Mann made global warming, real after all!
Roger Dewhurst
And this will cost us all four figure sum, each, every year. Royal
Commission required to investigate this fraud.
R
george
I've found there to be 179 'contributors' including our own Jim (Lad)
Salinger
Matty F
Why can't some other reputable scientific organisation (a new one of
necessary) get all the raw data that is around and publish it in
graphical form and make new measurements? This new organisation should
exclude anyone with a connection to the IPCC, RealClimate, NASA, GISS,
CRU and anyone who has ever collaborated in a paper writen by anyone
in those organisations.
Roger Dewhurst
Those organization get all the funds!
R
WD
"Mann made..." nice. :-)
Just reading through some of the comments at RealClimate and noticed
this:
--------------------------
"“…Can you explain the multiple references in the emails to evading
FOIA responses, for example as in “delete all email [on certain topic]
and I will do the same”?
[Response: No. But I am not party either to those FOIA requests, nor
the timing and nor do I know what happened or what the scope was. -
gavin]…”
You may not be a party, but, can you explain why anyone in climate
research would write emails that attempt to evade FOIA responses?
[Response: Everyone involved in any FOIA request is always asking what
is required to be responsive, what the scope of the request covers and
what issues there might be that would provide exemptions. Such
discussions go on every time. I can only speak about my own experience
with that and the guidance we were given with respect to those
requests. Partial views of that process without the full context would
make it extremely easy to jump to unwarranted conclusions. - gavin]"
--------------------------
This appears dishonest. If information is exempt then why would you
need to delete anything? Also, the whole attempt to evade FOIA
requests goes to the openness of the science and the impression that
prominent scientists have an agenda. Pretty poor damage control.
I agree that who among us would want their private e-mails read to the
world. But at the same time private e-mails reveal a lot about a
person (a persons true face perhaps) that a public image does not.
Weihana.
Geoff Rait
<409d52fc-29ba-421f...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Matty F wrote:
>Why can't some other reputable scientific organisation (a new one of
>necessary) get all the raw data that is around and publish it in
>graphical form and make new measurements? This new organisation should
>exclude anyone with a connection to the IPCC, RealClimate, NASA, GISS,
>CRU and anyone who has ever collaborated in a paper writen by anyone
>in those organisations.
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center is another organisation that does
this globally with terrestrial measurements; and for the satellite
record, there are two analyses: University of Alabama at Huntsville and
Remote Sensing Systems. You can compare these - as well as the analyses
you don't like - here:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Comparing global
temperature estimates
You'll notice they're all very similar. I guess everybody must be in on
the conspiracy, eh? There are links on that page to the individual
analyses so you can plot them up and confirm the fakery for yourself.
Alternatively, if you wanted to build your own version of the
terrestrial record you could get the the numbers from individual
countries - eg:
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/national_e.cfm
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi
Hmm. Funny, they show increases too...
When you find evidence in those emails that anybody in those
organisations you don't like has fabricated data to show that
temperatures have been rising when in reality they haven't, please do
let us know; and please also let us know how they managed to persuade
the other global record keepers, the satellite analysts, and the staff
of all the national meteorological services to fake their data as well.
Thanks.
Geoff
--
Actually, I do have spots.
Me
> I agree that who among us would want their private e-mails read to the
> world. But at the same time private e-mails reveal a lot about a
> person (a persons true face perhaps) that a public image does not.
>
Are these in fact "private" emails deserving of the protection one would
hope for from a true "private" email a/c?
Hosted on server in a university, they are ultimately owned by govt, and
the "account holder" would normally have signed an agreement which
effectively forgoes their right to the level of privacy a personal email
account holder might expect from their ISP.
My partner can access all email, "their" disk space, and other computer
use history used by staff in an academic institution in NZ. (Solves all
sorts of legal problems when you want to fire someone's useless arse for
being useless, when you can simply prove they access trademe at times
when they're paid to be working - an instant dismissal offence that they
agreed to). Ultimately the govt owns this data - I expect that its the
same in the UK.
Roger Dewhurst
I doubt that you would see the barn walls if you are locked up in one.
R
Roger Dewhurst
Matty F
Nigel Lawson said:
‘It is against all this background that I am announcing today the
launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the
Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org), which I hope may
mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the
important issue of global warming policy.’
WD
Perhaps but I'm sure any agreement did not include giving access to
hackers or the general public.
However, I think the point those at RC were trying to make is that,
regardless of the legalities of who owns the e-mail accounts, the
authors used them as anyone would use an e-mail account and their
choice of words would reflect what was presumed to be a private
dialogue.
Unfortunately I don't think this explanation makes up for the
impression one receives reading those e-mails.
Weihana.
Geoff Rait
>Geoff Rait wrote:
>> NOAA's National Climatic Data Center is another organisation that does
>> this globally with terrestrial measurements; and for the satellite
>> record, there are two analyses: University of Alabama at Huntsville and
>> Remote Sensing Systems. You can compare these - as well as the analyses
>> you don't like - here:
>>
>> http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Comparing global
>> temperature estimates
>>
>> You'll notice they're all very similar. I guess everybody must be in on
>> the conspiracy, eh? There are links on that page to the individual
>> analyses so you can plot them up and confirm the fakery for yourself.
>>
>> Alternatively, if you wanted to build your own version of the
>> terrestrial record you could get the the numbers from individual
>> countries - eg:
>>
>> http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/national_e.cfm
>>
>> http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi
>>
>> Hmm. Funny, they show increases too...
>>
>> When you find evidence in those emails that anybody in those
>> organisations you don't like has fabricated data to show that
>> temperatures have been rising when in reality they haven't, please do
>> let us know; and please also let us know how they managed to persuade
>> the other global record keepers, the satellite analysts, and the staff
>> of all the national meteorological services to fake their data as well.
>> Thanks.
>
>I doubt that you would see the barn walls if you are locked up in one.
A thoughtful and content-filled response, as always.
I repeat: show evidence from those emails that anybody in the
organisations referred to has frabricated data to indicate spurious
temperature rises; and show evidence that every national weather service
and the satellite analysts are also in on the 'scam'.
What this 'scandal' really illustrates is increasing desperation on the
part of the deniers. If you think that excerpts from a few (supposedly)
'damning' private emails quoted out of context and misrepresented are
enough to overturn the mass of data from the multiplicity of sources
demonstrating that the earth has been warming, your judgement really is
in complete thrall to your preconceptions. In somebody who's had some
science training, that's a shame to see.
george
Okay. The tree ring data for one.
Take a deep core from a tree in a deep gully.
Wow look at those rings showing how cold it was 'back whenever'
Then take a shallow core from a tree on a ridge.
Wo. Look at 'those' rings showing how it has warmed up.
That sort of randomisation brings in lots of research funding.
If you actually read the associated Emails they spend a lot of time
talking about funding.
And you don't ask associates to delete all emails on a particular
subject.
After all these are scientists interested only in presenting ALL the
evidence and have no interest in grubby everyday things like money.
Yeah riiight.
colp
> I repeat: show evidence from those emails that anybody in the
> organisations referred to has frabricated data to indicate spurious
> temperature rises; and show evidence that every national weather service
> and the satellite analysts are also in on the 'scam'.
When did Matty claim that the emails referred to fabricated data or
that every national weather service and the satellite analysts are
also in on the 'scam'?
Typical AGW shill, pointing out the absence of a specific misdeed as
if it was evidence of complete innocence.
WorkHard
What's your science 'training' Geoff?
Sailor Sam
> What this 'scandal' really illustrates is increasing desperation on the
> part of the deniers. If you think that excerpts from a few (supposedly)
> 'damning' private emails quoted out of context and misrepresented are
> enough to overturn the mass of data from the multiplicity of sources
> demonstrating that the earth has been warming, your judgement really is
> in complete thrall to your preconceptions. In somebody who's had some
> science training, that's a shame to see.
>
> Geoff
>
I'm inclined to agree, it's far too early to make any claims about the
emails in question, yet some people seem to think their very existence
constitutes proof of everything imaginable.
bugalugs
I'm inclined to wait and see what falls out of the tree but the content
of some of the emails does tend to indicate that the information we have
been given has been massaged to show the results they want it to show.
Something in the state of Denmark is rotten.
colp
Too early? At what point in time do facts become acceptable?
Glen Beck makes a claim or two about the emails in the following clip:
Will Spencer
Why do you ask? A certificate in Supermarket Shelf Stacking would probably
top your qualifications John Boy. Lol.
-ws
WorkHard
snip peurile abuse
None of your business, you obnoxious cunt!
WorkHard
>> What's your science 'training' Geoff?
>
> Why do you ask? A certificate in Supermarket Shelf Stacking
> would
> probably top your qualifications
You should address that to Scooter, you stupid fuckwit!
Will Spencer
You've called me worse. You must be a good mood. Lol.
-ws
Geoff Rait
<9575cd7b-a456-4078...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
george wrote:
>On Nov 24, 5:00=A0am, (Geoff Rait) wrote:
>> I repeat: show evidence from those emails that anybody in the
>> organisations referred to has frabricated data to indicate spurious
>> temperature rises; and show evidence that every national weather service
>> and the satellite analysts are also in on the 'scam'.
>
>Okay. The tree ring data for one.
>Take a deep core from a tree in a deep gully.
>Wow look at those rings showing how cold it was 'back whenever'
>Then take a shallow core from a tree on a ridge.
>Wo. Look at 'those' rings showing how it has warmed up.
>That sort of randomisation brings in lots of research funding.
>If you actually read the associated Emails they spend a lot of time
>talking about funding.
>And you don't ask associates to delete all emails on a particular
>subject.
>After all these are scientists interested only in presenting ALL the
>evidence and have no interest in grubby everyday things like money.
>Yeah riiight.
Your suspicions about scientists' motivations and your misconceptions
about how tree-ring studies are performed constitutes evidence of data
fabrication and a huge scientific scam? That seems a very low standard
of proof, and of course it doesn't explain the historical record at all.
However, if you don't like tree-ring studies, there are plenty of other
proxies as well as multiproxy datasets: oxygen isotopes in ice, isotopic
and chemical ratios in microfossils and corals, borehole temperature
profiles, sediment thicknesses, etc. These are calibrated against the
instrumental record. You'll find the literature on the topic, if you
actually bother to seek it out and read it, very informative regarding
methods and resolution.
But if you're motivated mainly by suspicions of scientists' honesty and
competence, I'm sure you won't bother. And you certainly won't be
impressed by the fact that no credible scientific organisation that has
a current position on the matter - organisations whose leadership have
read the literature and have the expertise to judge it - has disputed
the view that recent warming is unprecedented and at least in part due
to human activity. You'll just conclude that they were either deceived
or in on the scam as well. Right?
WorkHard
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:09:41 +1300, WorkHard wrote:
>
>> Will Spencer wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:49:38 +1300, WorkHard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> What's your science 'training' Geoff?
>>>
>>> Why do you ask?
>>
>> snip peurile abuse
>>
>> None of your business, you obnoxious cunt!
>
> You've called me worse. You must be a good mood. Lol.
I'm mostly in a good mood.
Kerry
> In article
This is a good read:
“New Zealand climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger is among an
international group of climate scientists quoted in emails obtained
from the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit and leaked
onto the internet.
The so-called “climategate” emails have been seized on by climate
change sceptics who claim they show leading climate scientists have
manipulated data and the peer-review journal system to fit their
theory of global warming.
But the quoted researchers and others in the scientific community say
the emails show nothing more than the frank discussion that goes on
between scientists spread around the world and collaborating on
research and journal papers.
Our colleagues at the Science Media Centre in London wrapped up
reaction from UK-based scientists:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2009/11/24/uk-scientists-on-climategate-emails/
Kerry
Will Spencer
Meanwhile, hacking emails, unfortunatly, wont stop the globe from warming.
Only reducing the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions achieve that.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10611095
NZ glaciers still shrinking - Niwa
New Zealand's glaciers are continuing to shrink, the National Institute of
Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) says.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10611166
Ice sheets losing billions of tonnes
The East Antarctic ice sheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global
warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea
levels in the future, according to a study.
WorkHard
>> What's your science 'training' Geoff?
>
> Lots :-)
>
> and lots...
I suppose he changes his mind and does an about face just as you
do? E.g, from one who vehemently criticised low-carb diets and
those who supported them, to supporting low-carb diets now -
while still abusing those who supported them in the first place?
Claim one reality then a while later claim the opposite as
another 'new' reality?
Is that all you 'trained' experts behave?
My, you are so full of contradictions.
WorkHard
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:10:28 +1300, WorkHard wrote:
>
>> Will Spencer wrote:
>>
>>>> What's your science 'training' Geoff?
>>>
>>> Why do you ask? A certificate in Supermarket Shelf Stacking
>>> would
>>> probably top your qualifications
>>
>> You should address that to Scooter, you stupid fuckwit!
>
> Meanwhile, hacking emails, unfortunatly, wont stop the globe
> from
> warming. Only reducing the amount of anthropogenic CO2
> emissions
> achieve that.
Only? See, this is the dishonesty of people like you.
News tonight showed some wally claiming "anti climate change
skeptics" blah blah. Well, those 'sketics do not disbelieve that
climate changes. They dispute your claims that man is causing a
warming that's about to destroy the world.
The way you people dihonestly present everything makes people
suspicious.
If you are so right and true, why the need for such deliberate
deceptions and mis-information?
bubba ray
At the very least they show that 'scientists' massaged data to hide a
decline in global temperatures.
John Cawston
>> international group of climate scientists quoted in emails obtained
>> onto the internet.
>>
>> The so-called �climategate� emails have been seized on by climate
>> change sceptics who claim they show leading climate scientists have
>> manipulated data and the peer-review journal system to fit their
>> theory of global warming.
>>
>> But the quoted researchers and others in the scientific community say
>> the emails show nothing more than the frank discussion that goes on
>> between scientists spread around the world and collaborating on
>> research and journal papers.
>>
>> Our colleagues at the Science Media Centre in London wrapped up
>> reaction from UK-based scientists:
>>
>> http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2009/11/24/uk-scientists-on-clima...
>
> At the very least they show that 'scientists' massaged data to hide a
> decline in global temperatures.
>
Manipulated the data and lied that they did.
Created a closed shop where each supplied the peer review to the
other.
Blackmailed editors who printed skeptical opinions. Kept contrary
opinions out of journals.
Refused to supply information requested for checking, even where
this contravened the policies of the journals that printed their
shoddy stuff.
Illegally deleted material when under threat of the Official
Information Act.
Colluded to attack science that didn't fit their world view.
These weren't scientists but the sort of con men who run
financial companies that fail under a welter of bullshit,
misrepresentation and criminal fraud.
JC
Roger Dewhurst
November 13, 2009
By Sinclair Davidson (crikey)[1] (Wikileaks)
Sometime last week the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of
East Anglia was hacked and materials stolen off its server. That
information, including thousands of emails, has been posted on the
internet (including at Wikileaks) and has caused a weekend of frantic
blogging. There is more or less a rather juicy scandal brewing.
There is more to this story than the �ho hum, nothing to see here, the
making of sausages, and science, shouldn�t be seen by the public�
attitude being displayed by warmenists. There is, however, less to the
story than the �this proves the greatest scientific fraud in human
history� attitude being taken by denialists.
So far, there is no evidence I have seen that suggests the fabrication
of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Certainly, scientists at
the CRU are not the only scientists working on climate science. These
emails do not provide a silver bullet to kill off that theory.
Much has been made of an email by Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU,
where he says: �I�ve just completed Mike�s Nature trick of adding in the
real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards)
and from 1961 for Keith�s to hide the decline.� The word �trick� doesn�t
suggest anything untoward, rather being somewhat clever about some
technique. �Hide� could be a problem.
This email is dated November 16, 1999, so it cannot relate to more
recent arguments over the extent of global warming.
It is clear, however, that statements suggesting �the science is
settled� can no longer be sustained. In an email from Mike Kelly to Phil
Jones (dated October 26, 2008), we find this gem, �I�ll maybe cut the
last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as
that�s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent
cold-ish years.� While on July 5, 2005, Phil Jones wrote: �The
scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I
said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven
years of data and it isn�t statistically significant.�
It is possible that plausible explanations can and will be made to
explain these sorts of statements. At the same time the emails do
provide evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal
to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial
stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following FOI
requests, tax evasion, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents,
manipulation of results, apparent misappropriation of grant money, and
threats to physically assault rivals.
This is not a good look at all. Some of this behaviour is bad form, some
of it unethical, and some of it potentially illegal. The destruction of
data subject to a freedom-of-information request is illegal. The CRU has
argued that a lot of their early raw data was destroyed because they
couldn�t store it. That explanation is, unfortunately, all too
plausible. We live in a world where as recently as 20 years ago, data
would have been thrown away for want of storage space. These
irreplaceable and valuable historical documents are likely to have been
tossed. Why then find a 2005 email from Phil Jones: �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�?
If this is a global Godwin Grech moment and the incriminating emails
have been seeded with misinformation, then they are in the clear. Since
the scandal has broken that argument is yet to be made. Indeed, several
individuals have confirmed the authenticity of emails and condemned the
invasion of their privacy.
This incident reflects poorly on academics and universities everywhere.
It is important to remember that the taxpaying public invests a lot of
trust and respect in academic processes; not to mention, money. The
peer-review process, for example, has been held up as the �gold
standard� of integrity. Yet we see numerous emails subverting
peer-review. We see attempts to avoid freedom-of-information
requests�something the media and the public are increasingly impatient
about.
We see overall a pattern of poor behaviour. Some have chosen to
represent that behaviour as the workings of elite scientists going about
their business. I am not convinced that the public, whose taxes finance
that behaviour, are going to be pleased. Nor should they be.
Matty F
> In article
> <409d52fc-29ba-421f-90fd-7f05a8c1b...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Matty F wrote:
> >Why can't some other reputable scientific organisation (a new one of
> >necessary) get all the raw data that is around and publish it in
> >graphical form and make new measurements? This new organisation should
> >exclude anyone with a connection to the IPCC, RealClimate, NASA, GISS,
> >CRU and anyone who has ever collaborated in a paper writen by anyone
> >in those organisations.
>
> this globally with terrestrial measurements; and for the satellite
> record, there are two analyses: University of Alabama at Huntsville and
> Remote Sensing Systems. You can compare these - as well as the analyses
> you don't like - here:
>
> http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Comparingglobal
> temperature estimates
>
> You'll notice they're all very similar. I guess everybody must be in on
> the conspiracy, eh? There are links on that page to the individual
> analyses so you can plot them up and confirm the fakery for yourself.
>
> Alternatively, if you wanted to build your own version of the
> terrestrial record you could get the the numbers from individual
> countries - eg:
>
> http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/national_e.cfm
>
> http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi
>
> Hmm. Funny, they show increases too...
>
> When you find evidence in those emails that anybody in those
> organisations you don't like has fabricated data to show that
> temperatures have been rising when in reality they haven't, please do
> let us know; and please also let us know how they managed to persuade
> the other global record keepers, the satellite analysts, and the staff
> of all the national meteorological services to fake their data as well.
Thanks for the links. I've looked at some and I'll be checking through
them after I finish reading these 1130 emails and documents that I
have here.
Geoff Rait
>Geoff Rait wrote:
>> I repeat: show evidence from those emails that anybody in the
>> organisations referred to has frabricated data to indicate spurious
>> temperature rises; and show evidence that every national weather service
>> and the satellite analysts are also in on the 'scam'.
>November 13, 2009
>
>By Sinclair Davidson (crikey)[1] (Wikileaks)
[...]
>So far, there is no evidence I have seen that suggests the fabrication
>of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Certainly, scientists at
>the CRU are not the only scientists working on climate science. These
>emails do not provide a silver bullet to kill off that theory.
[...]
Still waiting...
Geoff Rait
wrote:
>bubba ray wrote:
>> At the very least they show that 'scientists' massaged data to hide a
>> decline in global temperatures.
>
>Manipulated the data and lied that they did.
If you're referring to the much-quoted Jones 1999 email containing the
passage: �I�ve just completed Mike�s Nature trick of adding in the real
temps to each series for the last 20 years [i.e. from 1981 onwards] and
from 1961 for Keith�s to hide the decline", you need to read it a bit
more closely and think about it a bit more carefully.
The temperatures that were 'added in' were measured (instrumental) ones
- note the word 'real' - and what they replaced was *tree-ring* data
after 1981 and 1961 from Mann and Briffa analyses, respectively. The
tree-ring 'decline' problem is where the wood-derived temperatures in
*some* of the tree-ring records fail to keep up with the instrumental
record in the most recent years, a phenomenon which has been discussed
in the literature for over a decade now. What was done was not to 'hide
a decline in global temperatures', it was the opposite: using real
temperatures instead of proxies in an interval where the proxies were
known to be incorrect. This has been discussed enough in the blogosphere
that I'm surprised even your jaded eye didn't catch it.
>Created a closed shop where each supplied the peer review to the
>other.
It's easy to look up the publication lists of the people involved in the
emails and find their articles. Most reviewers choose not to remain
anonymous and thanks is usually given them in an 'acknowledgements'
section. If you looked through these, you'd find quite a range of names.
Choice of peer reviewers is up to journal editors, not to authors or
their mates.
>Blackmailed editors who printed skeptical opinions. Kept contrary
>opinions out of journals.
Blackmail? You'll need to supply some evidence to back that one up. As
for keeping contrary opinions out of journals: *opinions* have no place
there. Any *conclusions* presented have to be based on demonstrable
facts and principles. If a conclusion is scientifically unjustifiable,
it shouldn't be in the scientific literature. A proper peer review
process aims to minimise that.
>Refused to supply information requested for checking, even where
>this contravened the policies of the journals that printed their
>shoddy stuff.
You have this utterly backwards. Go and check the editorial policies of
Nature, Science and other journals for yourself, rather than believing
what you read on the blogs of those with axes to grind. When the data
doesn't belong to someone it's requested from, the correct response is
to refer the enquiry to the original data owner. This is exactly what
was done in the cases McIntyre and others bleat about.
>Illegally deleted material when under threat of the Official
>Information Act.
>
>Colluded to attack science that didn't fit their world view.
Science? If the 'science' was any good, it would have been published
somewhere other than on a blog. In fact, people like McIntyre are being
*encouraged* to submit their 'alternative' analyses of temperature and
proxy data to scientific journals so their shortcomings can be fully
exposed. However, they don't seem to want to do that.
>These weren't scientists but the sort of con men who run
>financial companies that fail under a welter of bullshit,
>misrepresentation and criminal fraud.
This sort of gullibility from you surprises me. It's disappointing you
find it easier just to believe whatever suits you than to check your
facts.
John Cawston
> In article <heg86k$gia$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John Cawston
> wrote:
>> bubba ray wrote:
>
>>> At the very least they show that 'scientists' massaged data to hide a
>>> decline in global temperatures.
>> Manipulated the data and lied that they did.
>
> If you're referring to the much-quoted Jones 1999 email containing the
>
> The temperatures that were 'added in' were measured (instrumental) ones
> - note the word 'real' - and what they replaced was *tree-ring* data
> after 1981 and 1961 from Mann and Briffa analyses, respectively. The
> tree-ring 'decline' problem is where the wood-derived temperatures in
> *some* of the tree-ring records fail to keep up with the instrumental
> record in the most recent years, a phenomenon which has been discussed
> in the literature for over a decade now. What was done was not to 'hide
> a decline in global temperatures', it was the opposite: using real
> temperatures instead of proxies in an interval where the proxies were
> known to be incorrect. This has been discussed enough in the blogosphere
> that I'm surprised even your jaded eye didn't catch it.
Mann's model was designed to show AGW ticking up to create the
Hockey Stick. It didn't, ie from 1960 the data trended down, thus
showing that the model he used couldn't predict current AGW. To
compensate he added in real temperatures to show an uptick that
validated the model.
Briffa made another hockey stick with the Yamal tree rings, but
only by reducing the number of trees in the study to just 12..
thats hopeless, especially when there were hundreds of other
trees in the vicinity that he could have used.. but which don't
support current warming.
>
>> Created a closed shop where each supplied the peer review to the
>> other.
>
> It's easy to look up the publication lists of the people involved in the
> emails and find their articles. Most reviewers choose not to remain
> anonymous and thanks is usually given them in an 'acknowledgements'
> section. If you looked through these, you'd find quite a range of names.
> Choice of peer reviewers is up to journal editors, not to authors or
> their mates.
But as we know, Mann and co had undue influence in choosing peer
reviewers.
>
>> Blackmailed editors who printed skeptical opinions. Kept contrary
>> opinions out of journals.
>
> Blackmail? You'll need to supply some evidence to back that one up.
See the emails. That part is well documented.
As
> for keeping contrary opinions out of journals: *opinions* have no place
> there.
You know what I mean. Other contrary papers were excluded from
the process. again the emails back up the complaints of those
who's papers were excluded.
Any *conclusions* presented have to be based on demonstrable
> facts and principles. If a conclusion is scientifically unjustifiable,
> it shouldn't be in the scientific literature. A proper peer review
> process aims to minimise that.
But we have solid evidence that there was no "proper" peer
reviews in many cases.
>
>> Refused to supply information requested for checking, even where
>> this contravened the policies of the journals that printed their
>> shoddy stuff.
>
> You have this utterly backwards. Go and check the editorial policies of
> Nature, Science and other journals for yourself, rather than believing
> what you read on the blogs of those with axes to grind. When the data
> doesn't belong to someone it's requested from, the correct response is
> to refer the enquiry to the original data owner.
Who promptly refused to supply it until forced by editorial
policy or Official Information requests. Again, this is backed up
by the emails.
This is exactly what
> was done in the cases McIntyre and others bleat about.
>
>> Illegally deleted material when under threat of the Official
>> Information Act.
>>
>> Colluded to attack science that didn't fit their world view.
>
> Science? If the 'science' was any good, it would have been published
> somewhere other than on a blog. In fact, people like McIntyre are being
> *encouraged* to submit their 'alternative' analyses of temperature and
> proxy data to scientific journals so their shortcomings can be fully
> exposed. However, they don't seem to want to do that.
Again, the emails give the lie to that with a number of instances
showing collusion to punish editors who published science
contrary to the "consensus".
>
>> These weren't scientists but the sort of con men who run
>> financial companies that fail under a welter of bullshit,
>> misrepresentation and criminal fraud.
>
> This sort of gullibility from you surprises me. It's disappointing you
> find it easier just to believe whatever suits you than to check your
> facts.
The facts are coming out nicely now.
JC
>
> Geoff
>
Kerry
Scientists look for evidence. Evidence changes, hypotheses are proven
and disproven. More is learned.
That is the scientific life. That is life.
I live
WorkHard
> On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>> Kerry wrote:
>>>> What's your science 'training' Geoff?
>>
>>> Lots :-)
>>
>>> and lots...
>>
>> I suppose he changes his mind and does an about face just as
>> you
>> do? E.g, from one who vehemently criticised low-carb diets and
>> those who supported them, to supporting low-carb diets now -
>> while still abusing those who supported them in the first
>> place?
>>
>> Claim one reality then a while later claim the opposite as
>> another 'new' reality?
>>
>> Is that all you 'trained' experts behave?
>>
>> My, you are so full of contradictions.
>
> Scientists look for evidence. Evidence changes,
The 'evidence' was produced by Atkins himself. The 'evidence' is
exactly the same as it always was.
You decried it. Now you praise it.
It's NOT the evidence that has changed, it's YOU!
The truth of something will always be the truth of something. It
cannot suddenly turn into a lie.
But you, Kerry, are full of lies.
> hypotheses are proven
> and disproven. More is learned.
There was no hypothesis. There was 'evidence' which came from
Atkins own studies and tests. The evidence has always been the
same.
I wonder how many of your obese patients got a bum steer and
suffered for it because of your 'false' diet advice? Plenty, I'll
bet.
> That is the scientific life.
Yeah right. I'm just waithing for science to say death doesn't
exist, or 1 does not equal 1, and that you are not an idiot.
> That is life.
Bullshit.
> I live
And lie, and contradict yourself and change your mind on what
reality is from one day to the next.
Kerry
> Kerry wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
> >> Kerry wrote:
> >>>> What's your science 'training' Geoff?
>
> >>> Lots :-)
>
> >>> and lots...
>
> >> I suppose he changes his mind and does an about face just as
> >> you
> >> do? E.g, from one who vehemently criticised low-carb diets and
> >> those who supported them, to supporting low-carb diets now -
> >> while still abusing those who supported them in the first
> >> place?
>
> >> Claim one reality then a while later claim the opposite as
> >> another 'new' reality?
>
> >> Is that all you 'trained' experts behave?
>
> >> My, you are so full of contradictions.
>
> > Scientists look for evidence. Evidence changes,
>
> The 'evidence' was produced by Atkins himself. The 'evidence' is
> exactly the same as it always was.
Incorrect
WorkHard
Bullshit, Kerry.
Yesterday lo-carb diets were evil to you, today they are the
opposite.
The facts have not changed, but YOU have!
So how many of your previous patients got the wrong advice from
you and how did they suffer?
Geoff Rait
wrote:
>Geoff Rait wrote:
>>John Cawston wrote:
>> If you're referring to the much-quoted Jones 1999 email containing the
>> passage: �I�ve just completed Mike�s Nature trick of adding in the real
>> temps to each series for the last 20 years [i.e. from 1981 onwards] and
>> from 1961 for Keith�s to hide the decline", you need to read it a bit
>> more closely and think about it a bit more carefully.
>>
>> The temperatures that were 'added in' were measured (instrumental) ones
>> - note the word 'real' - and what they replaced was *tree-ring* data
>> after 1981 and 1961 from Mann and Briffa analyses, respectively. The
>> tree-ring 'decline' problem is where the wood-derived temperatures in
>> *some* of the tree-ring records fail to keep up with the instrumental
>> record in the most recent years, a phenomenon which has been discussed
>> in the literature for over a decade now. What was done was not to 'hide
>> a decline in global temperatures', it was the opposite: using real
>> temperatures instead of proxies in an interval where the proxies were
>> known to be incorrect. This has been discussed enough in the blogosphere
>> that I'm surprised even your jaded eye didn't catch it.
>
>Mann's model was designed to show AGW ticking up to create the
>Hockey Stick. It didn't, ie from 1960 the data trended down, thus
>showing that the model he used couldn't predict current AGW. To
>compensate he added in real temperatures to show an uptick that
>validated the model.
No. Read the email (and the paper) again. Mann's data were fine until
1981. Before that, the tree-rings (and other proxies) were included as
is, and they match late 19th century to 1980 temperature rise very well.
You can observe both of these facts if you look at his graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
The 1961 reference is to the Briffa reconstruction, not the Mann one. In
that reconstruction, maximum latewood ring density (Briffa's 'MXD') does
not keep up with the post-1960 instrumental temperatures, but before
that it tracks them very closely. This has been no secret since its
discovery: in their 1998 paper, Briffa and others explicity recommended
not using the young MXD data
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
and subsequent paleoclimate reconstructions didn't use it, eg:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=
10.1175%2FJCLI3351.1
>Briffa made another hockey stick with the Yamal tree rings, but
>only by reducing the number of trees in the study to just 12..
>thats hopeless, especially when there were hundreds of other
>trees in the vicinity that he could have used.. but which don't
>support current warming.
Again, you have this backwards: The Yamal dataset Briffa got from the
Russians contained 17 living trees (200-400 years old) from three
different locations against which wood from the young ends of over 200
fossil trees was calibrated. McIntyre *replaced* 12 of the 17 series
from the living trees with some of 34 that he found from a *single*
location elsewhere in the region. He and others then found the
single-location data didn't show a late 20th century warming - which,
given they were from a single location and included very young wood
which Briffa himself cautioned against using over a decade ago,
shouldn't really have surprised them.
The effect on northern hemisphere paleoclimate reconstructions if the
Yamal trees are not used at all is illustrated by the data shown at the
bottom of this page:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
>>> Created a closed shop where each supplied the peer review to the
>>> other.
>>
>> It's easy to look up the publication lists of the people involved in the
>> emails and find their articles. Most reviewers choose not to remain
>> anonymous and thanks is usually given them in an 'acknowledgements'
>> section. If you looked through these, you'd find quite a range of names.
>> Choice of peer reviewers is up to journal editors, not to authors or
>> their mates.
>
>But as we know, Mann and co had undue influence in choosing peer
>reviewers.
You know? Provide passages from the emails as evidence.
>>> Blackmailed editors who printed skeptical opinions. Kept contrary
>>> opinions out of journals.
>>
>> Blackmail? You'll need to supply some evidence to back that one up.
>
>See the emails. That part is well documented.
Again, please provide passages from the emails that we can discuss.
>> As
>> for keeping contrary opinions out of journals: *opinions* have no place
>> there.
>
>You know what I mean. Other contrary papers were excluded from
>the process. again the emails back up the complaints of those
>who's papers were excluded.
>
>> Any *conclusions* presented have to be based on demonstrable
>> facts and principles. If a conclusion is scientifically unjustifiable,
>> it shouldn't be in the scientific literature. A proper peer review
>> process aims to minimise that.
>
>But we have solid evidence that there was no "proper" peer
>reviews in many cases.
Sorry to harp, but again you'll have to provide the passages to back up
the supposed shortcomings in the peer review process. Unjustifiable
conclusions *should* be excluded; and what were the specific instances
of 'improper' peer review?
>>> Refused to supply information requested for checking, even where
>>> this contravened the policies of the journals that printed their
>>> shoddy stuff.
>>
>> You have this utterly backwards. Go and check the editorial policies of
>> Nature, Science and other journals for yourself, rather than believing
>> what you read on the blogs of those with axes to grind. When the data
>> doesn't belong to someone it's requested from, the correct response is
>> to refer the enquiry to the original data owner.
>
>Who promptly refused to supply it until forced by editorial
>policy or Official Information requests. Again, this is backed up
>by the emails.
Briffa was correct to refuse to supply the Yamal data because it wasn't
his, and that was and still is Nature's editorial policy. As for the
CRUTemp stuff, much of that also was not Jones's to give away - he
mentioned NZ explicitly; as you know, the Met Service is a for-profit
organisation and they'd very likely take a dim view of their data being
given to third parties without their explicit consent.
> This is exactly what
>> was done in the cases McIntyre and others bleat about.
>>
>>> Illegally deleted material when under threat of the Official
>>> Information Act.
>>>
>>> Colluded to attack science that didn't fit their world view.
>>
>> Science? If the 'science' was any good, it would have been published
>> somewhere other than on a blog. In fact, people like McIntyre are being
>> *encouraged* to submit their 'alternative' analyses of temperature and
>> proxy data to scientific journals so their shortcomings can be fully
>> exposed. However, they don't seem to want to do that.
>
>Again, the emails give the lie to that with a number of instances
>showing collusion to punish editors who published science
>contrary to the "consensus".
Specifics again, please. If you're referring to the Climate Research
episode, the 5 authors who resigned did so at the instigation of one of
their number (von Storch) after a single, sceptic editor overrode their
objections to publish a paper (Soon & Baliunas 2003) the shortcoming of
which wasn't that it was "contrary to the consensus", it was that its
conclusions were scientifically unjustifiable.
>>> These weren't scientists but the sort of con men who run
>>> financial companies that fail under a welter of bullshit,
>>> misrepresentation and criminal fraud.
>>
>> This sort of gullibility from you surprises me. It's disappointing you
>> find it easier just to believe whatever suits you than to check your
>> facts.
>
>The facts are coming out nicely now.
Where? The 'facts' I've seen so far I'd characterise using your own
words: bullshit and misrepresentation (hacking the CRU server was, of
course, criminal). Your assertions above that aren't demonstrably
incorrect are as yet unsupported. Please provide some specific support
for those latter.