THREE THINGS YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST KNOW ABOUT CLIMATEGATE
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate
This could prove to be climate science's Vietnam.
By Iain Murray
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
They're calling it "Climategate." The scandal that the suffix -gate
implies is the state of climate science over the past decade or so
revealed by a thousand or so emails, documents, and computer code
sets between various prominent scientists released following a leak
from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia
in the UK.
This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to
justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the
world's wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing
out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science,
and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.
Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate
Papers. Links are provided so that the full context of every quote
can be seen by anyone interested.
First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their
preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are
paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who
were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show
a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in
recent decades.
In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist
Michael "Mike" Mann that he has just "completed Mike's Nature trick
of adding in the real temps . . . to hide the decline" (0942777075)
[1]. This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years
revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with
the observed temperature record. The inconvenient data was therefore
hidden under a completely different set of data. Some "trick."
Mann later (2003) announced that "it would be nice to try to
'contain' the putative 'MWP,' even if we don't yet have a hemispheric
mean reconstruction available that far back" (1054736277) [2]. The
MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been
higher than today. Mann's desire to "contain" this phenomenon even in
the absence of any data suggesting that this is possible is a clear
indication of a desire to manipulate the science. There are other
examples of putting political/presentational considerations before
the science throughout the collection.
Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of
subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that
skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of
the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder,
Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was
responsible for "the publication of crap science 'in order to
stimulate debate'" and that they "must get rid of von Storch"
(1051190249) [3] as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he
indeed subsequently resigned).
In 2005, Michael Mann said that there was a "fundamental problem w/
GRL now," referring to the journal Geophysical Research Letters
published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), because "they have
published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past
year or so" and "it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now
where possible." Tom Wigley responded that "we could go through
official AGU channels to get him [the editor of GRL] ousted"
(1106322460) [4]. A few months later, the editor of GRL having left
his post, Mann comments, "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now
w/ new editorial leadership there" (1132094873) [5].
Having seemingly succeeded with Climate Research and Geophysical
Research Letters, the most recent target of the scientists' ire has
been Weather, a journal of the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS).
Phil Jones commented in March 2009, "I'm having a dispute with the
new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief
Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more
papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS"
(1237496573) [6].
This issue is all the more important because the scientists involved
in these discussions have repeatedly accused their critics of being
irrelevant because they fail to publish in the peer reviewed
literature. For example, in October this year, Mr. Mann told Andy
Revkin of the New York Times:
[L]egitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal
scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. Those such
as [Stephen] McIntyre [the target of much of the criticism in the CRU
Papers] who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to
be trusted.
If you are saying on the one hand that you will not take notice of
someone until they have been published while on the other you are
working behind the scenes to stop any such publication, I would
venture to suggest that you are not operating with any degree of bona
fides either towards the media or the legitimate scientific process.
Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of
Information process of the United Kingdom. Nowhere is this better
evidenced than in the email [7] reproduced in full below (minus Dr.
Jones' contact details):
[ From: Phil Jones <p.j...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[ To: "Michael E. Mann" <ma...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[ 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
The context in the subject header is clearly the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOI), while AR4 refers to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is most
important to know here is that, according to the Taxpayers' Alliance
[8] in the UK, "at least one FOI request on exactly this
correspondence had apparently been submitted [9] by a David Holland
on May 5th 2008."
The Freedom of Information Act, however, explicitly forbids deletion
of any material subject to a FOI request. The penalty for such a
criminal act is a fine of up to (UKP) 5,000. Presumably being found
guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about
significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university. A
complaint has been made to the British information commissioner.
This is, however, just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to
attitudes toward FOI. Numerous other references are made about ways
to avoid divulging information (the following summaries are by the
blogger Bishop Hill [10):
Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in
UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is
covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding
behind them."(1106338806) [11]
Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating
themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information
Commissioner [!](1219239172) [12]
Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if
McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it
over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford
screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says
Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. (1107454306)
[13]
There appears to be a prima facie case that there was a conspiracy to
prevent the release of information subject to FOI.
There are many other disturbing revelations in the CRU Papers,
including a particularly disturbing assessment [14] by a computer
programmer of the state of CRU data. These have yet to be fully
analyzed.
So what does this all mean? It does not mean that there is no warming
trend or that mankind has not been responsible for at least some of
the warming. To claim that as result of these documents is clearly a
step too far. However, it is clear that at least one branch of
climate science -- paleoclimatology -- has become hopelessly
politicized to the point of engaging in unethical and possibly
illegal behavior.
To the extent that paleoclimatology is an important part of the
scientific case for action regarding global warming, urgent
reassessments need to be made. In the meantime, all those responsible
for political action on global warming should stop the process
pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal
proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if
nothing has happened.
This could prove to be climate science's Vietnam.
- - -
Iain Murray is Vice-President for Strategy at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, and author of "The Really
Inconvenient Truths: Seven environmental catastrophes liberals don't
want you to know about -- because they helped cause them," from
Regnery.
[1] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt
[2] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt
[3] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt
[4] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt
[5] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=591&filename=1132094873.txt
[6] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=967&filename=1237496573.txt
[7] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt
[9] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3193
[10] http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
[11] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=485&filename=1106338806.txt
[12] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt
[13] http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt
[14] http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
End of forwarded article from:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
Tom Sr.
Maharaj) wrote:
> Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate
> This could prove to be climate science's Vietnam.
-----
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
-----
Above is the link to 169 megabytes of all the emails and files,
Maharaj, that were hacked by some of the far-right-wing. You can
download a 26-megabyte FOI2009.zip from there, then unpack it. You’ll
have to set up a free account before you can download the file.
So once all of theultraconservative, anti-science, reactionary k00ks
here are done reading that material, please get back to us rational
people with exact quotes, in context, with reference locations that
prove your *claims* that climate change is a fraud.
We'll be waiting, Maharaj!
-Tom Sr.
Marvin the Martian
> On Nov 24, 7:34 pm, use...@manta.com and/or www.manta.com/jai (Dr. Jai
> Maharaj) wrote:
>> Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate This could
>> prove to be climate science's Vietnam.
>
> -----
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94 -----
>
> Above is the link to 169 megabytes of all the emails and files, Maharaj,
> that were hacked by some of the far-right-wing.
You know that for a fact? How would you know that since they're still
investigating? Just lying and slandering? Is that part of the left wing
"scientific method"?
> You can download a
> 26-megabyte FOI2009.zip from there, then unpack it. You’ll have to set
> up a free account before you can download the file.
No free account needed here.
> So once all of theultraconservative, anti-science, reactionary k00ks
> here are done reading that material, please get back to us rational
> people with exact quotes, in context, with reference locations that
> prove your *claims* that climate change is a fraud.
>
> We'll be waiting, Maharaj!
> -Tom Sr.
Maybe you can lie and slander your way out of this!! It's the vast "right
wing conspiracy"! It does explain, however, why the "University" of East
Anglia is worried about freedom of information laws, and why some of the
"professors" asked that everything get deleted if a freedom of
information act was forcing them to hand over their "data".
LOL!! The lying bastards were caught!!
As your buddy said, if you're going to lie, tell BIG lies.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html?mod=rss_Today%
27s_Most_Popular
Cwatters
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:re-dnXwM8sJYEpHW...@giganews.com...
>
> Maybe you can lie and slander your way out of this!! It's the vast "right
> wing conspiracy"! It does explain, however, why the "University" of East
> Anglia is worried about freedom of information laws, and why some of the
> "professors" asked that everything get deleted if a freedom of
> information act was forcing them to hand over their "data".
It's because they are worried that climate change sceptics will cherry pic
the data.
Scientists are meant to present the data in an un biased form. You can argue
that they don't do that if you like but "faking it" tends to be career
ending. On the other hand climate sceptics can cherry pic data and make up
any story thay like and publish it free on the internet with little or no
consequences.
If climate change sceptics want data they should collect it themselves.
There are enough of them out there that a fund could be set up to pay for
it.
Androcles
"Cwatters" <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:pMSdndFvVvEfnpDW...@brightview.co.uk...
a glass roof. Therefore AGW morons are cherry-picking data that
doesn't exist based on a stupid assumption.
Some simple facts about climate.
Negative feedback:
1) Sun heats ocean.
2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds.
3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation.
If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud
obscures the sun.
4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms,
less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant.
If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm.
Positive feedback:
5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields.
6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption.
Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects
sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim
in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean.
7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls,
more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder
it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer
it will get.
Changing the balance:
8) Earth's orbit is elliptical.
9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law.
10) Earth is tilted.
11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion.
12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at
aphelion (Southern summer). Result, positive feedback
predominates, Ice Age.
13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight
at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot
has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic
Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had
when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat
than ice. Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback,
global warming.
14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above.
Overall result - a small change in temperature as a function of
precession.
15) CO2 levels rise as a consequence of a warmer planet, not
as the cause. Far more strange gases are vented to atmosphere by
volcanoes than by man.
It's been that way for at least 3 billion years; homo neanderthalensis
is alive and well and arrogant enough to say he causes it. He is,
of course, an idiot who thinks he can "combat" the quite natural
temperature cycle of a couple of degrees. Nature doesn't care if he
builds cities along the coast or birds build nests in trees, the rule is
ADAPT OR DIE.
So when your coastal cities are flooded as they will be and you have
no control over that, move inland or go and live in Greenland. You
can fight for control of land, homo neanderthalensis is a territorial
animal and the fittest survive. Nuke the opposition and pass your own
genes on.
Tom Sr.
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote...
> > Maybe you can lie and slander your way out of this!! It's the vast "right
> > wing conspiracy"! It does explain, however, why the "University" of East
> > Anglia is worried about freedom of information laws, and why some of the
> > "professors" asked that everything get deleted if a freedom of
> > information act was forcing them to hand over their "data".
> It's because they are worried that climate change sceptics will cherry pic
> the data.
> Scientists are meant to present the data in an un biased form. You can argue
> that they don't do that if you like but "faking it" tends to be career
> ending. On the other hand climate sceptics can cherry pic data and make up
> any story thay like and publish it free on the internet with little or no
> consequences.
> If climate change sceptics want data they should collect it themselves.
> There are enough of them out there that a fund could be set up to pay for
> it.
This is the main quote from one of these emails that the climate-
change deniers are using to scream "CLIMATEGATE":
**********
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=219789
Quote:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
-----
How many of those who are yelling "fraud" and "scam" even KNOW
what "Mike's Nature trick" means in scientific terms?
-----
What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this
evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick"
refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate
forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature
by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting
recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This
places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature
changes over longer time scales.
The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree
ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records
after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998,
suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature
in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in
Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence
problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the
science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but
technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the
peer-reviewed literature.
Finally, just in case there are still people in this world who
actually read the links people share, even more information is
available here:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves-again/
**********
So the "tirck" refered to in the email is *NOT* a trick at all, but
rather a decade-long established, science-based adjustment for the
fact that tree-rings [i.e. Mike's Nature] started in the 1960s to no
longer reflecting the more accurate temperature readings made by
modern intrutestments than were available in the past.
Like, duh.
-Tom Sr.
tadchem
> On Nov 24, 7:34 pm, use...@manta.com and/orwww.manta.com/jai(Dr. Jai
>
> Maharaj) wrote:
> > Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate
> > This could prove to be climate science's Vietnam.
>
tadchem
>
> Maharaj) wrote:
> > Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate
> > This could prove to be climate science's Vietnam.
>
> -----
>
> Above is the link to 169 megabytes of all the emails and files,
> Maharaj, that were hacked by some of the far-right-wing. You can
> download a 26-megabyte FOI2009.zip from there, then unpack it. You’ll
> have to set up a free account before you can download the file.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident:
"The breach was first discovered after someone hacked the server of
the RealClimate website on 17 November and uploaded a copy of the
stolen files.[11] According to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, "At
around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from
an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled
access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our
server."[18] A link to the file on the RealClimate server was posted
from a Russian IP address to the Climate Audit blog at 7.24 am (EST)
with the comment "A miracle just happened".[19] The hack was
discovered by RealClimate and the University of East Anglia was
notified, but on 19 November the files were uploaded to a Russian
server before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet.
[17] An anonymous statement accompanying the e-mails stated: "We feel
that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We
hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and
documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and
the people behind it."[9] The stolen material was first publicised on
19 November on The Air Vent, a climate-sceptic blog.[11]"
I personally saw the entry on The Air Vent Friday morning.
CRU has not denied the veracity of the contents of the documents or
emails.
Their reaction seems to be outrage at unauthorized access to their
server, and denial that the contents mean what they asppear to mean.
The original file name, "FOIA.zip" suggests that this data was
compiled at CRU either to satisfy a FOIA request (which seems
unlikely, given Phil Jones' statement "PS I’m getting hassled by a
couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t
any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information
Act !"
Some quotations (in context, with attributions):
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:re-dnXwM8sJYEpHW...@giganews.com...
> >
>> Maybe you can lie and slander your way out of this!! It's the vast
>> "right wing conspiracy"! It does explain, however, why the "University"
>> of East Anglia is worried about freedom of information laws, and why
>> some of the "professors" asked that everything get deleted if a freedom
>> of information act was forcing them to hand over their "data".
>
> It's because they are worried that climate change sceptics will cherry
> pic the data.
Bullshit and lies. The last time Jones let his data out, he was shown to
have used urbanized heat centers as data points that any competent
scientist would have thrown out. Jones is on record as saying he's not
going to release any data because other people will see what he's done
and debunk it.
Jones' urban data points gave a much higher warming than upper atmosphere
data showed. Thus, people began to investigate. Basically, Jones LIED and
claimed he was just an idiot. People believed Jones' excuse. Now we know
it was intentional.
Keep trying to lie and slander your way out of this one. Your heroes have
been exposed as frauds.
Benj
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> To the extent that paleoclimatology is an important part of the
> scientific case for action regarding global warming, urgent
> reassessments need to be made. In the meantime, all those responsible
> for political action on global warming should stop the process
> pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal
> proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if
> nothing has happened.
>
> This could prove to be climate science's Vietnam.
Highly doubtful. The AGW crowd have all the tax dollars they need,
they have the leadership of most relevant organizations and
publications in their pocket (if those guys wish to keep their cushy
jobs) and they have the media to all bleat like sheep on command.
Being caught red handed faking science isn't enough to change
anything. A major whitewash will follow and media will breathlessly
announce all future reports as if any hint of fraud never happened.
You want proof? Anyone here remember the famed Condon report on UFOs
where a memo likewise showed a serious effort to fudge data and
conclusions? Even a "second opinion" book by part of the committee
wasn't enough to tarnish the final conclusions presented as if nothing
had been revealed. Expect the same thing here.
Surfer
<tad...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>CRU has not denied the veracity of the contents of the documents or
>emails.
>
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html#cnnSTCText
"....Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently
confirm what proportion of this material is genuine......"