRU scientist’s.
Good Luck!
I’m sure this has all been hashed and re-hashed…
I’m kind of a fence sitter (and a layman at climate science), but it seems clear that the earth is warming some, and I don’t quibble that CO2 may be contributing; I just don’t see any evidence for catastrophe. OTOH the climate community’s behavior has made me incrasingly skeptical – for whatever reason, Al Gore lied, why deny it?
Anyway, just because I feel compelled to post, this is my bottom line:
Those implicated are key players in creating the science that is the justification for restructuring the economies of the entire world. This is a really big deal! It ain’t little Bobby Sue’s dissertation on the night-time wanderings of the spotted albertan six-toed snail.
Neither impropriety nor the APPEARANCE of impropriety can be tolerated – by either side – when the stakes are this high.
These E-mails suggest – not prove, but suggest:
1) efforts to manipulate data to conform to a certain viewpoint
2) efforts to hide data from those who would review their work critically
3) a conspiracy to dodge freedom of information requests and a conspiracy to delete data that would be so requested
4) a conspiracy to prevent publication of contrasting view points and a conspiracy to punish those who don’t play along
5) an unseemly PR effort via elements of the press and certain websites.
(I won’t cite the e-mails, they are out there for all to see)
They (the emails) prove, at least to me, a disturbing blurring of the lines between advocacy and science.
These experts are asking laymen to, in no small measure, TRUST that the planet is in peril and thus make enormous sacrifice. Given these revelations, skeptics are entirely justified in crying foul.
If the planet is truly in peril, those implicated will step aside or ethical climate scientists will force them out – clearing the way for others whose reputations are unsullied and who can garner the public trust.
And maybe that’s not fair, but remember: the planet is in peril.
I will learn all I need to know about the SCIENCE of climate change by the ACTIONS of climate scientists in the coming weeks. If those implicated step aside or are pushed aside, then, at a minimum, the motives of climate change proponents would seem genuine. If not, then maybe this is about personal prestige and power.
I’d say the ball is now in the climate scientist’s court.
my $.02
Marlin said: “Global warming, or is it “climate change” now? is a scam and always has been.”
Global warming is not a “scam”. It is a legitimate theory of climate response to increasing CO2 emissions. The “scam” is the spreading of the meme that the science is “settled” and the collusion of concerned scientists (working on the basis of the precautionary principle) to make their position seem much stronger than it really is.
The science, however, is not settled. It is still very much an ongoing project and I suspect the next 5-10 years will produce some very interesting data that could go either way.
“RC actually allowed a post of yours to go through and even more amazingly, Gavin responded to it”: sauve qui peut?
To say that the emails reveal no conspiracy is disingenous. In the world of Edmund Blackadder “The criminal’s vanity always makes them make one tiny but fatal mistake. Theirs was to have their entire conspiracy printed and published in plain manuscript” but real vfillains tend to be a little more circumspect. In fact this lot have shown enormous vanity. As for conspiracy – Soros may not have funded this but government certainly has & if all these people are som open about the way they are, at best, deliberatly slanting & suppressing the evidence it is impossible that their paymasters, who are rewarding them so inordinately well, were unaware of this fraud.
#90, I was shocked too. Gavin completely missed the point in his reply (on purpose) so I put in another post to clarify.– snip.
hehe.
#91, Soros funds through 501C’s which are a wide network of fake organizations designed for the well connected and powerful to transfer their money in an obscure fashion without taxation. Without them, there would be much less manipulation of politics.
We’d never know whether Soros funded these or not.
” I have this link posted by Lubos demonstrating 22 million US dollars were distributed to phil jones since 1990. Twenty TWO million!! I’ve got to say, I could do a lot with that money…
You should be aware of what $22M over 20 years means in terms of grant support. That’s enough for the salary of the PI (Jones), a couple of grad students, some travel, plus indirect costs (overhead) and fringe benefits. If you want to make the big bucks, work for an oil company ($22M is pocket change), not a university.
#109 Rework your math. Just how much do you think grad students make?
His Wikpedia entry shows his first publication as in 1996 (together with Ben Santer who is also known to have been involved in fraud).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
So I very much doubt if much of his money cwame from before that. Indeed inflation being a major effect in everything I suspect that £13.7 million has mainly been received in the last few years. Anybody believe that the government who gave it to him didn’t realise they were paying for something more than impartial science?
A commenter noted that it will be hard to get the Lamestream Media to understand the details of data and algorithms. Here is a short example of how to get through (stolen from somewhere on the web…)
There are four types of convictions:
* Mathematics: Theses that can be proved or disproved.
* Science: Theses that can be disproved, but not proved.
* Religion: Theses that can neither be proved nor disproved.
and
Cult: Theses that are retained in the face of conclusive disproof.
To the extent that AGW (All-Gaia-Worship) depends upon Math, the Team is playing 2 +2 = an Enron 6 (cf the Harry_Readme.txt file).
To the extent that it depends upon Science, the Team actually makes no real effort to prove the thesis, but conceals the data and the math so that it cannot be disproved.
When anyone denies that the thesis has been proven, the Team moves on to Religion, preaching that it is a matter of faith that we must save the …yadda yadda yadda, whether or not it is true! For the children, or whales…whatever.
While the e-mails actually show that the Team members have actually moved all the way to CULT membership. They KNOW they are fudging the data. They KNOW they are fudging the calculations, but GW must still be true.
I wonder if I should ship them some kool-aid…
nice info
I conceive this web internet site has got some extremely outstanding information for everyone : D.
Just wish to say your article is as surprising.
The clearness in your post is just spectacular and i could
assume you’re an expert on this subject. Well with your permission let
me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post.
Thanks a million and please continue the gratifying work.