Climate Conspiracy
Ernst Blofeld
Fascinating stuff. An email archive from a climate research center was
hijacked. The email traffic seems to show conspiracies to destroy data
subject to FOIA requests. Bonus petty academic politics. It seems that
the climate change people have been politicking the scientific
Journals in pretty much exactly the way the skeptics have said they
were.
Plus a fair amount of cribbing from that classic of the field,
Huffman's "How to Lie with Statistics". Eg,
"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. "
An old standby--decrease the vertical scale to minimize the visual
effect of changes! It's 7th grade physics lab all over again!
Highlight quotes (remember, these are from the climate change
advocates):
--
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.
---
--
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family
crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his
new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
---
--
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again.
Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad
Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these
papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is !
--
Ernst Blofeld
been destroyed. I don't see how anyone can take them seriously when
they claim that we should just trust them, or trust that their work
is valid when they refuse to release their data or give "the dog ate
my homework" excuses.
For example, the head of the CRU group writes
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/
--
The two MMs [McKittrick and McIntyre] 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.
---
What makes this interesting is that the CRU, in later years, announced
that they had “inadvertently deleted” their raw data when they
responded to an FOIA request from … McIntyre.
Stevie Nichts
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> Fascinating stuff. An email archive from a climate research center was
> hijacked. The email traffic seems to show conspiracies to destroy data
> subject to FOIA requests. Bonus petty academic politics. It seems that
> the climate change people have been politicking the scientific
> Journals in pretty much exactly the way the skeptics have said they
> were.
Doubtful that the mainstream media can ignore this, at least
for long; the NY Times ran a sterilized piece on it that
somehow manages to avoid mentioning the real meat here.
Like so much else, the media ignore it at their peril, lest they
watch their remaining credibility (like that of the AGW crowd)
take yet another hit.
Rick Saunders
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> hijacked. The email traffic seems to show conspiracies to destroy data
> subject to FOIA requests. Bonus petty academic politics. It seems that
> the climate change people have been politicking the scientific
> Journals in pretty much exactly the way the skeptics have said they
> were.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/11/an-inconvenient-hack.html
If Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe are done tormenting
ACORN maybe they can figure out how to pose as underaged
climate researchers...
Ernst Blofeld
> Doubtful that the mainstream media can ignore this, at least
> for long; the NY Times ran a sterilized piece on it that
> somehow manages to avoid mentioning the real meat here.
The NYT were shocked to their core that anyone would suggest they
publish communications the authors of which now find embarrassing.
They're doing well with their new business model of protecting their
readers from important and interesting information.
I notice George Monbiot, ur-Green and go-to guy for right-thinking
lefties everywhere, is calling for Jones to fall on his sword and for
papers to be re-reviewed--one hopes this time by someone with a
skeptical attitude and access to the experimental data. If he's lost
even allies like Monbiot I don't see how he can go on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists
--
It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted
by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East
Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they
are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things
in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the
comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages
that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be
evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being
released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom
of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the
publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the
head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data
discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
--
Rick Saunders
> On Nov 22, 8:12 pm, Stevie Nichts <nix2nic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Doubtful that the mainstream media can ignore this, at least
> > for long; the NY Times ran a sterilized piece on it that
> > somehow manages to avoid mentioning the real meat here.
>
> The NYT were shocked to their core that anyone would suggest they
> publish communications the authors of which now find embarrassing.
> They're doing well with their new business model of protecting their
> readers from important and interesting information.
>
> I notice George Monbiot, ur-Green and go-to guy for right-thinking
> lefties everywhere, is calling for Jones to fall on his sword and for
> papers to be re-reviewed--one hopes this time by someone with a
> skeptical attitude and access to the experimental data.
But there ARE no data -- the so-called scientific researchers
destroyed the data rather than send it out for peer review.
Maybe they're afraid that someone would find out that some
of the data were MADE UP or something.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Americans don't get irony. Here's what Monbiot wrote:
[PS: I quite like that the letter from the "Knights Carbonic" came from
someone named "Ernst"]
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see
The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a
very different order to justify sceptics' claims
* George Monbiot
It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a
hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia
could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are
genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in
emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the
comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that
require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here
of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to
destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the
publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of
the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in
the emails should be re-analysed.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the
final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They
damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions
about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of
evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would
have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense
disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms
that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known
that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years
of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open
discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
From: ernst.ka...@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29 October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the
Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world
state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as
Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen.
For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier,
launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science
community has been working towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's
initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the
atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will
not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the
blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of
the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals.
Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights
Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the
Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight
that no major objections were sustained.
More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought
to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of
physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he
was able to project the Master's second grand law – that the infrared
radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the
quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers
(led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire
canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the
instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment
was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely
available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We
needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of
these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and
coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able
to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most
regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly
to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain
that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global
cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years
since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a
smoother progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The
thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret
nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant
immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers
dissolving the world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife
has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the
world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised
observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers.
We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects
into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant
pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this
is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national
accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The
capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World
Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage
filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in
coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain
apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with
disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus.
Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has
been established: world government will be established under the guise of
controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The
national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and
require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past
month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions
were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to
have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we
maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our
triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name
of the Master, go forth and terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of
the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.
This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that
man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but
the science of global warming withstands much more than that.
Ernst Blofeld
wrote:
> Americans don't get irony. Here's what Monbiot wrote:
There was nothing ironic about Monbiot's call for Jones' resignation,
nor his call for papers to be re-reviewed.
> This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that
> man-made climate change is a con.
No, it isn't. Ultimately all that matters is whether the papers are
right or wrong. They can be wrong for all sorts of reasons, including
outright fraud and intentionally fudged data, but more insidiously by
tweaks to make the data fit the theory the researchers are sure is
right. Demanding proof of some grand psychotic fraud is moving the
goalposts.
The emails show that the papers are not to be trusted without outside
and skeptical examination of the full experimental data. Exactly as
the climate skeptics have been saying all along, and, you know, how
science is supposed to be conducted in the first place.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> On Nov 24, 7:34 am, "5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Americans don't get irony. Here's what Monbiot wrote:
>
> There was nothing ironic about Monbiot's call for Jones' resignation,
> nor his call for papers to be re-reviewed.
Now you're just flat out lying, Ernie. Again. Unlike you, I don't alter
items I post, and I posted Monbiot's piece in its entirety here. Where,
pray tell, does he call for Jones' resignation, or for a re-review of his
papers?
>
>> This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that
>> man-made climate change is a con.
>
> No, it isn't. Ultimately all that matters is whether the papers are
> right or wrong. They can be wrong for all sorts of reasons, including
> outright fraud and intentionally fudged data, but more insidiously by
> tweaks to make the data fit the theory the researchers are sure is
> right. Demanding proof of some grand psychotic fraud is moving the
> goalposts.
>
So far nothing that's come out of the theft of the emails suggests that
any data has been falsified or even altered.
> The emails show that the papers are not to be trusted without outside
> and skeptical examination of the full experimental data. Exactly as the
> climate skeptics have been saying all along, and, you know, how science
> is supposed to be conducted in the first place.
They HAVE outside and skeptical examination of the raw data, you
blithering idiot. That's what "peer reviewed" MEANS.
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:00:21 -0800, Ernst Blofeld wrote:
>
>> On Nov 24, 7:34�am, "5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Americans don't get irony. �Here's what Monbiot wrote:
>>
>> There was nothing ironic about Monbiot's call for Jones' resignation,
>> nor his call for papers to be re-reviewed.
>
>Now you're just flat out lying, Ernie. Again. Unlike you, I don't alter
>items I post, and I posted Monbiot's piece in its entirety here. Where,
>pray tell, does he call for Jones' resignation, or for a re-review of his
>papers?
>>
>>> This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that
>>> man-made climate change is a con.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Ultimately all that matters is whether the papers are
>> right or wrong. They can be wrong for all sorts of reasons, including
>> outright fraud and intentionally fudged data, but more insidiously by
>> tweaks to make the data fit the theory the researchers are sure is
>> right. Demanding proof of some grand psychotic fraud is moving the
>> goalposts.
>>
>So far nothing that's come out of the theft of the emails suggests that
>any data has been falsified or even altered.
<chuckle> Zepp's head is up his ass again...
Rick Saunders
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:00:21 -0800, Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> > There was nothing ironic about Monbiot's call for Jones' resignation,
> > nor his call for papers to be re-reviewed.
>
> Now you're just flat out lying, Ernie. Again. Unlike you, I don't alter
> items I post, and I posted Monbiot's piece in its entirety here. Where,
> pray tell, does he call for Jones' resignation, or for a re-review of his
> papers?
What part of
"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. "
...don't you understand?
So, how about an apology, Zepp?
> >> This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that
> >> man-made climate change is a con.
>
> > No, it isn't. Ultimately all that matters is whether the papers are
> > right or wrong. They can be wrong for all sorts of reasons, including
> > outright fraud and intentionally fudged data, but more insidiously by
> > tweaks to make the data fit the theory the researchers are sure is
> > right. Demanding proof of some grand psychotic fraud is moving the
> > goalposts.
>
> So far nothing that's come out of the theft of the emails suggests that
> any data has been falsified or even altered.
Man, what drugs are you on?!?
----
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt
From: Phil Jones <p.j...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbra...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,ma...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mhu...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.br...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.os...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for
1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
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.j...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
-----
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
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.
----
You're zero for two, Zepp. Would you care
to revise and extend your remarks?
> > The emails show that the papers are not to be trusted without outside
> > and skeptical examination of the full experimental data. Exactly as the
> > climate skeptics have been saying all along, and, you know, how science
> > is supposed to be conducted in the first place.
>
> They HAVE outside and skeptical examination of the raw data, you
> blithering idiot. That's what "peer reviewed" MEANS.
Except when the AGW fanatics try to freeze out the
skeptics so that the fanatics review their own peers...
----
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
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.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they
found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do
about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research”
as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage
our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer
submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to
consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues
who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.” “It results from this journal having a number of editors.
The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has
let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve
had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.
Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
----
Three strikes. You're out!
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
On Nov 24, 12:14 pm, "5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:00:21 -0800, Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> > There was nothing ironic about Monbiot's call for Jones' resignation,
> > nor his call for papers to be re-reviewed.
>
> Now you're just flat out lying, Ernie. Again. Unlike you, I don't
alter
> items I post, and I posted Monbiot's piece in its entirety here. Where,
> pray tell, does he call for Jones' resignation, or for a re-review of
his
> papers?
What part of
"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. "
...don't you understand?
So, how about an apology, Zepp?
The part that isn't there, you mean?
Cheers
Phil
And that's supposed to mean something? A proposed modification to some
local temps done ten years ago?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-
the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
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.
----
You're zero for two, Zepp. Would you care
to revise and extend your remarks?
No need. Saying that there's no warming would be ridiculous, given that
nobody except ignorant Usenet whack-jobs are trying to claim there is no
warming. Therefore the message must be about something else.
Phlip
> "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. "
> ...don't you understand?
Great - you don't agree with a scientist, kick him out. Where have we heard this
before..?
Oh, yeah! "I believe that the so-called 'astronomer' Galileo Galilee should
recant his theory of heliocentrism, and cease publishing heresies!"
Ernst Blofeld
wrote:
> What part of
> "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. "
> ...don't you understand?
>
> So, how about an apology, Zepp?
>
> The part that isn't there, you mean?
It was in the very text you quoted in your own post. The ongoing
debate is: can you read, or do you just choose not to?
Here it is again, from Monbiot's own web site:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
---
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the
publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a
report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). 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.
---
Ernst Blofeld
> > What part of
> > "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. "
> > ...don't you understand?
>
> Great - you don't agree with a scientist, kick him out. Where have we heard this
> before..?
What level of scientific fraud by a major research organization head
is sufficient in order cause a resignation, in your estimation?
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
My apologies. I spotted it this time around.
But he still goes on to say: But do these revelations justify the
sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global
warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or
four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or
perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade
climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily
for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been
passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global
warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the
evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus
discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to
reproduce it here.
Care to address that?
Ernst Blofeld
wrote:
> But he still goes on to say: But do these revelations justify the
> sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global
> warming theory?
I didn't say it did. OTOH, the people advocating AGW (which is
distinct from global warming in general) have to show reproducible
experimental results, and the papers of the CRU crew, which are at the
pinnacle of the AGW camp's prestige, are now under suspicion for every
paper that didn't have full experimental data released.
There's a tale of woe in the code's README file from the programmer
tasked to make sense of the software here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/
(Comment 17 is probably the result of a floating point or integer
overflow, btw.)
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> On Nov 24, 7:07 pm, "5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>> But he still goes on to say: But do these revelations justify the
>> sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global
>> warming theory?
>
> I didn't say it did. OTOH, the people advocating AGW (which is distinct
> from global warming in general) have to show reproducible experimental
> results, and the papers of the CRU crew, which are at the pinnacle of
> the AGW camp's prestige, are now under suspicion for every paper that
> didn't have full experimental data released.
Actually, we already know that it's driven by a sharp and sudden increase
in CO2 in the atmosphere, jumping from 270 ppm in the mid eighteenth
century to about 387 ppm now.
We know the factors that cause CO2 emissions, and only one has changed:
the CO2 emissions from internal combustion and other types of burning of
fossil fuels.
Nearly all papers DO have full experimental data released. It's an
essential part of the peer-review process. All theories have to be
reproductable, and for that, the raw data and other significant factors
have to be tabulated.
>
> There's a tale of woe in the code's README file from the programmer
> tasked to make sense of the software here:
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-
story/
>
> (Comment 17 is probably the result of a floating point or integer
> overflow, btw.)
It probably is, but it shows a bad program, not bad data.
And you have to show that prior to 1999, someone named Tim YN? published
a paper with the sort of data alluded to. Otherwise you're just talking
about lost data, and it's relevant to nothing.
Ernst Blofeld
wrote:
> Actually, we already know that it's driven by a sharp and sudden increase
> in CO2 in the atmosphere, jumping from 270 ppm in the mid eighteenth
> century to about 387 ppm now.
We don't know any such thing, particularly after the hockey stick
criticisms and now the data fudging scandals and the revelations of
politicking in the journals. Much of the scientific support for AGW
came from CRU, and now all that is in question. Certainly you'd be
very naive if you took _any_ of their papers seriously without a
rigorous examination of the underlying raw data.
> Nearly all papers DO have full experimental data released. It's an
> essential part of the peer-review process.
The CRU crew have been conspiring to conceal data from skeptics, which
is one of the major points of contention. The skeptics have been
trying to get at the data for ages, including via filing FOIA
requests, only to be stiff-armed by CRU, and, it is now revealed, by
CRU destroying the data in order to avoid FOIA responses. The skeptics
were reduced to reverse-engineering the results, and even their
reverse engineering revealed major problems with the CRU papers.
>not bad data.
There are many complaints about the state of the underlying data.From
the code README comments that CRU was trying to prevent anyone else
from seeing:
---
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!
---
>>Otherwise you're just talking
> about lost data, and it's relevant to nothing.
It wasn't lost. It was _deleted_, intentionally, to prevent others
from reviewing it and in contravention of Freedom of Information
requests. Phil Jones, head of the CRU:
>> 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.
Jones again, about the skeptics:
"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."
How could anyone engaged in destruction of data in contravention of
FOIA requests remain as a lab director?
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> On Nov 24, 8:27 pm, "5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>> Actually, we already know that it's driven by a sharp and sudden
>> increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, jumping from 270 ppm in the mid
>> eighteenth century to about 387 ppm now.
>
> We don't know any such thing, particularly after the hockey stick
> criticisms and now the data fudging scandals and the revelations of
> politicking in the journals. Much of the scientific support for AGW
> came from CRU, and now all that is in question. Certainly you'd be very
> naive if you took _any_ of their papers seriously without a rigorous
> examination of the underlying raw data.
You know, if you keep using your contrived little controversy to refute
all scientific data, I'm just not going to waste time trying to discuss
it with you.
What you like to call "the hockey stick" -- the sudden rise in CO2
concentrations -- is beyond doubt and beyond refutation. We know it was
270ppm in 1750. We know it's 387 no. We know it's climbing at an
accelerating rate. This isn't theory. This is solid, actual measurement.
>
>> Nearly all papers DO have full experimental data released. It's an
>> essential part of the peer-review process.
>
> The CRU crew have been conspiring to conceal data from skeptics, which
> is one of the major points of contention. The skeptics have been trying
> to get at the data for ages, including via filing FOIA requests, only to
> be stiff-armed by CRU, and, it is now revealed, by CRU destroying the
> data in order to avoid FOIA responses. The skeptics were reduced to
> reverse-engineering the results, and even their reverse engineering
> revealed major problems with the CRU papers.
>
You have a couple of ambivalent statements from email that don't prove
anything. They certainly don't rise to the evidentiary levels you demand
of scientists you don't like, but are comfortable above the forgiving
levels you set for all the frauds, flakes, liars and fools from the
denialist camp. Or do you subscribe to the crackpot theories that the
sun is getting hotter (it isn't) or that deep-fissure volcanic activity
in the Atlantic is somehow warming ocean temperatures at the surface only?
>>not bad data.
>
> There are many complaints about the state of the underlying data.From
> the code README comments that CRU was trying to prevent anyone else from
> seeing:
> ---
> 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.
>
We don't even know if that is climate change date they are discussing.
For all you know, they are trying to figure out the payroll. And
Fortran? FORTRAN? How old IS that email, anyway?
Ernst Blofeld
wrote:
> > We don't know any such thing, particularly after the hockey stick
> > criticisms and now the data fudging scandals and the revelations of
> > politicking in the journals.
> What you like to call "the hockey stick" -- the sudden rise in CO2
> concentrations -- is beyond doubt and beyond refutation.
You'd have more credibility if you could accurately describe what the
hockey stick controversy is.
Phlip
creationists claiming that biologists fine-tuning the exact fossil
record was itself proof that God created everything & added the
fossils just to tempt our faith.
But...
> If Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe are done tormenting
> ACORN maybe they can figure out how to pose as underaged
> climate researchers...
...bam. Thank you, anon!
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Which one do you want. Temps, or CO2 concentrations? The temperature
one is even more ludicrous, with deniers claiming that ice that is
melting now proves it was warmer in the relatively recent past.
Rick Saunders
wrote:
> We don't even know if that is climate change date they are discussing.
> For all you know, they are trying to figure out the payroll. And
> Fortran? FORTRAN? How old IS that email, anyway?
The question you SHOULD be asking is, How deficient ARE the climate
models written in Fortran? Very, and deliberately so:
----
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code
that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing
untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out
why the output of a calculation that should always generate a
positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third
concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying
to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."
Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have
drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a
VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL
CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass
filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the
trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass
time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time
scales!"
----
This is GIGO, and this is the AGW crowd's basis for all of those
now-suspect claims. Naturally, you liberals being on record as
opposing junk science, the left will demand hearings and
investigations.
> You have a couple of ambivalent statements from email
> that don't prove anything.
So you agree that hearings and investigations
are called for? Excellent.
>>>Otherwise you're just talking
>>> about lost data, and it's relevant to nothing.
>> It wasn't lost. It was _deleted_, intentionally, to prevent others from
>> reviewing it and in contravention of Freedom of Information requests.
>> Phil Jones, head of the CRU:
Nothing to say about that, Zepp? C'mon -- where's
that vaunted progressive thirst for Trvth? What
happened to speaking truth to power?
Rick Saunders
> I was going to say that this "conspiracy" sounds just like
> creationists claiming that biologists fine-tuning the exact fossil
> record was itself proof that God created everything & added the
> fossils just to tempt our faith.
So you, too, would like the scientific community to
get to the bottom of this controversy? Bravo! Be sure
to write your Senator!
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Oh, investigate, by all means. You can even get that dumb Inhofe asshole
to strut and bloviate over something that occurred in England.
But I'm guessing it's a minor issue, quite aside from the fact that
denialists are willing to committ major felonies, and that after the
conference next months, you and your fellow sock puppets will have been
told to quietly forget the incident occurred.
>
>>>>Otherwise you're just talking
>>>> about lost data, and it's relevant to nothing.
>
>>> It wasn't lost. It was _deleted_, intentionally, to prevent others
>>> from reviewing it and in contravention of Freedom of Information
>>> requests. Phil Jones, head of the CRU:
>
> Nothing to say about that, Zepp? C'mon -- where's that vaunted
> progressive thirst for Trvth? What happened to speaking truth to power?
Prove it. Go on. I'm waaaaiiitttting...
Rick Saunders
Nothing to say, eh? Not surprising.
> >> You have a couple of ambivalent statements from email that don't prove
> >> anything.
>
> > So you agree that hearings and investigations are called for? Excellent.
>
> Oh, investigate, by all means. You can even get that dumb Inhofe asshole
> to strut and bloviate over something that occurred in England.
As the blame-mankind crowd likes to remind us, global
warming doesn't stop at any country's border -- and neither
does AGW fraud.
> But I'm guessing it's a minor issue
You're desperately hoping.
But enough for now -- time to enjoy some
Thanksgiving good eats! Have a happy!
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
I notice you don't respond to all of my comments. Why should I respond
to all of yours?
>
>
>> >> You have a couple of ambivalent statements from email that don't
>> >> prove anything.
>>
>> > So you agree that hearings and investigations are called for?
>> > Excellent.
>>
>> Oh, investigate, by all means. You can even get that dumb Inhofe
>> asshole to strut and bloviate over something that occurred in England.
>
> As the blame-mankind crowd likes to remind us, global warming doesn't
> stop at any country's border -- and neither does AGW fraud.
>
And yet you haven't a shred of evidence any fraud occurred at all.
And at the same time, you insist there is no global warming.
You cultists are amazing.
>> But I'm guessing it's a minor issue
>
> You're desperately hoping.
>
No, actually, that's what I'm expecting. For one thing, there's the
timing on this, combined with the huge, hysterical flogging of some very
scant evidence.
> But enough for now -- time to enjoy some Thanksgiving good eats! Have a
> happy!
You too!
Ernst Blofeld
>>And
> > Fortran? FORTRAN? How old IS that email, anyway?
Fortran is widely used in high performance computing.
> The question you SHOULD be asking is, How deficient ARE the climate
> models written in Fortran? Very, and deliberately so:
The broader question is, why the hell is anybody advocating making
multi-trillion-dollar
decisions based on secret code and secret data written by some
Mountain Dew-fueled
grad student or post doc that can't reproduce past published results,
let alone predict
current temperature levels?
Rick Saunders
It's worse than that:
----
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file,
found their way around technical circles, two things happened:
first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a
close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they
began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years
(including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that
appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core
of CRU's climate model.
One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code
that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing
untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out
why the output of a calculation that should always generate a
positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third
concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying
to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."
Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have
drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a
VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL
CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass
filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the
trend -- so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> On Nov 30, 4:27�am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 10:07 am, Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>And
>> > > Fortran? �FORTRAN? �How old IS that email, anyway?
>>
>> Fortran is widely used in high performance computing.
>>
>> > The question you SHOULD be asking is, How deficient ARE the climate
>> > models written in Fortran? Very, and deliberately so:
>>
>> The broader question is, why the hell is anybody advocating making
>> multi-trillion-dollar
>> decisions based on secret code and secret data written by some Mountain
>> Dew-fueled
>> grad student or post doc that can't reproduce past published results,
>> let alone predict
>> current temperature levels?
>
> It's worse than that:
> ----
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/
entry5761180.shtml
Are you clowns under the impression that East Anglia was the only place
that had the data?
Rick Saunders
wrote:
> Are you clowns under the impression that East Anglia was the only place
> that had the data?
The clowns at CRU are under that impression:
----
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
throwing
away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of
global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations
said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss
following requests for the data under Freedom of Information
legislation.
----
So now the only data that other scientists can check
are those that have been, er, "revised" by UEA-CRU.
Did those “revisions” have a scientific basis? Were
there any gaps in the data? We’ll never know now,
will we?
Rick Saunders
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:39:20 -0800, Rick Saunders wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 4:27 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 26, 10:07 am, Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>And
> >> > > Fortran? FORTRAN? How old IS that email, anyway?
>
> >> Fortran is widely used in high performance computing.
>
> >> > The question you SHOULD be asking is, How deficient ARE the climate
> >> > models written in Fortran? Very, and deliberately so:
>
> >> The broader question is, why the hell is anybody advocating making
> >> multi-trillion-dollar
> >> decisions based on secret code and secret data written by some Mountain
> >> Dew-fueled
> >> grad student or post doc that can't reproduce past published results,
> >> let alone predict
> >> current temperature levels?
>
> > It's worse than that:
> > ----
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/
> entry5761180.shtml
>
> > their way around technical circles, two things happened: first,
> > programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at
> > the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel
> > sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working
> > weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented
> > and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.
>
> > One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that,
> > if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever
> > occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a
> > calculation that should always generate a positive number was
> > incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for
> > this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from
> > undocumented and completely messy sources."
>
> > �Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn
> > �fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL
> > �correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another,
> > �quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer
> > �time scales never gets rid of the trend -- so eventually I start to
> > �scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of
> > �removing/adding longer time scales!"
> Are you clowns under the impression that East Anglia was the only place
> that had the data?
That's an unusually clumsy attempt to change the
subject, even for you. Your concession that the AGW
climate models are crap is noted. Garbage in = garbage out.