PDA

View Full Version : Hackers hit Hadley CRU



Spiny Norman
20-11-2009, 08:32 PM
For those who don't yet know, a story is doing the rounds that hackers have hit the University of East Anglia (UK) and have made off with a large amount of apparently rather embarrassing emails and other documentation relating to the Hadley Climate Research Unit.

The global warming 'debate' is about to move up another notch. If provenance is established and the emails and other documentation have not been doctored, it may prove to be a smoking gun that proves that at least one major global warming research facility systematically doctored their results.

The timing of this is critical, just before Copenhagen. Either it is a very, very elaborate hoax, or someone has blown the whistle on an even more elaborate deception.

And yes, I have just spent the past few hours looking at the released documents myself. They *appear* genuine. I remain skeptical however and will wait to see what twists this story will now take. :eek:

Spiny Norman
21-11-2009, 06:24 AM
Some excepts from the emails (the numbers reference to an email in the archive that was published), the excerpts lifted by me from another blog, not directly from the emails:

1107454306 - “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.”

1109021312 - “Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”

1210341221 - “2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.”

1212073451 - “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”

1228330629 - “If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI”

1089318616 - “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 !”

1092418712 - “Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.”

0876437553 - “I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.”

1106338806 - “Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.“

0843161829 - “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. ”

1053461261 - “The various papers apparently in production, regardless of their individual emphasis or approaches, will find their way in to the literature and the next IPCC can sift and present their message(s) as it wishes., but in the meantime , why not a simple statement of the shortcomings of the BS paper as they have been listed in these messages and why not in Climate Research?”

1254108338 - “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.”

1114025310 - “Ch 4 has swallowed this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn’t even aware of it. Can’t decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn’t there and the Swiss Glacier people didn’t know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them. I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.”

1106322460 - Trying to get Saiers ousted from GRL

1098472400 - “This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.”

Spiny Norman
21-11-2009, 11:07 AM
The truth is continuing to emerge, for those with a mind to winkle it out. For example, RealClimate.org (supposedly a bastion of truth and unbiased science) turns out to be associated with Al Gore:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html


realclimate.org's WHOIS record reveals:
Registrant Organization - Environmental Media Services

EMS's founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House.

Spiny Norman
21-11-2009, 03:35 PM
Another prime example of what's gone wrong (from: #0927042520.txt)

Q. How is climate sensitivity established scientifically?

A.

From: David Viner
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, s.raper@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate Sensitivity
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:48:40 +0100

Mike

The climate sensitivity of HadCM2…..pick a value between 2.5 and 4.1K

D

Igor_Goldenberg
21-11-2009, 04:28 PM
I wonder how long it'll take to either be refuted or reported by major news services.
won't be surprised if neither happens.

Spiny Norman
21-11-2009, 04:32 PM
BBC, NY Times and others are reporting it. Whether the content stands up is another matter...

Basil
21-11-2009, 04:39 PM
BBC, NY Times and others are reporting it. Whether the content stands up is another matter...
Actually, BBC, NYT and TSK ;)

Spiny Norman
21-11-2009, 05:08 PM
Funnily enough, the more I read of the correspondence, the more I think I am convinced of the "middle ground" as being the safest set of beliefs about AGW. Before all these emails and other documents were released, I was clearly tending to the skeptical p.o.v. but emails such as:


On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Kevin

merely say to me that the science is open for much further development and it is clearly premature to be reaching conclusions about whether we ought to be re-engineering our economies.

But that doesn't mean that AGW is false; it only means that the question is not able to be answered yet (despite the now obviously false claims of concensus).

Basil
21-11-2009, 05:25 PM
But that doesn't mean that AGW is false; it only means that the question is not able to be answered yet (despite the now obviously false claims of concensus).
Of course. This is why Rudd (who told us the global warming 'results were in'), his cabinet and hippies should ... never mind.

Spiny Norman
21-11-2009, 05:27 PM
Something else I have observed, particularly at skeptical websites:

there's a tendancy to think:
(a) because some of the data has been falsified (or tricked up) in order to support the theory of AGW; therefore
(b) the theory of AGW is false

But (b) does not follow from (a). All one can safely decide is that the case for AGW has not yet been made, not that the theory of AGW is falsified.

There are too many extreme points of view in this 'debate'.

I choose agnosticism. :eek:

Spiny Norman
21-11-2009, 05:52 PM
Richard Feynman on Honesty in Science:


It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

Spiny Norman
21-11-2009, 06:05 PM
Hard to ignore stuff like this:


On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:

Mike,

The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity -- compensating errors.

In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

Tom.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-11-2009, 09:48 PM
BBC, NY Times and others are reporting it. Whether the content stands up is another matter...
From BBC article it's impossible to guess that email content discredits Hudley CRU.
Didn't find anything on NY Times website.

Spiny Norman
22-11-2009, 07:53 AM
Expect the left-wing media to focus purely on the fact of the emails being taken, not on the content.

I notice our own ABC still had absolutely NOTHING about this on their news sites as at about 10pm last night.

Their silence speaks louder than anything they might have put in print.

Spiny Norman
23-11-2009, 04:43 AM
The blogosphere has absolutely creamed the mainstream media over this story. But as Andrew Bolt writes:


It’s taking time for journalists to understand the scale and significance of this thing, and to overcome the fear of countering something so seemingly overwhelming and moral - and to overcome the feeling of loyalty to it. But this story will, I suspect, prove too tempting to ignore for much longer, and the real problem for most newspapers will be a manpower one: who on staff has the slightest familiarity with the sceptics’ arguments. But Brisbane’s Courier Mail now takes it up, albeit too briefly.

Good question that. I think you will find that, once the possibility is opened up for people to be skeptical without being demonised, skeptics will appear from everywhere. Here's the Courier Mail story (very brief):

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26384297-952,00.html

Basil
23-11-2009, 08:26 AM
I think you will find that, once the possibility is opened up for people to be skeptical without being demonised, skeptics will appear from everywhere.
Quite.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2009, 09:50 AM
The Australian published it as well:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/hackers-expose-climate-brawl/story-e6frg6nf-1225801879912

Ian Murray
23-11-2009, 11:25 AM
Funnily enough, the more I read of the correspondence, the more I think I am convinced of the "middle ground" as being the safest set of beliefs about AGW. Before all these emails and other documents were released, I was clearly tending to the skeptical p.o.v. but emails such as:

merely say to me that the science is open for much further development and it is clearly premature to be reaching conclusions about whether we ought to be re-engineering our economies.

But that doesn't mean that AGW is false; it only means that the question is not able to be answered yet (despite the now obviously false claims of concensus).
Ideally we should wait another decade or two to allow ongoing analysis of gathered data

However there is a significant body of climate scientists saying by then it will be too late - the damage will be irrecoverable

If they are unduly alarmist then no problem - she'll be right, mate. But if they're right - what then? Are we to be condemned by future generations for failing to act while there was still time?

While weather and climate are not the same thing, is it irrelevant that last summer southern Australia experienced catastrophic bushfires, and already this spring southern centres are recording record temperatures, higher than ever recorded?

Basil
23-11-2009, 11:59 AM
Ideally we should wait another decade or two to allow ongoing analysis of gathered data
The climate change proponents should have been adding this caveat from the beginning - for credibility's sake.


However there is a significant body of climate scientists saying
And it is this very body of scientists over whom a very big *ahem* storm cloud is being cast. Circular much?


If they are unduly alarmist then no problem - she'll be right, mate. But if they're right - what then? Are we to be condemned by future generations for failing to act while there was still time?
There may besomething here, but the first wave of Wongs, Rudds, Gores all need to piss off and stop posturing, gesturing, alarming and generally fiddling, bullshitting and overstating their position. It was Rudd who lied like a Klueless Klown told us a year ago that in respect of climate change, 'the results are in'.

TheJoker
23-11-2009, 12:19 PM
The climate change proponents should have been adding this caveat from the beginning - for credibility's sake.

I'd agree, but this also applies to the climate change deniers, they should include the caveat that they may be wrong.

Given the above-mentioned caveats and considering the possible rammifications in both the case where the man-made global warming hypothesis is correct and incorrect.

In your opinion what action should be taken?

My opinion is that there is enough support of the hypothesis, albeit far from a proof, to suggest that action should be taken as an insurance policy. Do you agree with this position?

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2009, 12:41 PM
My opinion is that there is enough support of the hypothesis, albeit far from a proof, to suggest that action should be taken as an insurance policy. Do you agree with this position?
OK, but then how much action? Insurance is all very well, but when the cost of the premium is too high, then it is no longer the best option. KRudd wants us to sign up to a Copenhagen agreement that hands our sovereignty over to an unaccountable world body, and would commit us to forking over 7 billion pa. And Australian sacrifices are pointless if China and India don't follow suit.

Ian Murray
23-11-2009, 12:43 PM
And it is this very body of scientists over whom a very big *ahem* storm cloud is being cast. Circular much?
I am disillusioned that some (not all, but some) scientists seem more concerned with defending their entrenched positions than advancing pure science. On both sides of course, e.g. vociferous sceptic Prof Ian Plimer is a geologist, formerly employed by Broken Hill North and still holding mining company directorships - needless to say, mining and energy companies have most to lose under emissions reduction legislation


There may besomething here, but the first wave of Wongs, Rudds, Gores all need to piss off and stop posturing, gesturing, alarming and generally fiddling, bullshitting and overstating their position.
It would be nice if the issues could be evaluated without political and media beat-ups, but we're stuck in the real world

The basic issue is the cost of doing something about it now vs the future cost (not absolutely proven, but certainly possible) of doing nothing about it.

My opinion coincides with TheJoker's

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2009, 12:47 PM
However there is a significant body of climate scientists saying by then it will be too late - the damage will be irrecoverable
Yes, and some like Stephen Schneider admit that they present alarmist scenarios to gain publicity and funding.


While weather and climate are not the same thing, is it irrelevant that last summer southern Australia experienced catastrophic bushfires,
Australia has always experienced these. Dorothea Mackellar's 1904 poem My Country:


I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.

...

For flood and fire and famine,
She pays us back threefold-

...
The Greenstapo would have us believe that it's all due to man-made global warming, yet the same things occurred long before this was an issue.

Basil
23-11-2009, 12:51 PM
I'd agree, but this also applies to the climate change deniers, they should include the caveat that they may be wrong.
Jay-zus! :wall:


In your opinion what action should be taken?
I don't believe, as Krudd The Klown (and other alarmists) is suggesting, that action needs to be taken in the next 36 days else the world will blow up (read immediate action on climate change required).
I think the world has been mind-f***ed by the hyperbole of the Klowns for a decade.
I think we should Klean out from trhe system ALL the dribbling, widdling scientists.
I think we should start again without all the fluff and bollocks.
I think we should burn just about all the information that came from grants and other revenue streams that juiced-up the lily-white scientists who applied for a year's paid wages on a pet subject of their choice grant.
I think we should engage taxpayer funds at a single institute governed by a cross-section of 'known' scientists with a track record of due process and professional skepticism.
Under these auspices, I think we should see where we are in (say) three years time.

Whhoooaaaa - I haven't had a barf this big for a week. How do these peoplpe manage it?

Bleeeuuughhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2009, 12:54 PM
I am disillusioned that some (not all, but some) scientists seem more concerned with defending their entrenched positions than advancing pure science. On both sides of course, e.g. vociferous sceptic Prof Ian Plimer is a geologist, formerly employed by Broken Hill North and still holding mining company directorships - needless to say, mining and energy companies have most to lose under emissions reduction legislation
Here we go: alarmism skeptics have financial vested interests. Never mind the huge amounts of government funding for climate alarmists, and the millions alGore is making from his alarmism--helping to fund his energy-guzzling mansion and jetsetting lifestyle. Hardly any movement is so overwhelmingly led by hypocrites as global warm-mongering.


The basic issue is the cost of doing something about it now vs the future cost (not absolutely proven, but certainly possible) of doing nothing about it.
This much is true. But the cost of doing something is too high under Copenhagen, esp. when it will make no detectable difference unless China and India follow suit.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2009, 02:24 PM
Ideally we should wait another decade or two to allow ongoing analysis of gathered data

Sure. As long as those data are not doctored again.


However there is a significant body of climate scientists saying by then it will be too late - the damage will be irrecoverable

Is it the same body that posed unsupported hypothesis as a proven fact?


If they are unduly alarmist then no problem - she'll be right, mate. But if they're right - what then? Are we to be condemned by future generations for failing to act while there was still time?

In other word:
We have no evidence, but concerned that climate might change. Let's do something just in case. Never mind that trillions of dollars will be spent/lost/wasted (which, by the way, means many lives lost as a result). And if alarmists are right (the probability of which is quite low), the net result is still going to be negative.

May be we should reinforce the Earth surface in case the Moon falls? There are no evidence that it can happens, but better be safe then sorry.
And if it does not fall - she'll be right, mate.


While weather and climate are not the same thing, is it irrelevant that last summer southern Australia experienced catastrophic bushfires, and already this spring southern centres are recording record temperatures, higher than ever recorded?
Picking single observation is not a good statistical approach. We are bound to have extremes time to time.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2009, 02:25 PM
I think we should engage taxpayer funds at a single institute governed by a cross-section of 'known' scientists with a track record of due process and professional skepticism.

While I agree with the rest of the post, this proposal is dangerous.

Basil
23-11-2009, 02:29 PM
While I agree with the rest of the post, this proposal is dangerous.
There has to be some method of investigating. I'm happy to be convinced of a better way.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2009, 02:30 PM
There has to be some method of investigating. I'm happy to be convinced of a better way.
Removing financial incentives for alarmist scenarios would be a good start.

TheJoker
23-11-2009, 02:37 PM
I don't believe, as Krudd The Klown (and other alarmists) is suggesting, that action needs to be taken in the next 36 days else the world will blow up (read immediate action on climate change required).

Right. Is you opinion, that immediate action is not required, based on any sort of substaintial analysis or just a gut feeling.



I think we should engage taxpayer funds at a single institute governed by a cross-section of 'known' scientists with a track record of due process and professional skepticism.
Under these auspices, I think we should see where we are in (say) three years time.

Essentially you want to set-up another IPCC?

TheJoker
23-11-2009, 02:45 PM
OK, but then how much action? Insurance is all very well, but when the cost of the premium is too high, then it is no longer the best option.

I have no idea, that's a matter for the experts.

Personally I think that the costsof any counter measures are likely to be overestimated, since it is hard to factor in innovation. If the cost of energy is increased substainlly in the short-term I have little doubt that energy efficieny innovations will sprout up everywhere until the cost is normalised again.

In the mean time, we continue to investigate the issue of man-made climate change. If it turns out to be a red-herring we phase out the counter measures.

Basil
23-11-2009, 03:27 PM
Removing financial incentives for alarmist scenarios would be a good start.
No question. I wasn't advocating they stay. I detest them. I should have expended even more bile (and time) dissing them in my previous!

Basil
23-11-2009, 03:28 PM
Right. Is you opinion, that immediate action is not required, based on any sort of substaintial analysis or just a gut feeling.
The world is not about to end. Stop it. You'll go blind.

Desmond
23-11-2009, 03:36 PM
I don't want to pay more for my electricity bill.

Ditto other bills and services (tax businesses and they will pass costs onto me, consumer).

Call me selfish but it's true.

Ian Murray
23-11-2009, 03:45 PM
Yes, and some like Stephen Schneider admit that they present alarmist scenarios to gain publicity and funding.
Like I said, some on both sides


Australia has always experienced these. Dorothea Mackellar's 1904 poem My Country:

For flood and fire and famine,
She pays us back threefold-

...[/INDENT]
The Greenstapo would have us believe that it's all due to man-made global warming, yet the same things occurred long before this was an issue.
We've always had bushfires. We have not always had catastrophic fires and new record temperatures. Black Saturday conditions last February were the most severe ever recorded.

High fire potential for 2009-10 southern bushfire season (http://www.bushfirecrc.com/news/releases/outlook0910.html)

Above normal fire potential is expected over most of the south-east of Australia in the coming months. For the first time, all of Victoria, south-eastern New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, and the southern areas of South Australia are rated by fire and land management agencies as having such a high level of fire potential for the bushfire season...

TheJoker
23-11-2009, 03:50 PM
The world is not about to end. Stop it. You'll go blind.

I never said it was. Unlike you, I tend aviod making uninformed judgements.:rolleyes:

I would however, think that it is prudent to adopt some sort of immediate action to migate the possibility of man-made climate change while further research continues.

I'll assume you're not going to answer the actual question then.

Basil
23-11-2009, 04:12 PM
I'll assume you're not going to answer the actual question then.
Uggghh. OK this last one! It's a bad soap opera. Your question was "Is you opinion, that immediate action is not required, based on any sort of substaintial analysis or just a gut feeling."

The answer to your loaded question is 'neither'.

Saragossa
23-11-2009, 04:17 PM
I smell a conspiracy brewing. These people send pretty stupid and revealing emails, too revealing many would say. I don't really have anything to contribute except that it seems fishy to me.

Basil
23-11-2009, 04:20 PM
I smell a conspiracy brewing. These people send pretty stupid and revealing emails, too revealing many would say. I don't really have anything to contribute except that it seems fishy to me.
Could be. Doesn't change the skeptics' position, nor the overstatement of those that advocate, nor the mindless but theoretically cute stance that the clueless left is taking.

Spiny Norman
23-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Ah, this thread has taken off now. Interesting. Also interesting is this observation from Andrew Bolt about the emails and the climate believers:


The emails show the astonishing funds behind warmist scientists - with nearly $25 million going to Professor Phil Jones alone. The American Thinker points out the hypcrisy of warming preachers for then denouncing sceptical scientists such as Richard Lindzen as Big Oil shills for having charged, in his case, just $10,000 to appear as an expert witness 20 years ago.

Then there's this quote from a former British Chancellor, Lord Lawson:


Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

Spiny Norman
23-11-2009, 05:09 PM
Oh dear ... this leaked email is an absolute beauty:


From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: MBH
Date: Fri Oct 22 15:13:20 2004
Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

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

Mmmmm ... gut feeling eh? ... no science? Hmmmm ....

Now of course this could be perfectly innocent, and I will extend to Jones the benefit of the doubt here. I use the same turn of phrase myself. Gut feeling or intuitions are a perfectly sensible way of guiding investigations, especially when you have years of experience in the field (e.g. I have 20+ years experience in IT and I use gut feeling to tell me where to look first for issues when investigating problems).

The question now is whether this gut feeling influenced them to eliminate data, which is EXACTLY what people are accusing them of doing. Gut feeling is never a substitute for hard data (or hard evidence).

Garvinator
23-11-2009, 05:41 PM
Gut feeling or intuitions are a perfectly sensible way of guiding investigations, especially when you have years of experience in the field (e.g. I have 20+ years experience in IT and I use gut feeling to tell me where to look first for issues when investigating problems).
Of course gut feelings are sometimes used from previous experiences about where to look or how to gather results. But after using that gut feeling to find results, there would be a set of results that either confirm that your gut feeling was correct or incorrect.

I think this is the point that is missing from this little email bit, not that gut feeling was used, but that the hard data afterwards is not present.

Spiny Norman
23-11-2009, 06:29 PM
The following comment lines are from various applications from which source code has now been published:


; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE AGE-BANDED (ALL BANDS) STUFF OF HARRY’S
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline


; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)


; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********


; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

I'd like to propose the following code, which would just as readily bail them out of all their contortions and machinations:



void function IgnoreRealData(void); {
if dataset == hockeystick then plot(dataset); else fudge(dataset);
return; }

Igor_Goldenberg
23-11-2009, 10:13 PM
I wonder why all global warming/climate change threads are in politics sub forum, not "religion and science".

Spiny Norman
24-11-2009, 04:59 AM
It has elements of all three; however predominantly this is a political issue and I totally agree with it being in the Politics forum ... it stopped being a science issue and became almost entirely a political issue when the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) got involved.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2009, 03:00 PM
Devilish ETS a scheme nobody should vote for (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/devilish-ets-a-scheme-nobody-should-vote-for/story-e6frfig6-1225802727658)
Terry McCrann
24 Nov 2009

ANYONE in the parliament who votes for the Emissions Trading Scheme is betraying not just common sense but the country… Do the basic math. We contribute 1.5 per cent of global CO2 emissions. Cutting our emissions by 5 per cent — the most likely scenario, given that everyone else at Copenhagen is going to laugh at these hicks from downunderville and promise to do exactly squat — will reduce our contribution to 1.425 per cent. Hooray, the Barrier Reef is saved! Victoria — according to the prime minister — will never experience another super-hot day again!

Actually, our contribution is going to drop sharply even if we keep increasing our emissions. Why? Because the world's emissions are going to explode over the next decade as China and India pour CO2 into the atmosphere. Reducing our emissions by 5 per cent, by 15 per cent, by 50 per cent, even by 100 per cent, will achieve four-fifths of five-eighths of sweet, very little.

So far as anything to do with climate, whether global or local, is concerned. But reducing our emissions by 'just' 5 per cent will do a lot to the economy — all of it bad to disastrous.



Indeed it’s gone beyond the surreal. With the prime minister’s rising hysteria colliding with the leaked emails showing some of his fellow climate hysterics — the ‘official’ ones behind the whole US climate change dynamic — have massaged their analysis to ‘prove’ global warming and to — try to — bury the global cooling reality.

Sorry, this was done in their ‘peer-reviewed analysis.’ All other credible scientists should be alarmed. Nor over supposed global warming. But the way this taints all of them and the scientific method …

This is one of those moments in time. You are either on the right side of history or you are not.

Spiny Norman
24-11-2009, 05:18 PM
This is one of those moments in time. You are either on the right side of history or you are not.
That might be overstating it Jono; however I will admit that this does seem to be a moment where some sober reflection is called for. What are the facts? Have we been told the truth? Should we be reengineering our economies on the basis of the evidence provided?

Andrew Bolt posted the following this afternoon, quoting one of the more strident proponents of global warming (Monbiot) back-pedalling at a great rate of knots, to take a more reasonable and therefore skeptical position:



It’s no use pretending that 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.

Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…

If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:


I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Q. If someone as eminent as Monbiot is prepared to offer an apology (for which I congratulate him!), one wonders how long I will have to wait for Rudd, Wong, Turnbull, Flannery, et al to offer me their apologies?

Shall I hold my breath now? ... :uhoh:

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2009, 05:51 PM
Ah well, even if all this does is dislodge Monbiot from his dogmatic slumbers and in turn shaken the faith of his uncritical green-left followers (Monbiot fanboys are a common road hazard on the forums I frequent) I'll be pretty happy with that.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-11-2009, 08:44 PM
Any global problem that does not seem to have a solution on a local or individual level is a bonanza for politicians.
"Climate change movement" will only stop when the next horror story is invented.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-11-2009, 08:45 PM
Shall I hold my breath now? ... :uhoh:
Don't. We need you alive and well.

Spiny Norman
26-11-2009, 05:18 PM
What New Zealanders were told about global warming by their National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research:

Spiny Norman
26-11-2009, 05:20 PM
What New Zealanders should have been told ... this is the raw NZ temperature data before it was 'adjusted' (i.e. manipulated) by the global warming scientists:

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 06:54 PM
Andrew Bolt comments (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_poised_to_quit/) (on similar lines to Terry McCrann (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=262107&postcount=1325)):


In the immediate future there is only one possible compromise to partially bridge the divide in the party, but Turnbull stubbornly refuses to offer it. That’s to agree to Rudd’s bill on the sensible proviso that it not be operative until most of the world’s emitters agree to a legally-binding deal to cut their own emissions, too. I am certain deputy leader Julie Bishop agrees.

Spiny Norman
27-11-2009, 05:03 AM
Here's a moderately amusing effort, in light of the information recently released by the hackers:

cTGLpqFGyYM

Spiny Norman
28-11-2009, 06:52 AM
More evidence from the computer code released by the hackers:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html


In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2009, 12:52 AM
Physicist and author Dr Frank Tipler, on what the leaked emails mean (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-skeptical-scientist%E2%80%99s-view/):

The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.

It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy. ...

Alas, I doubt if any of them will lose their current employment or be disciplined in any way. Too many powerful interests are now committed to the truth of global warming theory. These traitors to science are bringing in huge grants to their universities, and the salaries of the bureaucrats who run these universities are dependent on this government grant money.

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 06:12 AM
See here for a detailed IPCC rebuttal, by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC):

www.nipccreport.org

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 11:19 AM
Here's how the guys at East Anglia did away with the Medieval Warm Period. From computer program FOIA\documents\osborn-tree5\densplus188119602netcdf.pro


; we 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

and also:


; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)

Ask yourselves ... what ended around about year 1400 ... oh year, that's right, a time when the earth was warmer than today, when Greenland was green and not covered by ice ...

Plain dishonest. No other explanation makes sense.

Garvinator
29-11-2009, 11:22 AM
Ask yourselves ... what ended around about year 1400 ... oh year, that's right, a time when the earth was warmer than today, when Greenland was green and not covered by ice ...

Plain dishonest. No other explanation makes sense.
And the vikings became part of history.

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 11:24 AM
Now to get the context of those application comments (above), consider this quote from Dr. David Deming (University of Oklahoma):


“ Around 1996, I became aware of how corrupt and ideologically driven current climate research can be. A major researcher working in the area of climate change confided in me that the factual record needed to be altered so that people would become alarmed over global warming. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 11:42 PM
Censoring contradictions (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/censoring-contradictions/?page=2)
Peer review appearances can be deceiving
Mark Steyn

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the "consensus" reservation, Tom Wigley ("one of the world's foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted." When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Mr. Jones assured Mr. Mann, "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!"

...

The "consensus" warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as "peer reviewed" if it's published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc (Peermate of the Month: Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar bear fur, on a melting ice floe), and Mr. Begley and "Andy" Revkin would still have wandered out glassy-eyed into the streets droning "Peer-reviewed studies. Cannot question. Peer-reviewed studies. The science is settled."

Looking forward to Copenhagen next month, Herman Van Rumpoy, the new president of the European Union and an eager proponent of the ecopalypse, says 2009 is "the first year of global governance." Global government, huh? I wonder where you go to vote them out of office. Hey, but don't worry, it'll all be "peer reviewed."

The e-mails of "Andy" (as his CRU chums fondly know him) are especially pitiful. Confronted by serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the dogged Ontario retiree whose "Climate Audit" Web site exposed the fraud of Mr. Mann's global-warming "hockey stick" graph), "Andy" writes to Mr. Mann to say not to worry, he's going to "cover" the story from a more oblique angle:

"I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

"peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?"

And, amazingly, Mr. Mann does so.

"Re, your point at the end - you've taken the words out of my mouth."

And that's what Andrew Revkin did, week in, week out: He took the words out of Mr. Mann's mouth and served them up to impressionable readers of the New York Times and opportunist politicians around the world champing at the bit to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned wealth in the cause of "saving the planet" from an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen thuggish ideologues.

...

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2009, 10:33 AM
Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony.
(http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/02/jon-stewart-climategate-poor-al-gore-global-warming-debunked-internet)

I would rephrase:
Global warming Al Gore invented debunked via the Internet he invented.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2009, 10:35 AM
Professor Phil Jones has stepped down as director of the CRU (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/8389727.stm)

Spiny Norman
04-12-2009, 04:46 AM
Those last two posts show at least that the USA and UK are reporting the issue and that the 'public interest' is being considered to some degree. But look at the following graph (courtesy of Andrew Bolt's blog). Our media are so wrapped up in global warming fundamentalism that they cannot bring themselves to do more than make the barest mention of what some are calling "the greatest scientific scandal of our generation". Even given that such statements are hyperbole, our media have never been backward about giving huge slabs of time to the climate alarmists. Yet we are served up this:

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2009, 11:52 AM
The graph is taken by Bolt from John Roskam at the IPA, but I can't actually find it on the IPA website. I would like to know what search terms were used to compile it. It it was just the word "climategate" then hopefully what that would show was that outside America the media were finally getting bored with the mind-numbingly tedious and unoriginal practice of whacking "-gate" on the end of every second media issue involving revelations of some kind or other.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 12:00 PM
The graph is taken by Bolt from John Roskam at the IPA, but I can't actually find it on the IPA website. I would like to know what search terms were used to compile it. It it was just the word "climategate" then hopefully what that would show was that outside America the media were finally getting bored with the mind-numbingly tedious and unoriginal practice of whacking "-gate" on the end of every second media issue involving revelations of some kind or other.
The reporting on the issue actually increased, not decreased. "media were getting bored" in this case is not applicable.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2009, 12:22 PM
The reporting on the issue actually increased, not decreased. "media were getting bored" in this case is not applicable.

I am not referring to the path of increase or decrease; I am referring to the differences in "coverage" between the USA and other countries as shown in the graph. And I am not suggesting the media are getting bored with this case, just hoping they might be getting bored with the constant use of inane "-gate" terms on everything, and that this might explain the scarcity of "Climategate" as a search term outside the US.

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2009, 02:15 PM
just hoping they might be getting bored with the constant use of inane "-gate" terms on everything,
That I agree with. Especially as the eponymous Watergate had nothing to do with fraud, and was rather the scene of a break-and-enter into the DNC HQ. It's crass and unimaginative to suffix –gate to every scandal.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 08:37 PM
That I agree with. Especially as the eponymous Watergate had nothing to do with fraud, and was rather the scene of a break-and-enter into the DNC HQ. It's crass and unimaginative to suffix –gate to every scandal.
There are some similarities with Watergate indeed - hacking is the break-in of 21st century!

Spiny Norman
05-12-2009, 08:47 AM
You know something is going on when this guy buys in to the discussion ... Jon Stewart is one of my favourites:

FgPUpIBWGp8

Spiny Norman
05-12-2009, 01:19 PM
Ref: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

The UK Met Office is going to review its temperature data in the wake of the Climategate revelations.


The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

Excuse me??? Do any of you see the problem with that last statement? (hint: it presupposes the outcome!).

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2009, 05:13 PM
Presumably they will need three years to measure the temperature for the last 160 years again:doh: :doh:

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2009, 08:31 AM
Rudd ducks questions of ETS cost (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/rudd-ducks-questions-of-ets-cost/story-e6frg6nf-1225810375888)
Matthew Franklin, Chief political corresponden
The Australian, 15 Dec 09


KEVIN Rudd has refused to directly address Tony Abbott’s claim that Labor’s proposed carbon emissions trading system will cost average Australian families $1100 a year…

In a television interview yesterday (on Sky News), Mr Rudd was asked three times to respond to Mr Abbott’s $1100 claim, which has been at the centre of the Opposition Leader’s political attack since he won the Liberal leadership a fortnight ago.

Each time, he refused to address the figure.

Abbott could next ask, ‘Prime Minister, how many millions will you pay to the United Nations as our “carbon debt”, to hand to the huge emitters like China?’

Spiny Norman
17-12-2009, 04:12 AM
Oh, the delicious irony:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/polar-bear-phil-jones/


Polar Bear Goes Hunting for Climate-Gate Scientist at Copenhagen Summit

Using a megaphone that pierced the rumble of hundreds of people gathered at the conference center housing Copenhagen's climate conference, a man dressed as a polar bear went looking for controversial scientist Phil Jones — but he was nowhere to be found.

Spiny Norman
22-12-2009, 07:11 PM
This FoxNews clip presents an excellent summary of the debunking of the famous "hockey stick" graph (that had been relied upon by the IPCC and others) by McIntyre et al:

xnCLQIYNYgo

Spiny Norman
22-12-2009, 07:12 PM
... and this clip summarises ClimateGate:

UisVhZHouq4