Climate Science Fraud Exposed?

Oh my. This looks as though it could leave a mark the size of a glacier or two receding. heh!

Someone has a lot of splainin' to do. But if this is genuine, he'll have plenty of time to do it, being unemployed until the next ice age and all. What?

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Comments

[Thomas]

Is there anyone here that can translate this? It looks pretty damaging and all, but is it, actually?

[gary gulrud]

Mike is, of course, Michael Mann, of Penn State, Director of Earth Sciences, and PI of Mann, Bradley, Hughes, "Hockey Stick" fame, a reconstruction of global temperature over the past millenium finding the warmth of the 1990's to be "unprecedented".

Steven McIntyre, of Climate Audit, successfully deconstructed Mann's statistical protocol and found it to produce a sharp temperature rise when supplied with any data, even 'white noise'.

Nature, the pulisher, the authors and colleagues in the climate science community have been dissembling, obfuscating and obstructing efforts, since the year 2000, to get a satisfactory explanation for this variance from truth and proper scientific practice.

It would appear an associate of Jones' has accelerated matters on our behalf.

[Al in St. Lou]

I'd say "hide the decline" speaks for itself. Damning evidence of fraud!

[Thomas]

@ gary gulrud - thanks, that helps!

@ Al - that was my point in my first post above - yes, this definitely looks very damning, and I hope it turns out to be - but I'd feel a lot better being able to understand this a little better before moving forward. So, again, gary, thanks!

[Mr. Sauce]

I'm thinking Boxer, Reid, and yes, Inhofe knew a few days ago this was coming.

I hope McCain gets fried. He certainly did not get the memo, if there was one.

[WPE]

om http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

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.

[mark l.]

skeptics point to cloud cover, sun spots, ocean currents to mitigate to 'reported' rise in temp, only to be dismissed.

now that they temp has remained steady, the true believers are reporting that it has something to do with sunspots and ocean currents.

frauds.

sorry carbon emissions are up, temp is falling...

[Al in St. Lou]

Thomas, what do you think of WPE's explanation that the rest of us have misunderstood, and there's nothing untoward going on?

[Jim Ryan]

WPE, do you really believe that? Really? Have you read the emails? Or did you just skim a pro-AGW blog post?

[Mr. Sauce]

Al St Lou-

From the link Dan provided, comment# 850 or so, about Realclimate:

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

[Lightwave]

Gosh, and this comes out just days after Obamaprompter and Hu Jintao quietly kill the Copenhagen climate accords...

Obama's fake Nobel Peace Prize now becomes the excuse he needs not to show up there as he tries to throw treehuggers under the bus and is suddenly BACKPEDALING AWAY from "climate change" as fast as he can scoot.

When did the One know it was all a hoax? Inquiring Republican minds need to be asking very loudly on Capitol Hill and on FOX News...

[WPE]

Yes, I believe it. It's a private email with at worst some ambiguous language. And if that's the worst you can dig up out of 60+ megs of data, it's the proverbial tempest in a teapot.

That post I linked to also notes that:

"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."

Finally, Realclimate is an open site. Make your case there. And if you're going to trash the site's owners, have the guts to do it on their site.

[gary gulrud]

Unsurprisingly, WPE has the party line, i.e., RC, operated by Gavin Schmidt of GISS, and owned by Michael Mann("I am not a statistician").

"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."

Nonsense, temperature records existed from the 1600's on and were discarded for the MBH reconstruction as being representative of NH only, instead 139 tree-ring series were selected heavily over-weighted with 21 bristlecone pine samples of Graybill from US SW. In fact there were only a small numer from SH, like 2 from Australia.
Mike's 'tricks' are several and many unscrupulous, so much so, that Dr. Wegman of George Mason, past president of a professional statistician society, panned the work and furthermore, condemned the closed community of climate science, before Congress.

"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."

Well this may be, but the issue regards Mike's techniques. McKitrick and McIntyre's analysis of 2000 showed conclusively that the statistical technique was at fault, regardless of the data input. This year Briffa's Yamal series was shown by McIntyre to be cherry-picked in turn, i.e., not at all representative of the population.

Of course it would be wonderful to have the code, data and procedures available to independently verify Mann(RC owner) and Schmidt's(RC operator) version, but they have steadfastly refused to do so, relying instead on cynical deceits like giving addresses to directories with snippets and cursory materials.

[Mr. Sauce]

Approx 1000 emails, h/t FReeper winoneforthegipper:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

Search term "FOIA", for starters.

[WPE]

If you want to argue the science, I suggest you do it on Realclimate, not here.

As for party line, you're kindof playing to it by posting here, where a number of members believe dinosaurs and men lived together just a few thousand years ago. You know, the Flintstone Scenario.

Again, there's 60+ megs of data and out of that comes a few bits of email that are largely ambiguous.

[gary gulrud]

"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"

Jones is quoted yesterday(reported by Morrisey, Ace, and others) as not remembering what he meant in 1999 by 'hide the decline'.

In the absence of CA and McIntyre I'd note that the MBH reconstruction used tree ring series, some of which ended in 1980. Their intent was to just use the current global temps from HadCRU or GISTemp and append them in situ.

Adding the current temps, say from somewhere prior to 1900, to the tree ring series, would have helped smooth the transition at 1980, no?

Problem was the reconstruction and temperature curves diverged.

[mark l.]

"Finally, Realclimate is an open site. Make your case there."

I was planning on showing up at church services to tell the poor rubes that they have been taken for a ride, but your plan sounds a lot more fun.

[gary gulrud]

"Again, there's 60+ megs of data and out of that comes a few bits of email that are largely ambiguous."

The 60MB zip unpacks to 158MB, 1079 emails.

"If you want to argue the science, I suggest you do it on Realclimate, not here."

All right, full disclosure, I only have degrees in Bio, Electronics, Computer Science and Math, a computer engineer when working, mostly software these days. Approximately 300 credits. In particular, Spectroscopy, Nuclear Physics, ElectroMagnetism, Optics, DiffEq, Multivariate & Vector Calc, etc. My purpose here is to report, to be an honest broker of the info I've gleaned.

Stats, however, are not my strength, had Intermediate. Discussing same with Mann and Gavin means none of us know what we're talking about.

[Mr. Sauce]

Here's one about that so-called "open site", Realclimate:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=622

[WPE]

"to be an honest broker of the info"

It's obvious you don't believe in climate change, Which you're free to do. But you can't claim to be an unbiased party when every post you make attacks GW supporters.

[gary gulrud]

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"

Ok, Jean S. of UC has a post up at Wattsupwiththat refreshing my memory, and likely Jones'.

The tree ring series is a proxy for temp, (actually its more sensitive to H2O and CO2 but no matter) but even using 100 plus series the temp curve is not smooth at the end so they use a smoothing function(a common method for presentation). Problem is if one stops with 2000 it bends the curve down so they extend the temp curve out to 2020 before running the function.

So this is not fraud and WPE's explanation is still an unintelligible gloss. RC doesn't remember either

[Otter]

wpe sounds like a shill for 'real'climate.

Is it an open site? When they disallow EVERY post that disagrees with their thinking? How does one take them to task to their faces, as wpe suggests, if one cannot even POST TO THE SITE?

[gary gulrud]

"But you can't claim to be an unbiased party when every post you make attacks GW supporters."

Ok, I'll keep that in mind, just in case.

[Otter]

Gary - I see your posts over at WUWT, always good. I also notice they have begun to allow skeptics to post at 'real'climate. wpe should be proud. Every post a skeptic puts up is immediately attacked.... oh wait, that is what wpe claims WE would do.

[Jim Ryan]

From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@psu.edu
Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...

mike

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

[gary gulrud]

Otter: Thank you for the kind words. We aim to please.

[Btok]

http://www.infowars.com/climate-gate-is-your-fight/
http://gnosis474.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-gate-is-your-fight.html
November 27, 2009
Those in the know are fully aware that the mainstream media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the State. You’re reading this, so you’re probably one of those people. It is so easy to fall into the mental trap that, if you know something, then how can it not be common knowledge? The sheep don’t even know what the carbon tax is, or what’s at stake in Copenhagen. They are completely and utterly clueless.
For the rest of us, the fight is joined. The globalists have thrown their best punches while we played rope-a-dope. Even before this scandal broke, they were running out of gas. Their gloves were heavy. A global agreement to supposedly cut carbon emissions, if you believed what the media told you (I don’t), was in already in jeopardy prior to the release of the hacked emails. These revelations are a flurry of knockout blows, if only we’re able to break through the media blackout and propaganda protecting these criminals from being fully exposed. The media will not be our ally in this.
The globalists, the eugenicists, are in this for the long haul. All of their eggs are in the climate hoax basket. They’re not going to stop now. Why would they? We all know this was never about climate change in the first place. We knew that they knew that it was the sun driving the climate, and that temperatures haven’t risen in at least ten years. If this were about saving the Earth – if they truly were not evil, just wrong, as the newest documentary naively suggests – then the climate scientists would’ve packed it in a long time ago.
No, what this is and always was about is an excuse for global government. This they certainly do not deny. Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General, penned an op-ed in the New York Times last month in which he called for a global government funded by carbon taxes. The new president of the European Union, Herman van Rompuy, said that 2009 was the first year of global governance, and that the Copenhagen climate conference would be “another step towards the global management of our planet”. In July, Al Gore spoke at Oxford University and stated that global governance, funded by the Waxman-Markey cap and trade tax which will be voted upon in the Senate within the coming weeks, is necessary for combating “climate change”.
The globalist plan for world government – the elimination of national sovereignty, ie the destruction of the United States of America – must be fully exposed. We know that this scheme is completely unknown to the vast majority of people. Perhaps now that Glenn Beck is finally speaking of this conspiracy, the Fox “News” crowd will get their heads out of their rears and realize it’s not “liberals” behind this, it’s globalists – there are prominent Republicans and so-called conservative leaders pushing this as well. Unfortunately, because Beck and Fox actively promote the left-right paradigm, the establishment will still try to paint the issue as an attack by right wing hacks and special interests.
Whatever, is happening to my family's and my lifestyle without us having our say? Find out go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU