Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

kokonut · 11-20-2009, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline," apparently in temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

In one email discussion:

Quote:

Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:

"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?"

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com
What a nice feeling to feel vindicated in all this.

netrox · 11-20-2009, 09:06 PM

I SO KNEW you'd post it! I saw that news and I thought, "Kokonut will post it!"

LOL!

But on to that topic, it's laughable that you think if a scientist commits an unethical act just because he believes in global warming, the whole global warming theory must be false. It ain't so!

Like I said many times, only data will clarify and conclude the current climate situation. You got NONE!

kokonut · 11-21-2009, 12:55 AM

It's about purposely skewing the data to make it favorable for global warming scientists. Several instances in email correspondences had discussion on how to minimize the impact of no rise in global warming in a decade. How to "hide" certain data or smooth them out. Remember, there was a 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents. Lots of stuff to go thru and see how they colluded to deceive the public. Amusing to see people rather quiet on this one.

darkdog · 11-21-2009, 09:59 AM

Every time I've suggested that scientists are no more noble than anyone else and science is no more immune to politics, bias, and group think than any other human endeavor, I've been attacked. True, the unethical acts of a group of scientists doesn't change what's actually happening in the physical world, but it does bolster the case for thinking independently and not pursuing disastrous policies based on what a bunch of scientists say.

kokonut · 11-21-2009, 12:08 PM

Exactly. Which is why govt was so generous is giving out to grant money to researchers who would work on global warming in the govt's favor. Apparently, that has failed or is beginning to show massive collapsing since temperature has not risen in over 10 years. They'll try and lie at every possible opportunities just like Al Gore's book cover with four or five hurricanes spinning in the ocean with one spinning the wrong way and one at the equator, both are physically impossible given our current physics of our climate dynamics.

kokonut · 11-21-2009, 02:14 PM

James Delingpole at the Telegraph was able to sum up some of the most damning and damaging e-mails:

Quote:

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – 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.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

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.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

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.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority…

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

Global warming as caused by mankind? It's a total, full blown crackpot theory. Just like Al Gore is a total crackpot and hypocrite, too.

**saywhatkid** · 11-21-2009, 11:23 PM

No idea on your personal reaction to this, but this is the result of hackers. Since you were in an uproar about "Leftist hackers hack Joe Wilson's donation website" I am almost curious as to your feelings about this hacking. Wonder if it was done by "Right wing hackers hack climatologist website to diffuse Global warming claims", but I assume it depends on the party that is hacked. Perhaps they are heroes for the Petroleum and Chemical industries?

kokonut · 11-21-2009, 11:37 PM

They should be jailed.

netrox · 11-22-2009, 10:20 AM

Then why are you posting hackers findings? lol

netrox · 11-22-2009, 10:31 AM

realclimate.org responds:

"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."

"Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking."

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."

RealClimate: The CRU hack

kokonut · 11-22-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Then why are you posting hackers findings? lol

You might want to ask Real Climate.org that same question.

netrox · 11-22-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

You might want to ask Real Climate.org that same question.

Realclimate.org did NOT post email and made it clear it won't do it.

netrox · 11-22-2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Global warming as caused by mankind? It's a total, full blown crackpot theory. Just like Al Gore is a total crackpot and hypocrite, too.

Al Gore did not invent global warming, just like he did not invent the Internet - he never made those claims. You are the one that keep talking about Al Gore, you'll notice that most of us who believe in global warming rarely make a reference to Al Gore - you don't see me cite Al Gore? I haven't seen his movie. Stop being obsessed with Al Gore.

It was a consensus of scientists that said global warming is happening and many believed it was caused by humans. That was before Al Gore promoted the idea that we're having global warming.

**saywhatkid** · 11-22-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

It was a consensus of scientists that said global warming is happening and many believed it was caused by humans. That was before Al Gore promoted the idea that we're having global warming.

I think that, with humans in the numbers there are now, doing what they do, there must be some environmental damage occuring. To think otherwise might be wishful thinking. We are leaving very big footprints in our current era of existence. Someone will pay for it; most likely, our future generation.

I did something recently that was both educational and sad. I used Google map and took a tour of the Love Canal area. There are still streets and sidewalks there, but no people. Granted, this is not necessarily related to global warming, but it shows what can happen when we put our heads in the sand and trust corporations to "do the right thing."

So who to believe? Al Gore, in relation to this topic, seems like a loud mouthed proponent. If you look past his buffoonery, there might just be something there. If you choose to think there is nothing to this whole "warming" thing, I can only hope you are right. Budgets and health care will be minimal problems compared to changing crop zones and massive fish die-offs.

kokonut · 11-22-2009, 05:40 PM

Do you even realize that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere makes up only .038 percent or .00038 of the total atmospheric gases?

Remember, in any unit of volume the current concentration of CO2 means that 38 out of every 100,000 molecules of air we breathe contains CO2. It takes on average about 5 years of manmade CO2 emissions just to increase that number by 1 additional CO2 molecule into the atmosphere moving up the percentage to .039 percent (or .00039) of the total atmospheric gases.

You need to realize just how little CO2 is on the ground. Freeman Dyson makes a good case why:

Quote

Quote:

"The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes. If the air were not constantly stirred by convection currents and winds, the corn would stop growing.

Edge: HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY By Freeman Dyson

This global warming nonsense is a bunch of gobblygook predicated on political influence and control and nothing more. I'm for cleaner environment on the regional and local scale such as water pollution, air pollution, land pollution and so forth. Those are the immediate things we can do to help within reasonable measures. I don't think people actually advocate dirty air, water and land but instead strive to be better environmental stewards....within reasonable measures and economic viability rather than crush everybody in an economic death with debts, higher taxes and greater govt control.

netrox · 11-24-2009, 12:11 AM

And at the same time, the climate experts say:

"Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever."

BBC News - Global warming science alarming, say climate experts

I guess they're nothing but lying crockpots too?

jillio · 11-24-2009, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Exactly. Which is why govt was so generous is giving out to grant money to researchers who would work on global warming in the govt's favor. Apparently, that has failed or is beginning to show massive collapsing since temperature has not risen in over 10 years. They'll try and lie at every possible opportunities just like Al Gore's book cover with four or five hurricanes spinning in the ocean with one spinning the wrong way and one at the equator, both are physically impossible given our current physics of our climate dynamics.

That's absurd. The grant money is not disbursed based on positive results. No one knows what the results of any of the research will be until the study is done. The grant money is long gone by that time. Grant money is disbursed to cover the expenses of hypothesis testing and experimentation.

jillio · 11-24-2009, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Do you even realize that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere makes up only .038 percent or .00038 of the total atmospheric gases?

Remember, in any unit of volume the current concentration of CO2 means that 38 out of every 100,000 molecules of air we breathe contains CO2. It takes on average about 5 years of manmade CO2 emissions just to increase that number by 1 additional CO2 molecule into the atmosphere moving up the percentage to .039 percent (or .00039) of the total atmospheric gases.

You need to realize just how little CO2 is on the ground. Freeman Dyson makes a good case why:

Quote

Edge: HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY By Freeman Dyson

This global warming nonsense is a bunch of gobblygook predicated on political influence and control and nothing more. I'm for cleaner environment on the regional and local scale such as water pollution, air pollution, land pollution and so forth. Those are the immediate things we can do to help within reasonable measures. I don't think people actually advocate dirty air, water and land but instead strive to be better environmental stewards....within reasonable measures and economic viability rather than crush everybody in an economic death with debts, higher taxes and greater govt control.

"Gobblygook." Now there's a word that inspires confidence and exudes intelligence!

There goes that credibility!

netrox · 11-24-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Do you even realize that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere makes up only .038 percent or .00038 of the total atmospheric gases?

I've proved you wrong many times and you still use that argument to deceive the public that small numbers don't mean anything.

Just because the number sounds small doesn't make it "insignificant." It is extremely significant.

Our bodies operate on TRACE nutrients - the amounts are so tiny - as little as .00005% of our body use it - it seems like it's not significant at all but they are essential for our health and without it, we die.

Also, educate yourself with this one:

"Greenhouse gases and ozone contribute warming of +2.9 Wm-2. The majority of this is from CO2 (+1.66 Wm-2). This warming is offset by anthropogenic aerosols, reducing the total human caused warming to 1.6 Wm-2.

So bringing it all together, there are two reasons for the focus on CO2:

CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing
CO2 radiative forcing is increasing faster than any other forcing"

CO2 is not the only driver of climate

Global warming deniers and creationists have a lot in common - they seek to attack the theory than to prove their ridiculous theories.

"Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.""

Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Environment | Newsweek.com

kokonut · 11-24-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

And at the same time, the climate experts say:

"Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever."

BBC News - Global warming science alarming, say climate experts

I guess they're nothing but lying crockpots too?

More like global warming screamers on street corners screaming about the end is nigh.

kokonut · 11-24-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

I've proved you wrong many times and you still use that argument to deceive the public that small numbers don't mean anything.

Just because the number sounds small doesn't make it "insignificant." It is extremely significant.

Our bodies operate on TRACE nutrients - the amounts are so tiny - as little as .00005% of our body use it - it seems like it's not significant at all but they are essential for our health and without it, we die.

Also, educate yourself with this one:

"Greenhouse gases and ozone contribute warming of +2.9 Wm-2. The majority of this is from CO2 (+1.66 Wm-2). This warming is offset by anthropogenic aerosols, reducing the total human caused warming to 1.6 Wm-2.

So bringing it all together, there are two reasons for the focus on CO2:

CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing
CO2 radiative forcing is increasing faster than any other forcing"

CO2 is not the only driver of climate

Global warming deniers and creationists have a lot in common - they seek to attack the theory than to prove their ridiculous theories.

"Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.""

Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Environment | Newsweek.com

apples and oranges when comparing a closed-body system that's internal versus an open body in a fluid environment.

11-24-2009, 12:18 PM

this reinforces why I am such a cynical bastard. Somebody is making money off of this somehow somewhere. My personal belief (supported by evidence) is that the earth has gone through many warming then cooling cycles. It's natural. That said, I am sure that mankind has contributed to current warming trends however it is questionable if it is anything as significant as some would have you believe.

kokonut · 11-24-2009, 12:28 PM

Not even that significant. 10 years ago they predicted additional warming over the next 10 yeas because of man's contribution of CO2 except that global temps didn't go up but show signs of a cooling. Go figure. Yet, we're at a low cycle of sun's energy output and people say that the sun has not contribution to Earth's warming and cooling?

kokonut · 11-24-2009, 12:36 PM

Climategate.

Quote:

They’re calling it “Climategate.” The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade or so revealed by a thousand or so emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following a leak from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.

Pajamas Media Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate

11-24-2009, 01:54 PM

Source: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/com...mment.news.116

A server belonging to the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit was hacked and a large file containing documents and emails was obtained. A number of these documents seem to indicate an attempt to manipulate data and public opinion.

"Wow!" hardly seems to cover it. There is a huge amount of material here and people are still going through it. No one is denying that this data is legit but we have spent some time investigating it ourselves and have concluded that to fake this much data would be extremely difficult. Even the IP numbers of the mail servers shown in the messages check out (on both the to and from email servers). The data is legit, now the question remains what impact will this have and why hasn't CRU taken action against some of the people involved?

Many of the documents seem to be concerned with hiding scientific results that don't agree with them. There are also references to destroying data. Some email messages actually suggest that others destroy data before its discovered under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (and ironically all of these documents were contained in a folder called "FOIA"). So the next time someone says that "scientists would never fake or manipulate data" here is evidence that they would. (all names listed in the documents and quoted below are to be presumed innocent until fired and publicly humiliated).

Now here are just a few quotes from the documents.

Quote:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Phil Jones, CRU

"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."

"The two MMs" refers to McKitrick (a Canadian economist and professor at the University of Guelph, Ontario. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute), McIntyre (of climateaudit.org fame). These two have been two of the biggest thorns in the side of those wishing to skew data towards the warming argument and they do it simply through analyzing the data.

Quote:

From: Phil Jones (p.jones@uxxxx.uk)
To: "Michael E. Mann" (mann@mxxxxxx.edu)
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

Quote:

From: Phil Jones (p.jones@uxxxxx.uk)
To: "Michael E. Mann" (mann@vxxxxxx.edu)
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

[...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers, Phil

Quote:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxx.edu, mhughes©xxxxx.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa©uxxxxx.uk,t.osborn@uxxxx.uk

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

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones©uxxxxx.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK

kokonut · 11-24-2009, 01:58 PM

Yep. Yep. And....yep.

They are pursuing criminal charges but the cat is already out of the bag. There is now a call for a congressional hearing on this since if the idea is to fudge data in order to get more federal money would constitute as an attempt to defraud the govt. That's a big no no.

kokonut · 11-24-2009, 02:28 PM

CRU relied on unreliable data sets, bad computer models, and a desire to reach a conclusion rather than do actual science.

Quote:

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

Quote:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News

kokonut · 11-24-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.

But that never happened. This "global warming" (farce) was too big to fail.

**Beowulf** · 11-24-2009, 03:18 PM

Eh? It is obvious that man-made pollution causes climate change. At least, that is the logical assumption when you read sites such as
Greenhouse Gases’ Effect on the Climate - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy
Of course, there are plenty of other sites, just pick your poison.
I don't think there has been enough attention placed on how much pollution humanity causes, and this investigation is just another smoke screen to the real issue.

kokonut · 11-24-2009, 03:33 PM

CO2 isn't a pollutant. We breathe it (exhale) every second. Plants absorb it to help them grow.

11-21-2009, 09:59 AM	#4 (permalink)
darkdog Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 1,354	Every time I've suggested that scientists are no more noble than anyone else and science is no more immune to politics, bias, and group think than any other human endeavor, I've been attacked. True, the unethical acts of a group of scientists doesn't change what's actually happening in the physical world, but it does bolster the case for thinking independently and not pursuing disastrous policies based on what a bunch of scientists say. __________________ Playing guitar is my 2nd amendment right.

11-21-2009, 11:23 PM	#7 (permalink)
saywhatkid Emerging from the sun Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In space Posts: 7,271 Blog Entries: 2	No idea on your personal reaction to this, but this is the result of hackers. Since you were in an uproar about "Leftist hackers hack Joe Wilson's donation website" I am almost curious as to your feelings about this hacking. Wonder if it was done by "Right wing hackers hack climatologist website to diffuse Global warming claims", but I assume it depends on the party that is hacked. Perhaps they are heroes for the Petroleum and Chemical industries? __________________ "We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves." ~ 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13

11-21-2009, 11:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	They should be jailed. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

11-24-2009, 12:28 PM	#23 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Not even that significant. 10 years ago they predicted additional warming over the next 10 yeas because of man's contribution of CO2 except that global temps didn't go up but show signs of a cooling. Go figure. Yet, we're at a low cycle of sun's energy output and people say that the sun has not contribution to Earth's warming and cooling? __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

11-24-2009, 01:58 PM	#26 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Yep. Yep. And....yep. They are pursuing criminal charges but the cat is already out of the bag. There is now a call for a congressional hearing on this since if the idea is to fudge data in order to get more federal money would constitute as an attempt to defraud the govt. That's a big no no. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-20-2009, 09:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	I SO KNEW you'd post it! I saw that news and I thought, "Kokonut will post it!" LOL! But on to that topic, it's laughable that you think if a scientist commits an unethical act just because he believes in global warming, the whole global warming theory must be false. It ain't so! Like I said many times, only data will clarify and conclude the current climate situation. You got NONE!

11-21-2009, 12:55 AM	#3 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	It's about purposely skewing the data to make it favorable for global warming scientists. Several instances in email correspondences had discussion on how to minimize the impact of no rise in global warming in a decade. How to "hide" certain data or smooth them out. Remember, there was a 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents. Lots of stuff to go thru and see how they colluded to deceive the public. Amusing to see people rather quiet on this one.

11-21-2009, 12:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Exactly. Which is why govt was so generous is giving out to grant money to researchers who would work on global warming in the govt's favor. Apparently, that has failed or is beginning to show massive collapsing since temperature has not risen in over 10 years. They'll try and lie at every possible opportunities just like Al Gore's book cover with four or five hurricanes spinning in the ocean with one spinning the wrong way and one at the equator, both are physically impossible given our current physics of our climate dynamics.

11-22-2009, 10:20 AM	#9 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	Then why are you posting hackers findings? lol

11-22-2009, 10:31 AM	#10 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	realclimate.org responds: "More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though." "Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking." No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens." RealClimate: The CRU hack

11-24-2009, 12:11 AM	#16 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	And at the same time, the climate experts say: "Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever." BBC News - Global warming science alarming, say climate experts I guess they're nothing but lying crockpots too?

11-24-2009, 12:18 PM	#22 (permalink)
rockdrummer Guest Posts: n/a	this reinforces why I am such a cynical bastard. Somebody is making money off of this somehow somewhere. My personal belief (supported by evidence) is that the earth has gone through many warming then cooling cycles. It's natural. That said, I am sure that mankind has contributed to current warming trends however it is questionable if it is anything as significant as some would have you believe.

11-24-2009, 03:18 PM	#29 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,516	Eh? It is obvious that man-made pollution causes climate change. At least, that is the logical assumption when you read sites such as Greenhouse Gases’ Effect on the Climate - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy Of course, there are plenty of other sites, just pick your poison. I don't think there has been enough attention placed on how much pollution humanity causes, and this investigation is just another smoke screen to the real issue.

11-24-2009, 03:33 PM	#30 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	CO2 isn't a pollutant. We breathe it (exhale) every second. Plants absorb it to help them grow. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode