An email which is published in investigate magazine from Phil was questioned by a reporter who obviously knows little about the issues of paleo. Phil Jones of HadCRUT, replied with an answer which was a flat lie in my opinion. All he had to do is tell the truth but he couldn’t when faced with the damming implications of what originally read to me as a carelessly worded email about a widely known horse crap data excising procedure in paleoclimatology.
Instead, in the heat of the moment Dr. Phil chose deception. This email is copied from the report linked below.
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
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”. Link to their post HERE.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
Well Dr. if you can recall the little issue of “divergence”. Discussed almost daily in papers including my favorite Mann08 quote.
Because of the evidence for loss of temperature sensitivity after 1960 (1), MXD data were eliminated for the post-1960 interval.
The MXD data of the last email is the Keith Briffa data referenced in the first email above in the exact same timeframe mentioned above. If you’re new, these proxies are not thermometers yet are held out to be. They were declared thermometers and when they stopped following upslopes in temp, they are said to have ‘lost sensitivity’ . You’d think that would be the end of them but rather than admitting trees aren’t thermometers yet are actually um.. trees, the inconvenient data is CHOPPED OFF and replaced with an acceptable hockey stick upslope! I know it sounds crazy but I wouldn’t even have a blog without this rubbish. The method for ‘fixing’ the ‘divergence problem’ is the most disingenuous piece of rubbish imaginable all neatly packaged as IPCC science.
In case you missed the point, Mann, Briffa and apparently now Phil simply chop off the inconvenient data and replace it with upslope data. 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.
This is exactly what happend and in my firm and educated opinion, Dr. Jones claims of forgetting are flat and really really obvious – lies. I dislike collusion, I don’t mind global warming but most of all I hate lies.
To quote a Harry Potter line – What an idiot!
Cheer’s back Phil.
the Air Vent 
I did a post on CA a few years ago about the post-1960 truncation in TAR, where you couldn’t see the overprint without magnifying the graphic.
As an AR4 reviewer, I objected vehemently to repeating the truncation in AR4. Briffa as IPCC editor said that it wouldn’t be “appropriate” to show the non-truncated version.
#1
I’m not sure people realize just how well known this issue is. $5.00 says, every paleoclimate scientist knows of the truncation. In my opinion every sane scientist knows it’s crap. The point of the post as some will already know isn’t the moronic denial of knowledge by Jones but rather the fact that he felt the need to deny it.
If it should turn out that people were drawing salaries and research grants for fabricating data, would they be guilty of fraud or embezzlement? If so, might they be looking at jail time? In England, in case you don’t have this in the US, it is also a crime to conspire to commit a crime.
Seems like Jones and Mann are the main players in this whole climate manipulation scam?
3-we have things like conspiracy to commit fraud and murder, yes.
Jeff Id, did you sleep last night? Hey buddy, thanks for your diligence and honesty.
Ryan O. Keep working on that SI. It will be an honour to read the article having followed this since day #1.
For those lurkers who are new to this blog. Take advantage of the opportunity to read Jeff’s many posts on hockey sticks, Steig and Antarctica, and the many other science posts which Jeff has given so much of himself to.
The Air Vent hits the UK national press…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
The stupid lie goes straight to intent and character. Nothing Phil Jones has produced can be relied upon.
#7 Apparently he hopes to sue people into silence. I’m not sure what my own obligations are but any lawsuit is just going to make this bigger than their careers can handle. Silence will not be an option.
It’s not my fault the link was dropped here and I’m the one who deleted it – immediately on discovery. It was too late though but I almost was able to protect his stupid ass.
I am told that this file and link were dropped in several places around the internet so it wouldn’t have helped.
So now they are threatening law suits about this?
what a bunch of assholes you are.
investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf
“No that’s completely wrong…because when you get proxy data… they dont always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”
Dave,
to whom are you referring?
“So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”
EXACTLY what they claim they never do, no good scientist would ever do. Of course.
Eventually, truth is revealed.
One Steve McIntyre is really the object of their affection. With apologies to the host, SM actually deserves the Nobel Prize(s).
6) Layman and Jeff re: the archived postings – what happened to the top left panel where you used to be able to browse by month?
Mann refuses to confirm that the material is real, but also wants people prosecuted for having stolen it. But then we know he is inconsistent.
16) ok – ignore that one! No explanation offered other than I was looking for the archive the other day and could have sworn it wasn’t there.
#18 I just put it back- How’s that for service? 😀
#15
This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Publically, CA is described as a “fringe blog”, that it is rarely read and mostly ignored. They from time to time would take away from their busy schedules to deal with a few pesky questions raised at CA – like swatting a fly. Many of us knew that this was not the case (to many anecdotes to count). The behind the scenes duplicity is now exposed.
#14
Pete, it will be interesting, to say the least, to see how RC “comment moderation” evolves after this fiasco.
The TGIF Edition interview qoutes Jones “Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”
And ….”I can’t get to my email, as I’ve just changed my password. I’ve gone into the Climate Audit website because I can’t get into my own email.”
Keep em coming, Jeff.
re #11: the Team speaks on the record. Note the level of detail in this response. LOL
[snip per request]
Sorry, that was meant to be posted at Stoat’s blog. Please delete. (Too many pages open at once.)
20# Rc is accepting any comment now virtually they have no choice… I would not expect that site to survive this. Give them weeks before they are chnaged/deleted whatever…
#25 I never get through. Perhaps someone could point out that simply explaining the problem with divergence of the MXD data IS actually the problem.
Gavin says – 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).
A real non-advocate scientist knows damn well that something which ain’t acting like a thermometer cannot be hacked off and have a hockey stick blade pasted on. You can see above I’m in agreement with gavin’s point that this is well known. I said — These ‘divergence’ issues are widely widely widely known and discussed in paleo literature and the SOB Phil Jones knows exactly what he meant!!!
The point is we know chopping data and pasting on temp or something else (in Mann08) is a disingenuous piece of crap. It’s a TRICK in the most disgusting sense of the word and JONES knows full well what that trick means – as Gavin stated.
Why did Jones forget about ‘divergence’ when everyone else knows.
Answer – he didn’t. In the panic of the moment, he lied out of embarassment.
From what I can tell reading a couple dozen emails out of context, consensus is about five guys pulling strings. Noam Chomsky can write a follow up to Manufacturing Consent and call it Manufacturing Consensus
I’m sending links to all of my liberal friends who have been good little parrots for the last decade. Links, and quotes …. with this song :-).
and this pic
18) Thanks Jeff – as ever – get a tip jar set up!
Re: all the current stuff – perhaps Nature will be interested in you, Ryan et als Antarctic paper after all?! Would be good to see it on the cover… 🙂
Jeff, I think it is unlikely you will be sued for posting the emails.
But I would advise you to stop accusing anyone of lying. The UK has very strict libel laws.
#32, Thanks.
Just to be clear, I usually offer the “lying” as my opinion and it’s a word I only use in very specific cases. Outside of climate science I haven’t used that word in a very long time b/c it’s very offensive. In my opinion Jones was seriously busted on an issue which is as dishonest a technique as any in climatology. In his email he wrote what we all know is “hiding” the truth and then claimed to not recall what he meant. The non-recollection of a very well known problem is therefore verification of his foreknowledge and an attempt to conceal it in my opinion. — Thus lying.
Jeff, I sugest you back off a little, and read up on UK libel law – basically its guilty until you prove yourself innocent. and maybe snip these.
#34, I won’t snip because as a US citizen these are my opinions (we’re still allowed to have them here – just barely) but I appreciate the heads up. I’ll be careful.
Paul is correct. The UK libel laws are the worst in the world. You don’t need to be a UK citizen, you just have to published material there. Which means anybody posting on a web site is fair game. Truth is no defence in a libel case in the UK, all they have to prove is that damage has been done.
Reading the programmers’ notes we see that “hide the decline” was used deliberatively within the CRU; a very specific terminology for a very specific problem; a term of art as it were. For Jones to tell Investigate Mag. that he doesn’t remember what he meant by that term is most clearly a lie.
This story has reached the pacific islands of Saipan,Guam,Tinan,
Palau,Ponpei,Samoa, etc.. the discovery of the hacked emails has already been spread to thousands of pacific islanders. The Jig is up ! The Nobel Peace Prize has become worthless.
I’ve written an analysis of the “hide the decline” issue.