Metro Jacksonville

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

With all due respect, the flat earth mentality has been clearly shown by your response to the facts staring directly at you and looking the other way.  When so called scientists are given the job of giving facts are corrupt to push a political agenda, the world has to take a close look. Even if it means facing reality.

Quote from: stephendare on November 24, 2009, 09:14:41 AM
Lol.  nice attempt.

The Moonie Times is notoriously rightwing and usually factually incorrect.

But publishing an editorial column about a bogus story is pretty hilarious.

Thanks for giving it a college try though.

I hear the Flat Earthers have proof that the moon landing was a fake as well.

Seriously?......and the Huffington Post, which you frequently site, it not an ultra left wing site?

How about we see what comes of this first?  I'm sure we are just scratching the surface!

It may just be poorly written, but I don't see this article as being credible evidence.

I will say that I am not a believer in global warming.

I do agree that our current exploitation of our environment is unsustainable and will have extreme negative effects on our planet if we do not change. Everyone should embrace a more sustainable way of life whether or not they think we're heating up. 

The 'right wing' Washington Times isn't the only media outlet carrying the story. See CNN at http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html and the UK's Daily Telegraph at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/.

Senator Dan Iouye of Hawaii, a Democrat, has already called for a Congressional investigation into the matter.

Personally, knowing how the university research system works, I don't have any problem believing the academic community is capable of this. There has been a decline in scientific standards and method in the academic community for two generations now due to systemic structural problems in the hiring and retaining of professors, especially in the USA, i.e. the current system promotes mediocrity.

Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 24, 2009, 09:43:33 AM
It may just be poorly written, but I don't see this article as being credible evidence.

I will say that I am not a believer in global warming.

I do agree that our current exploitation of our environment is unsustainable and will have extreme negative effects on our planet if we do not change. Everyone should embrace a more sustainable way of life whether or not they think we're heating up. 

That's the thing that gets me. Whether you believe in GW or not...what is so horrible about treating the environment better? Clean air, clean water and less trash etc. benefit everyone. It's like some people want to trash the environment just to try and prove a point.

Or is it being told to clean up after yourself and not destroy natural resources is the horrible thing? Just seems goofy to the nth degree.

Quote from: thebrokenforum on November 24, 2009, 10:08:33 AM

Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 24, 2009, 09:43:33 AM
It may just be poorly written, but I don't see this article as being credible evidence.

I will say that I am not a believer in global warming.

I do agree that our current exploitation of our environment is unsustainable and will have extreme negative effects on our planet if we do not change. Everyone should embrace a more sustainable way of life whether or not they think we're heating up. 

That's the thing that gets me. Whether you believe in GW or not...what is so horrible about treating the environment better? Clean air, clean water and less trash etc. benefit everyone. It's like some people want to trash the environment just to try and prove a point.

Or is it being told to clean up after yourself and not destroy natural resources is the horrible thing? Just seems goofy to the nth degree.

Well said brokenforum.  Everyone should try their best to take care of your environment.  However, I've said many times that the global warming hysteria is all political designed for control and wealth (example, looters such as Al Gore).

Quote
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see
The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics' claims

George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk,    Monday 23 November 2009 21.00 GMT

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk

Sent: 29 October 2009

To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis â€" that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere â€" had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law â€" that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

Stephen, if you find some more of the emails, will you post?

There's nothing wrong with good stewardship of the planet, no one is arguing with that. There is something wrong with spending billions across the world on bandwagon science which is often based on suspect scientific method and evidence. Or are you saying the academic community is incapable of fudging evidence by jumping on a bandwagon to pursue millions or billions (if you include the EU programs) in research grants on which their very jobs is dependent? If you think the climate change bandwagon IS NOT about money, then you are naive. Just how much money has Al Gore made on the climate change debate in books sold, government grants, lecture fees, stock shares in 'green' industry companies, etc? And this is the guy whose administration (the Clinton administration) destroyed MPG standards in the 90s as a pay-out to the automobile labor unions/auto industry and gave us the SUV culture we're now paying the price for. Thanks, Al!

QuoteThere's nothing wrong with good stewardship of the planet, no one is arguing with that. There is something wrong with spending billions across the world on bandwagon science which is often based on suspect scientific method and evidence. Or are you saying the academic community is incapable of fudging evidence by jumping on a bandwagon to pursue millions or billions (if you include the EU programs) in research grants on which their very jobs is dependent? If you think the climate change bandwagon IS NOT about money, then you are naive. Just how much money has Al Gore made on the climate change debate in books sold, government grants, lecture fees, stock shares in 'green' industry companies, etc? And this is the guy whose administration (the Clinton administration) destroyed MPG standards in the 90s as a pay-out to the automobile labor unions/auto industry and gave us the SUV culture we're now paying the price for. Thanks, Al!

^Have you seen the movie 'Not Evil, Just Wrong'?

Stephen, let's stick to the subject matter shall we? If you want to start slinging mud we can discuss your team's bed-wetting 9/11 conspiracy theories as well. 

Quote from: trigger on November 24, 2009, 10:25:24 AM
There's nothing wrong with good stewardship of the planet, no one is arguing with that. There is something wrong with spending billions across the world on bandwagon science which is often based on suspect scientific method and evidence. Or are you saying the academic community is incapable of fudging evidence by jumping on a bandwagon to pursue millions or billions (if you include the EU programs) in research grants on which their very jobs is dependent? If you think the climate change bandwagon IS NOT about money, then you are naive. Just how much money has Al Gore made on the climate change debate in books sold, government grants, lecture fees, stock shares in 'green' industry companies, etc? And this is the guy whose administration (the Clinton administration) destroyed MPG standards in the 90s as a pay-out to the automobile labor unions/auto industry and gave us the SUV culture we're now paying the price for. Thanks, Al!

Why do you care how much $$ Gore has made on a book? Lots of people get rich writing books with ridiculous and false things in them (visit orange park today) and no one cares.

Good stewardship of the planet isn't free. Spending $$ on finding ways to better the planet is still better than spending $$ on jingoism and war.

I agree with Stephen in that science leads to discovery. Research is important and necessary. Research costs $$ and that' ok with me. To argue otherwise would say that funding things like the space program etc. is a bad thing because current evidence does not support the possibility of other life in the universe. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html

QuoteClimate Science and Candor
Editor's note: The following are emails we've selected from more than 3,000 emails and documents that were hacked last week from computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom. The CRU is the data repository for much of the world's climate research and is a major source for the judgments reached by the U.N.'s climate reports. A nearby editorial ("Global Warming With the Lid Off") puts the emails in their political and scientific context, but readers may want to browse for themselves to get a flavor of the thinking of scientists who are the leading advocates for the belief that global warming is man-made and that nations must re-order the world economy to stop it. We've removed the email addresses and phone numbers, and we've inserted paragraph breaks in some places. The emails are otherwise unedited. The ellipses are the authors' own.

On freedom of information rules and deleting files:

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

School of Environmental Sciences

University of East Anglia

Norwich

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones

Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM

To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann

Subject: Wahl/Ammann

Gene/Caspar,

Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

Cheers

Phil

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?â€"our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it!

Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed.

Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.

Cheers

Phil

From: Phil Jones

To: Gavin Schmidt

Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper

Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008

Cc: Michael Mann

Gavin,

Almost all have gone in. Have sent an email to Janice re the regional freshening. On the boreholes I've used mostly Mike's revised text, with bits of yours making it read a little better. Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so I'll check with him - and look at that vineyard book. I did rephrase the bit about the 'evidence' as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasingâ€"he used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his mind and its inherent bias(es).

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond â€"advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with this hassle.

The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOIâ€"the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.

Cheers

Phil

QuoteOn opposing views and their appearance in science journals or reviews:

From: "Michael E. Mann"

To: Phil Jones, Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, S. Rutherford

Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500

Cc: Keith Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, Keith Alverson, Michael C. MacCracken

Thanks Phil,

(Tom: Congrats again!)

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibilityâ€"that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...

The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').

Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html

In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wantedâ€"the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...

It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.

There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...

What do others think?

mike

From: Tom Wigley

To: Timothy Carter

Subject: Re: Java climate model

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600

Cc: Mike Hulme, Phil Jones

Tim,

I know about what Matthews has done. He did so without contacting Sarah or me. He uses a statistical emulation method that can never account for the full range of uncertainties. I would not trust it outside the calibration zone -- so I doubt that it can work well for (e.g.) stabilization cases. As far as I know it has not been peer reviewed. Furthermore, unless he has illegally got hold of the TAR version of the model, what he has done can only be an emulation of the SAR version.

Personally, I regard this as junk science (i.e., not science at all). Matthews is doing the community a considerable disservice.

Tom.

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blameâ€"he encourages the publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care aboutâ€"it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter -- 50+ people. Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not workâ€"must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

From: Phil Jones

To: Ben Santer

Subject: Re: See the link below

Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009

Ben,

I don't know whether they even had a meeting yet - but I did say I would send something to their Chief Exec. In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park), but that is where the measurements are from. Heathrow has a bit of a UHI and it has go bigger. I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS. The paper is about London and its UHI!

Cheers

Phil

QuoteOn disputes over data and how to handle such disagreements:

From: "Michael E. Mann"

To: Tim Osborn

Subject: Re: reconstruction errors

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400

Tim,

Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks

back to:

AD 1000

AD 1400

AD 1600

I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up.In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably larger uncertainties farther back...

You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can't even remember what the other columns are!

Let me know if that helps. Thanks,

mike

p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...

From: Ben Santer

To: Leopold Haimberger

Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al., Dian, something like this?

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:07:03 -0800

Cc: Peter Thorne , Dian Seidel, Tom Wigley, Karl Taylor, Thomas R Karl, John Lanzante, Carl Mears, David C. Bader, Francis W. Zwiers, Frank Wentz, Melissa Free , Michael C. MacCracken, Phil Jones, Steve Sherwood, Steve Klein, Susan Solomon, Tim Osborn, Gavin Schmidt, James J. Hack

Dear Leo,

Thanks very much for your email. I can easily make the observations a bit more prominent in Figure 1. As you can see from today's (voluminous!) email traffic, I've received lots of helpful suggestions regarding improvements to the Figures. I'll try to produce revised versions of the Figures tomorrow. On the autocorrelation issue: The models have a much larger range of lag-1 autocorrelation coefficients (0.66 to 0.95 for T2LT, and 0.69 to 0.95 for T2) than the UAH or RSS data (which range from 0.87 to 0.89). I was concerned that if we used the model lag-1 autocorrelations to guide the choice of AR-1 parameter in the synthetic data analysis, Douglass and colleagues would have an easy opening for criticising us ("Aha! Santer et al. are using model results to guide them in their selection of the coefficients for their AR-1 model!") I felt that it was much more difficult for Douglass et al. to criticize what we've done if we used UAH data to dictate our choice of the AR-1 parameter and the "scaling factor" for the amplitude of the temporal variability. As you know, my personal preference would be to include in our response to Douglass et al. something like the Figure 4 that Peter has produced. While inclusion of a Figure 4 is not essential for the purpose of illuminating the statistical flaws in the Douglass et al. "consistency test", such a Figure would clearly show the (currently large) structural uncertainties in radiosonde-based estimates of the vertical profile of atmospheric temperature changes. I think this is an important point, particularly in view of the fact that Douglass et al. failed to discuss versions 1.3 and 1.4 of your RAOBCORE data - even though they had information from those datasets in their possession.

However, I fully agree with Tom's comment that we don't want to do anything to "steal the thunder" from ongoing efforts to improve sonde-based estimates of atmospheric temperature change, and to better quantify structural uncertainties in those estimates.Your group, together with the groups at the Hadley Centre, Yale, NOAA ARL and NOAA GFDL, deserve great credit for making significant progress on a difficult, time-consuming, yet important problem.

I guess the best solution is to leave this decision up to all of you (the radiosonde dataset developers). I'm perfectly happy to include a version of Figure 4 in our response to Douglass et al. If we do go with inclusion of a Figure 4, you, Peter, Dian, Melissa, Steve Sherwood and John should decide whether you feel comfortable providing radiosonde data for such a Figure. I will gladly abide by your decisions. As you note in your email, our use of a Figure 4 would not preclude a more detailed and thorough comparison of simulated and observed amplification in some later publication. Once again, thanks for all your help with this project, Leo.

With best regards,

Ben

From: Tom Wigley

To: Phil Jones

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Santer

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 meanâ€"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 blipsâ€"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 NHâ€"just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. noteâ€"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)â€"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.

From: Gary Funkhouser

To: Keith Briffa

Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functionsâ€"he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already haveâ€"they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is. Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations. Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary

Gary Funkhouser

Lab. of Tree-Ring Research

The University of Arizona

From: Michael Mann

To: Phil Jones

Subject: Re: Straight to the Point

Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:09:36 -0400 (EDT)

Cc: Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Ray Bradley, Tim Osborn

Hi Phil,

SOrry that you have taken such a negative spin from this. I had hoped it was all resolved pretty amicably, and emphasized to Keith and Tim that I was being perhaps overly picky this time PRECISELY to avoid the misunderstanding that happened last time around w/ Science.

Trust that I'm certainly on board w/ you that we're all working towards a common goal. That is what is distressing about commentarys (yours from last year, and potentially, without us having had approprimate input, Keith and Tim's now) that appear to "divide and conquer". The skeptics happily took your commentary last year as reason to doubt our results! In fact, your piece was references in several commentaries (mostly on the WEB, not published) attacking our work. So THAT is what this is all about. It is in the NAME of the common effort we're all engaged in, that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest commentary--so as to avoid precisely that scenario. Please understand the above to be a complete and honest statement about the source of my concerns. It really doesn't have anything to do about who did what first, etc. I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we're doing here.

The millennial-scale trend issue appears to be a source of contention. Malcolm can address the replication issue better than any of us--it's not a problem w/ our reconstruction. Furthermore, WE HAVE EXPLICITLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE LOSS OF LOW-FREQUENCY VARIANCE IN OUR ESTIMATES OF UNCERTAINTY. I don't know how many times I need to stress this. It is of fundamental importance in framing our conclusions. Our own analysis convinces me that things are already quite uncertain a millennium back in time. With regard to longer timescale variations, the evidence is all over the place. At EGS I saw some convincing evidence that many new paleo proxies indicate steadily decline at least over several millennia, and so do, in large part, the available long borehole estimates (though we should all take that w/ a good dose of NaCl). So I'm skeptical of estimates more than a millennium back in time until we have multiple proxies we can trust at that timescale, and can verify somehow the DC component of the estimates, or at least replicate them. This was my concern about the latest 2000 year recon that was shown. You are right, the Milankovitch forcing argument is ONLY A NULL HYPOTHESIS. I hope I haven't argued anything more than that. That our millennial scale trend, which we reasonably trust, and have some idea of the uncertainties in, is in line w/ that null hypothesis is information that cannot be ignored. That Kutzbach, Berger, and others are showing increasingly convincing model integrations over several millennia suggesting this, is more evidence.In the real word, anything *could* have happened. But lets not loose site of the appropriate null hypothesis here.

I hope the above clears things up somewhat. I'm sorry things have been construed in more negative light than I had ever intended. Call me anytime to discuss, here at the office (not sure how well our schedules overlap though).

Thanks, and sorry for the miscommunication here,

mike

_______________________________________________________________________

From: Phil Jones

To: Tom Wigley

Subject: Re: MBH

Date: Fri Oct 22 15:13:20 2004

Cc: Ben Santer

Tom,

Just got the Science attachments for the von Storch et al. paper for Tim and Keith, so I thought you might like to see them. I've just sent a reply to von Storch as he claims his model is a better representation of reality than MBH. How a model that is only given past forcing histories can be better than some proxy data is beyond me, but Hans seems to believe this. The ERA-40 report and JGR paper are relevant here. ERA-40 is not of climate quality. There are differences and trends with CRU data before the late 1970s and again around the mid-1960s that should include other variables that are calculated. It is so bad in the Antarctic that ERA-40 rejects most of the surface obs (because they get little weight) and they don't begin to get accepted until the late 1970s. Conclusion is that you can't consider ERA-40 for climate purposes. Maybe the next generation, with a considerable efforts in getting all the missing back data in and changes to weights given to surface data might mean the 3rd generation is better. I shouldn't rabbit on about this as I have to go home to drive with Ruth to Gatwick for our week in Florence. A lot of people criticise MBH and other papers Mike has been involved in, but how many people read them fully - or just read bits like the attached. The attached is a complete distortion of the facts. M&M are completely wrong in virtually everything they say or do. I have sent them countless data series that were used in the Jones/Mann Reviews of Geophysics papers. I got scant thanks from them for doing thisâ€"only an email saying I had some of the data series wrong, associated with the wrong year/decade.

I wasted a few hours checking what I'd done and got no thanks for pointing their mistake out

to them. If you think M&M are correct and believable then go to this web site

[1]http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/

It will take a while to get around these web pages and you've got to be a bit of nerd and know the jargon, but it lists all the mistakes McKittrick has made in various papers. I bet there isn't a link to this on his web site. The final attachment is a comment on a truly awful paper by McKittirck and Michaels. I can't find the original, but it's reference is in this. The paper didn't consider spatial autocorrelation at all. Fortunately a longer version of the paper did get rejected by IJCâ€"it seems a few papers are rejected! Point I'm trying to make is you cannot trust anything that M&M write. MBH is as good a way of putting all the data together as others.We get similar results in the work in the Holocene in 1998 (Jones et al) and so does Tom Crowley in a paper in 1999. Keith's reconstruction is strikingly similar in his paper from JGR in 2001. Mike's may have slightly less variability on decadal scales than the others (especially cf Esper et al), but he is using a lot more data than the others. I reckon they are all biased a little to the summer and none are truly annual â€"I say all this in the Reviews of Geophysics paper!

Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility. Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.

Cheers

Phil

From: Tom Wigley

To: Doug Martinson

Subject: Re: Your help, please?

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:07:42 -0600 (MDT)

Cc: Kevin Trenberth, Byron Boville, Grant Branstator, Jeff Kiehl, FP Bretherton, Ralph Cicerone, C. Covey, Tom Crowley, J Curry, pdadd@xxxx.xxx, Larry Gates, Lisa Graumlich, Dennis Hartmann, barafu@xxxx.xxx, Thomas Karl, Richard Lindzen, W. Timothy Liu, Joel Sloman, Jerry Marks, Robert Malone , Gerald Meehl, Berrien Moore, Dick Moritz, J. David Neelin, Reginald Newell, Gerald North, James J. O'Brien, W. R. Peltier, Raymond Pierrehumbert, V. Ramanathan, Dave Randall, Eugene M. Rasmusson, David Rind, Alan Cohn, njrosenberg@xxx.gov, Ed Sarachik, Michael E. Schlesinger, Edwin Schneider, Jagadish Shukla, Eric Smith, rsomervi@xxx.edu, Richard Turco, Duane Waliser, Mike Wallace, John Walsh, Wei-Chyung Wang, "P.D. Jones" , Edward Cook, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Ray Bradley, Tim Barnett, Jay Fein, Ben Santer ,

Dear Doug,

In response to Jay Fein's e-mail re den-cen, here are some points (which may merely echo where you are already).

(1) Why study den-cen? Reason is: improve understanding of climate system to aid in detection and prediction. You should read Ch. 8 (detection) of IPCC WGI SAR in this regard.

(2) How to study den-cen? Models and observed data are equally important. Models (coupled O/AGCMs) can only give the internal component of variability, instrumental and paleodata give internal-plus-external.

(3) How useful are paleodata?I support the continued collection of such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community try to oversell their product. A specific example is the ice core isotope record, which correlates very poorly with temperature on the annual to decadal timescale (and possibly also on the century timescale)---question, how do we ever demonstrate the usefulness or otherwise of ice core isotopes on this timescale?

There are other well known proxy data issues that need careful thought...

(a) Sedimentary records---dating. Are 14C-dated records of any value at all (unless wiggle matched)?

(b) Seasonal specificity---how useful is a proxy record that tells us about a single season (or only part of the year)?

(c) Climate variance explained by the proxy variable--close to zero for ice core isotopes, up to 50% for tree rings, somewhere in between for most other indicators. How valuable are such partially explained records in helping explain the past?

(d) Signal-to-noise problems---a key issue is, what role has external forcing had on climate over the past 10,000 years. There is a tendency to interpret observed changes as evidence of external forcingâ€"usually unjustifiably. Few workers in the area realize that paleo interpretation has a detection aspect, just like interpreting the past 100+ years---only much more difficult. More work is needed on this.

(e) Frequency dependence of explained variance---the classic example here is tree rings, where it is exceedingly difficult to get out a credible low frequency (50+ year time scale) message. Work in this area could reap useful rewards.

(f) Coverage---what about den-cen data from the oceans? We need much more of this, especially in regions that might provide insights into mechanisms (like NADW changes).

(4) Causes. Here, ice cores are more valuable (CO2, CH4 and volcanic aerosol changes). But the main external candidate is solar, and more work is required to improve the "paleo" solar forcing record and to understand how the climate system responds both globally and regionally to solar forcing.

I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful

Cheers,

Tom

P.S. I've added Ben Santer, Tim Barnett, Ed Cook, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Ray Bradley and Phil Jones to your mailing list.

"Have you seen the movie 'Not Evil, Just Wrong'?" No, is Scarlett Johannson in it? :-)

The political polluting of the scientific process/data is something that all good citizens and solid researchers have to guard against, and it is natural outcome of the way in which research grants/universities are rewarded with money (especially public money) in Western culture. The ultimate blame lies with an academic/scientific community too eager to rush to judgment, which has also proven all too willing to suppress contrary research/opinions/arguments and does not always objectively vent research findings. It is undoubted that this process is seriously complicated for them by a 24/7 news cycle more interested in ratings and sensation than facts and left-wing politicians who want 'an issue'.

The problem with the current climate change debate is it has taken on all of the fervor of a religious crusade, especially in the media. If someone disagrees with the dogma, people scream 'flat earther' or 'right wing' in an attempt to sling mud at the argument being made (case in point in this thread) without even considering the validity of the argument.

Personally, I remember the hysteria some in the academic community tried to promote in the 70s we would soon expend all of the available fossil fuels on the planet. According to these 'researchers' we should have been out of oil and other fossil fuels in 20 or 30 years (ie, by now). How's that working?

"Why do you care how much $$ Gore has made on a book?"

I only care in the sense that when he was in a position of political power, he abandoned his cherished principles in order to serve his (and his boss') needs for reelection by lowering MPG standards to sate the auto industry and unions. It demonstrates: 1) he is a politician, so go figure, he's a hypocrite; and, 2) the hands of the priests in the climate change religion are not clean.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, metaphorically-speaking.

QuoteBut there are people with clear and obvious interests that would like for science to be untrue, because new information challenges their fundamental beliefs.

I agree, but you made a very wide generalization that any skeptic of YOUR beliefs is a religious right-winger.  Not true.  So let's just look at the facts and stick to the subject. 

"I agree, but you made a very wide generalization that any skeptic of YOUR beliefs is a religious right-winger.  Not true.  So let's just look at the facts and stick to the subject."

Well said.

QuoteBut there are people with clear and obvious interests that would like for science to be untrue, because new information challenges their fundamental beliefs.

This statement is true for BOTH sides of the debate and part of the evidence is in the hacked emails.  The theory of global warming should be challenged as ALL theories are challenged and updated.  Theories evolve and it seems one side has concluded that the discussion is over and their conclusions are irrefutable.  They seem to lack the open mindedness in the same manner as they accuse the other side.  If so... this is a political debate and NOT a scientific one.

Seems like there are thousands of these emails, so this is far from being over.  It's just beginning.  My initial thoughts were that its just a few complicit scientists scheming for a continual stream of grants.  Should be interesting to watch. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

QuoteThis is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

The Washington Times is literally a dumba$$ supermarket tabloid published by a psycho cult leader. No exaggeration.

You'd get more accurate 'news' from the National Enquirer. I can't believe anybody actually quoted an article from that silly rag as evidence of anything. I'd be inclined to believe the polar opposite of whatever information came from that source.

This isn't just some kids school project.  Much of this research is the basis for the so-called consensu on Man-Made Global warming.  These researchers fudged and cherry-picked data to achieve the results they wanted.

So is the WSJ also published by a psycho cult leader?   Just wondering.

Very well.  BTW, why isn't MSNBC all over this?

Let's continue the discussion as more info comes about.  From what I've seen today, there several hundred, maybe thousands of these emails.  Reading through them, I agree with you, they are mostly boring.  But the devil is in the details - and those details appear to be very damaging to those involved.

Quote from: stephendare on November 25, 2009, 01:25:44 PM
lol.  is that from your years of research in the field jmac?

There isnt any factual basis for your statement or conclusion.

There isnt and one center for climatology, btw.  And choosing student emails to hack and steal isnt a good measure.

Imagine if someone tried to 'debunk' modern medicine by hacking the student emails at UF premed?

Phil Jones is not just a student doing a term paper.  He is the director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and was one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assesment.

Here's one that looks suspicious:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt)

QuoteFrom: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


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 from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other 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

Alleged CRU emails: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
Read this article here.

A snippet:

Quotewe know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines
(...)

In blunt terms, they are limiting the data to 1400, not 440 (even though their data goes to there).
So what was going on between 440 and 1400?
The Medieval Warm Period happened during those times. It lasted from about 800-1300AD.

Also Stephen, there are tons of emails where they stated that they would rather delete the datasets than to let certain others gain access to the data, even under the FOIA.

Read also:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/denying-email-deletion/

On Dec 3, 2008 in the emails, Phil Jones states:

QuoteAbout 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little â€" if anything at all.

Then when speaking to the Guardian news, he states on Nov 24th, 2009

Quote
We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

It seems obvious that they are concealing information, or conspiring to do so.  While this does not prove or disprove the theory, why the head in the sand routine?  What is up with the name calling?  SOSDD.  (A scientific term that I picked up from my training and experience in the subject.)

Stephen, question: Where are you reading that these were students?

QuoteThis is only of interest for people who would like to see a predetermined outcome.

It seems in this case that the only people interested in a predetermined outcome is the scientists that you claim are just mere students and that its ok for students to manipulate findings and have each of their buddies review their false findings and say that its legit.

QuoteThese alleged emails â€" supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory â€" suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

While I'm not a scientist by any means, I do have a Master of Science degree and I had to cope with a lot of data to write my thesis.  One thing every student should know is that you do not MANIPULATE data!  Any student knows that.  If they don't, then their major professor is to be held accountable.  But as you know, these were not students.

And yes Stephen, as you are the only completely objective, unbiased skeptic, why are you trying so hard to bury this?  If the true skeptics were thought to be manipulating data, you would leave no stone unturned and your condemnation would be raining down.  

I wish you would return to your totally rational, unbiased self. Just assume that this is the University of Blackwater - maybe you will pay more attention?

P. S. Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Quote

Uh, oh â€" raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.
11.25.2009
Reposted from TBR.cc Investigate magazine’s breaking news forum:

New Zealand’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

(http://briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875dc003a970c-pi)

The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:

From NIWA’s web site â€" Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 â€" 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

(http://briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875dc00a7970c-pi)

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

The revelations are published today in a news alert from The Climate Science Coalition of NZ:

Straight away you can see there’s no slopeâ€"either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays levelâ€"statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2â€"it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.

NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

“Do you agree it might look bad in the wake of the CRU scandal?”

“No, no,” replied Wratt before hitting out at the Climate Science Coalition and accusing them of “misleading” people about the temperature adjustments.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

Here is a summary:

QuoteHere are some of the highlights of the documents released.

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.

What the emails/files don’t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don’t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science.

Kudos to Anthony for being there, online, and being prepared to handle the traffic this topic generated. I would hope that this event would precipitate a greater openness regarding publicly funded research. It would be nice to see better adherence to scientific method. At the very least it has exposed some well funded, ivory tower thinkers, behaving very poorly.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/#more-13209

Shh.....

Who cares if there might be collusion to not let data be researched by another party. AGW is a settled science. Silly people............

Quote from: stephendare on November 26, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
As I said.  It doesnt really amount to much except the embarrassment of a few individuals for their shoddy work 10 years ago.

It wasn't just 10 years ago. It was the past few years, refusing to release data, threatening to boycott journals simply because they posted a contrary view.

That is the problem. It was 10 years ago to current, not just 10 years ago.

StephenDare! surely you can see even in the emails that are posted on this thread that these individuals were colluding to conceal information.  It seems obvious.  This does not disprove the theory of GW, only that these individuals were not acting in the best interests of science.  I don't see how anyone can condone blacklisting, falsifying information, and hiding data.  This does not forward our knowledge and is the opposite of science.

QuoteThe Day Science Died

Posted By Phillip Ellis Jackson On November 25, 2009 @ 5:59 am In Environment, Animal Rights, Health Issues, & Drugs | 20 Comments

Who are you going to believe?  Scientists, or your lying eyes?

The revelations in recent days that prominent members of the scientific community have been deliberately falsifying data to support the political conclusion that man is primarily responsible for "Global Warming" (now commonly referred to as "Global Climate Change," since the planet is actually not getting warmer), has raised a troubling question.

Unlike the social sciences, where agendas and opinions often substitute for "facts," the hard sciences are supposedly pure, objective and rational. Here numbers don't lie, statistically demonstrable trends aren't self-serving conjecture, and the only agenda behind these scientific inquiries is a pure, unfettered, search for the truth. If tree rings and dying polar bears tell us the planet is getting warmer, and an increase in C02 levels tell us man and man alone is responsible for the warming, then by God (or by Gore for those who can't quite fathom the notion that there is a Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe), the science is "settled." Anyone who thinks differently is just a religious fanatic trying to impose his version of God on the rest of humanity, or equally despicable, an anti-intellectual moron who's missing several of his teeth as well as major neural synapses.

And yet, there's this nagging, troubling problem that surfaced a few days ago where these same Keepers of the Truth on Anthropogenic Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change have been shown to be, well, a bunch of hypocrites and liars. Contravening data is ignored, suppressed or destroyed; supporting data is cherry-picked or manufactured out of whole cloth, and overlapping all of this is a political agenda tied to utopian social change and economic redistribution. Other than that, the evidence is pretty clear and convincing that man is the primary agent of global climate change going back hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Now, to those of us imbued with a modicum of common sense, this "Joe vs. the Volcano" scenario where Joe supposedly affects the climate more than nature does seemed a little, well, stupid to borrow a favorite phrase of mine. No one denies that man can affect portions of the planet by setting off a nuclear bomb here, building a dam there, or paving over a field and building a city or highway system. But to claim that all this is more of a reason for presumed global climate change than erupting volcanoes or the presence or absence of sunspots is, well, there's that word again: stupid.

I first posed this question back in 2006 [1], for which I was roundly criticized as a "wingnut" and anti-science flat-earther.

Al Gore tells us that the world is getting hotter, and that man is responsible for making it that way. Unless we take drastic steps now to correct this problem the ice caps will melt, our cities will flood, farmland will dry up and the rainforests will die. Before we get caught up in the same hysteria that thirty years earlier predicted the arrival of a new Ice Age, we might pause for a moment and ask: is any of this true? And if it is, what role did man really play in altering the climate, and if it is getting hotter, what (if anything) can he actually do about it?

. . .


In other words, if there's a big ball of vibrating, pulsating, fiery gas up in the sky that routinely heats the Earth, shouldn't we eliminate it first as the cause of this warming before making me trade in my Escalade for a Mini-Cooper?

When I wrote that piece, I was making an observation that we need to apply some common sense to our understanding of the world in which we live, rather than automatically accept the agenda-driven conclusions of others who use science to further their own venal interests.

If the scientist interpreting the data gets his funding from a government agency, and that agency won't fund the solving of a problem that is nature-made, then what other conclusion can the scientist draw than the problem â€" and solution â€" is man-made?  Why spend $10 million to fund a research project on sunspot or volcano-driven global warming when we don't have the ability to stop a volcano from erupting, or do anything to affect the sun making its spots? But if man is the culprit, then there's plenty of reason to keep seeking, and receiving, taxpayer support. And if man â€" not nature â€" is the ultimate villain in this modern day morality play, then think of all the social engineering, global reparation payments, or just plain nanny-state fun you can have changing society around to promote a "solution" that can't be proven or disproven for decades to come.

All of which leads to the contemporary notions of "consensus science" and "settled science," which is shorthand for "would you shut up and stop asking these kinds of embarrassing questions because we already have the conclusions we want." It's the day real science was replaced with the notion that the consensus of non-scientists and scientists, who gather together in quasi-political organizations, was all that was needed to shut down debate. It is, in effect, the day science died.  

I no longer trust "science" to be objective. As practiced today, it's just a different form of the base, venal, agenda-driven bilge we see in the mainstream media, whose purpose is not to educate and inform, but to protect and advance a private agenda. I wrote the following passage several months ago [2], and these words remain as true today as they were then.

Thirty years ago, if a major study said that the Earth was warming, or that red meat caused cancer, or that Candidate X was 30 points ahead in the polls, I may not automatically believe everything it says, but I wouldn't immediately dismiss it out of hand. Depending upon the degree of institutional credibility the study had (that is, The American Cancer Society vs. some organization I never heard of), I may start with the assumption that it's more right than wrong and proceed from there. If I had any questions, I'd look to see how and why the report arrived at its conclusions, and on this basis form a preliminary judgment about those issues.

Now the problem here is that unless you happen to have a degree in statistics, understand survey and polling methodology, or have an expertise in the scientific area of investigation under study, most people (myself included) can't really do this. So, we look instead for certain obvious clues. Is the study of 100 people, or 100,000? Does it say "will happen," or "might happen," or contain other qualifiers? Is the study peer reviewed, or put out by some organization with a vested interest in the matter?

These were the types of clues an intelligent observer would look to in forming an initial judgment. That opinion would be supplemented or diminished over the coming weeks and months as opposing experts in the field â€" who actually understood the technical stuff I didn't â€" would debate the matter. I'd learn about this debate from the press, which would summarize and report their findings in sufficient detail for me to see both sides of the issue.

But today there is no "press." There are newspapers and TV companies that have chosen a side and become advocates, not reporters. We've always had opinion-guided journalism in this country, so this in itself is nothing new. But again we're dealing with a sufficiently different degree of bias that has caused even Hillary (the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy") Clinton to condemn the press for its favoritism and prejudice.

This bias doesn't limit itself to swaying elections. Do you remember the last time you saw a debate on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or read about it in The New York Times, etc. that explored the reality of man-made global warming? Don't bother to look it up. There hasn't been.

Despite the fact that sea levels aren't rising, that winters are getting colder, that virtually none of Al Gore's predictions have come true and an increasing number of mainstream scientists are challenging the methodology that produced these conclusions, the matter is "settled" in the eyes of the press. This is because there's a lot more riding on this belief than whether we all need an extra pair of summer shorts to add to our wardrobe. An entire economic and political agenda of the Left is built around the premise that man is producing "global climate change" (the new term of choice since the Earth clearly isn't warming like it was supposed to). Challenge the premise, or at the very least allow for reasonable people to disagree, and suddenly the momentum is gone for acting now! Or, acting at all.

If the only consequence was that we could no longer believe our lying eyes (and ears) about what's being said about Republican politicians and global CO2 emissions, it would be bad enough. But the problem today extends much further than this. Because so much of what's being portrayed as "totally, completely, unmitigatedly true" in fact isn't, and adding insult to injury, the so-called truth of the matter may be the exact opposite of what is stated, the only reasonable course of action is to doubt everything.

And yet, not everything deserves to be automatically doubted. Some studies which show that X causes cancer, Y prolongs life, or Z is harmful or hurtful to man or the environment are undoubtedly legitimate. But damned if I can tell which ones are honestly conducted. Given how politics (with a small "p") has been injected into everything from eating beef to exhaling Co2, and that most studies rely on government funds (which means government biases) or private finds (which means private agendas), only a fool would automatically believe everything he's told. And momma Jackson didn't raise her little boy Phillip to be no fool, much like other people in this country who actually think.

Now, instead of accepting what "objective" sources tell me is true, my first reaction is to make them prove it. I don't care if their conclusions or remedy seem outwardly reasonable or not, or the scientific panel seemed wholly legitimate. I don't accept anything on face value anymore, regardless of its source. I rely entirely on my common sense, which is okay for those things I happen to have some direct experience in or knowledge about. But there's a lot more I don't know than I do know, and therein lies the problem. In the absence of legitimate, objective, trustworthy outside sources, I still need to rely on my own common sense to figure things out. Better to trust my gut on an issue I know nothing about, than put my trust in some political hack whose only purpose is to advance an agenda. I may not make the right choice, but at least I'm not a mindless lemming begging to be deceived.

Therefore, if 100 "independent" experts tell me that eating red meat causes cancer, I'll think about it between bites as I put some more Worchester sauce on my steak. If they tell me that more people are likely to die in car accidents if they're driving 75 instead of 55 mph while talking on their cell phones, I'll set the cruise control on 80 while I dial up my brother and ask him what he thinks. I may end up following the experts' advice, or I may not. They're no longer an intrinsic source of information, but rather simply a source of information â€" to be sifted through with as accepting and questioning an eye as I have for any other report or assessment, from any other source.

When there's no one you can really trust to give you the truth, you trust no one. Or, you make that source earn your trust with every new report they issue, rather than accepting what they say at face value.

Verify, then trust. And in the absence of either, ignore what they say and make your own judgment, as ignorant or informed as it may be.

This is the legacy that modern day "science" has bestowed upon the world. We intuitively understood that politicians were liars. We came to understand that the press covered up and distorted the facts as well to serve their own interests. But we always thought we could rely on science for an unbiased, objective, view of reality.

And now we find out that "scientists" may, in fact, be the worst offenders of all.

No wonder some scientists are atheists. Many of them don't believe in any Truth at all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy: http://www.intellectualconservative.com

URL to article: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/25/the-day-science-died/

Here is a good article for you Stephen. I thought this put a very calm perspective on all of this.

QuotePretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

QuoteBut the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.

What are your comments regarding the New Zealand temp manipulations that has also come to light?

Concerning the hide the decline:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/ipcc-reviewer-dont-cover-up-the-divergence/
An independent IPCC reviewer was calling out Hadley CRU for specifically hiding the decline.

QuoteShow the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)

Its not the "skeptics" calling this one, its one who believes in AGW.

Science should be unbiased, when on the major AGW proponents gets caught manipulating data, shunning open data, etc, it needs to be called out.

When the data not included in the hide the decline graphs is included, you get this graph:

(http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif)

Compare that to the graph with that data set deleted (or hiding)
(http://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/fig2-212.gif)

the results speak for themselves.

Quote from: Sigma on November 27, 2009, 12:59:45 PM
What are your comments regarding the New Zealand temp manipulations that has also come to light?

You mean this Sigma?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

They somehow made the past temps cooler making it look like a warming trend, whereas the real data, once someone else charted it, shows a normal swing of up and down temps.

But, this might just shock StephenDare and others. I believe we should exclude everyone who is not a degreed climate scientist, just like Ed Bagley Jr stated to FoxNews.

This would keep those not attuned to this issue from polluting the issue.
Of course, Gore, Hansen, and most of the staff of the IPCC from researching this!

yes, thank you.  I just wonder how much more of this has been occurring?  Where there is smoke, there certainly is fire.  But how big do you think this blaze is?

Quote from: stephendare on November 27, 2009, 01:27:18 PM
lol

This is part of the scientific process guys.

False and faulty data is tried and found wanting.

And working with suppositions and hunches is built into it.  Every now and then it comes up with better answers no matter how many crazy failures you try out.  But keep at it.  Im sure scooby and the gang are going to trump all those evil science guys.

I notice that Jandar decided not to post a link to his information.

I wonder why?

Which? The graphs?
Fine, read up dude.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/

Ok, so if the science is sound, then why did they manipulate data? Why prevent others from using their data sets to verify?
Sorry, but this shows how much a religion AGW has become.

BTW, follow up to the New Zealand sketchy data:
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/niwa_building_weather_station.jpg)
Tell me what is wrong with using this weather station?

Also Stephen, read up on this site about the poor placement of weather stations around the US with rise in temps.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=552
Notice the nicely maintained weather site, no encroachment, temp spike not seen.

Compared to another weather site ~ as the crow flies miles away
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
Notice the poor location since the built up around it.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=901
Notice the temp rise due to parking lot, ac air exchange....

Too much "iffy" data to call it a sound science.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Climate Change Data Dumped.

QuoteSCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals â€" stored on paper and magnetic tape â€" were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

QuoteClimategate: Follow the Money

Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God. By BRET STEPHENS

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was calledâ€"without ironyâ€"the climate change "consensus."

To read some of the press accounts of these giftsâ€"amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billionâ€"you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature dataâ€"facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with Californiaâ€"apparently not feeling bankrupt enoughâ€"devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"â€"largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemesâ€"of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they representâ€"including the thousands of jobs they provideâ€"vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

Quote from: Sigma on November 25, 2009, 01:25:35 PM
So is the WSJ also published by a psycho cult leader?  

Yes.

QuoteGore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro

The Netherlands is afire today over a Dutch study concluding Mount Kilimanjaro's snow melt â€" used as a symbol of AGW by Al Gore â€" is entirely natural.

December 3, 2009 - by Leon de Winter

Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste â€" a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize â€" about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) â€" a governmental body â€" shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of  “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

Professor Damste studied organic biomarker molecules in the sediment record of Lake Challa, near Mount Kilimanjaro, and reconstructed the changes and intensity of precipitation in this part of Africa over the last 25,000 years. They observed an 11,500 year cycle of intense monsoon precipitation.

In the dry period between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, Kilimanjaro was ice-free.

At the end of this period, a dramatic climate change from very dry to very wet took place â€" driven by changes in solar radiation â€" resulting in the creation of an icecap. At the moment, this part of Africa seems to be at the end of a similar dry period, resulting in the disappearance of the famous icecap.

DOSR calls Al Gore’s iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro “unfortunate” â€" since it now seems to be mainly the result of “natural climate variations.”

The journal Nature published the highly technical article by Professor Sinninghe Damste’s team.

The website of Elsevier magazine â€" the Netherlands’ most circulated political weekly â€" broke the news as follows: “Dutchman discredits Al Gore’s climate evidence.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/

QuoteEveryone should try their best to take care of your environment.  However, I've said many times that the global warming hysteria is all political designed for control and wealth (example, looters such as Al Gore).

Beyond the emails - read for yourself as the "codes" are being studied.  This author has a good analysis.

Climategate: The Smoking Code Part 1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

The Smoking Code, part 2
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/

Sigma - that can not be true. You must have faith in Al Gore. If there is no faith there is nothing.  ;)

Interesting read...
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/962/Scientist-There-is-no-possible-global-warming-threat-for-at-least-next-193-years--Predicts-possible-COOLING

Interesting Johnny.  I like the link within the article to

QuoteUpdate: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Reading some of the non-fact based hysteria of some the GW promoters, there is only like 2 or 3 scientists who are calling all of this poppy-cock. 

Quote from: midnightblackrx on December 18, 2009, 04:18:45 PM
Sigma - that can not be true. You must have faith in Al Gore. If there is no faith there is nothing.  ;)

Yes, agreed.  after all he did predict that if we didn't start following his religion and buying his carbon credits, then we'd all melt within 10 years (or something like that).  That was a few years ago.  I guess we've only got about 5 years left. 

http://pjtv.com/v/2889

a valid request, regardless of which side of the debate you are on...

excellent find Johnny

It's too cold outside to talk about global warming.Let's leave it for spring.