Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/20/2009 10:37:43 AM PST by Red Badger
This is what we know:
*
The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit is the world's preeminent climate research center. It's data played a key role in IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. *
The BBC (and several other news organizations) confirmed that hackers broke into the Hadley CRU and downloaded emails and data files. *
The data has been published on the web. *
Several bloggers have confirmed that emails sent by the to Cru are contained in the files and are accurate. *
The emails, if true, reveal that world's foremost climate researchers, many who are IPCC authors, have engaged in a pattern of manipulation of data, suppression of dissenting views, undermining of the peer review process, and outright fraud.
Since the data was compromised, it is impossible to know if it has not been tampered with. So at this early hour it is best to take it all with a grain of salt.
However, if these emails prove authentic (which it appears many do), this is a scandal on the scale of The Pentagon Papers.
Here are several of the published emails:
From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):
Dear Phil and Gabi,
“I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”
From Nick McKay (modifying data):
“The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?”
From Dr. Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):
“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.”
From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):
“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 (destroying of emails / evidence):
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.
From Tom Wigley (data modification):
Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, hen this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.
From Thomas R Karl (witholding data) :
We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.
From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
From Phil Jones (forging of dates):
Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.
From a document titled "jones-foiathoughts.doc" (witholding of data):
Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
Where ever you stand on the climate debate, I hope we can agree that this is a wake-up call. The climate issue is too important to tolerate the lack of transparency that characterizes the current way of doing business.
bump
Hey Newt! I bet you wish you knew about this before you sat on that couch with Pelosi.
I wish I could believe it would have made a difference.
This seems to reduce the Global Warming zealots’ data to a pile of bits . . . . if you know what I mean.
” This seems to reduce the Global Warming zealots’ data to a pile of .... “
Waiting for FoxNews, closely followed by the rest of the MSM, to trumpet this with half-screen banner headlines, and recant their pro-GW positions/slants...
[crickets].....
Hey, if they used any federal funds at all (in US), FOI comes into play.
Some of these "scientists" could/should lose their credentials, including their Ph.D., if their alma maters are worth their salt.
Anything and everything that ever came out of that place is now worthless, and demonstrably so...........
So Thomas R. Karl is director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_R._Karl
This coverup reads like a who’s who of AGW proponents.
This just keeps getting better.
I hope to see the USS Global Warming sink in frigid artic waters in the near future.
produced such ambitious lazy people. Ambition and laziness are a lethal combination. Beware.
Very nice, to me this is a perfect psychological characterization of Leftism:
There is one mass segment of the Left which does not even have the ambition component, rather just laziness, and hence just desirous of authoritarian largesse, no thinking, no initiative, no production, just being taken care of. The AARP is an example.
And there is the more ambitious segment, still lazy, but wanting to control others to be self important, appropriately characterized as juvenile. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are perfect examples of this, as are Media lowlife who produce nothing, but need the recognition. Teenagers show this manifestation regularly. And the ambitious lazy segment mixes very well with the simply lazy segment, together known as Leftism.
All of this in total contrast to industrious, honest, humble people who accept responsibility for their own destiny, and expect the same from others.
Such is the great schism in the United States of America.
Johnny Suntrade
Including the the IPCC report.
bookmark
Btt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.