When the CRU emails first made it into news stories, there was immediate reaction from the head of CRU, Dr. Phil Jones over this passage in an email:Posted on 11/22/2009 10:49:04 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
When the CRU emails first made it into news stories, there was immediate reaction from the head of CRU, Dr. Phil Jones over this passage in an email:
From a yahoo.com news story:
In one leaked e-mail, the research center’s director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.
Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had “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,” according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.
Dr. Jones responded.
However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward,” he said in a statement Saturday.
Ok fine, but how Dr. Jones, do you explain this?
There’s a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents from CRU. A commenter named Neal on climate audit writes:
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:
fyi
if (SupportsTheory(datapoint)) {AddToDataSet(datapoint)} else {};
The “sly-entists” at CRU found that proxy temperatures took a downward trend after 1960. Other data was grafted onto the proxy data that gave the hockey-stick (trend upward) shape. This was deliberate and quite unethical. This article describes remarks within the computer code that indicate that this is indeed what was done:
= = =
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
A Levi Johnston, aka “Ricky Hollywood” (what a douche!) story will trump the GWCC scam story.
The left will probably say “Even though GW isn’t real, we should take this as a warning as to what could happen.”
Watch. This is exactly what they will say.
In SOAP-D15-intro-gkss.doc, it states:
“Osborn and Briffa, together with other co-authors (Rutherford et al., 2005), examined the sensitivity of temperature reconstructions to the use of different target variable (annual or seasonal temperature), target domain (hemispheric or extratropical) and reconstruction method. They found that when the differences in target variable and domain are accounted for, the differences in several reconstructions are small and that all reconstructions robustly indicate anomalous warm conditions in the 20th century, with respect to the past millennium.”
Since they are subbing real temp data after 1960, isn’t this fraud?
I mean, I think this is a pretty bald face lie to me.
The MSM won’t even report this. Mark my words.
bump for later
The devastating book which debunks climate change
By Christopher Booker Last updated at 12:47 AM on 23rd November 2009
*********************************EXCERPT***************************
Just imagine if we learned we were about to be landed with the biggest bill in the history of the world - simply on the say-so of a group of scientists. Would we not want to be absolutely sure that those scientists were 100 per cent dependable in what they were saying?
Should we not then be extremely worried - and even very angry - if it emerged that those scientists had been conspiring among themselves to fiddle the evidence for what they were telling us?
This is the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves thanks to news reported in Saturday's Daily Mail which has raised huge question marks over the reliability of the science behind the theory of global warming.
Hundreds of emails leaked from the internal computer system of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia show how a small group of highly influential senior British and U.S. scientists have for years been secretly discussing ways in which their evidence could be manipulated to make the threat posed by global warming sound much worse than it is.
To place the significance of these revelations into context, let us recall how exactly a year ago, Parliament passed, virtually unopposed, what was far and away the most expensive new law ever put before it. On the Government's own figures, the Climate Change Act is going to cost Britain £18 billion a year - that's £720 for every household in the country - every year from now until 2050.
That thread is posted on FreeRepublic, just search for the name.
It’s here, everything is on FreeRepublic!
I am running out of steam here...need to look at those graphs tomorrow,...1960 might be about where those temps started to go skyward....
It is, when you include 1960 forward, the tree rings diverge from the temperature record.
In otherwords, the proxy didn’t work, it was invalid and they didn’t know why.
Well, if it was wrong 1960 forward, how do they know it wasn’t wrong before 1960.
It seems like a sick assumption on their part.
OK
Leaving a link to it:
The devastating book which debunks climate change
Thanks for posted it.
Right....Comments can suggest,...but one has to really study the code.
I keep seeing that in all the emails.
The models are right and the observations are wrong.
What a kooky idea, the only people fooled was themselves.
Many real-temp data after 1960 are crap anyway, due to the urban heat-island effect. Temperature stations in non-rural areas tend to be near asphalt parking lots, A/C exhausts, and other sources of heat that can only skew the temps upwards. The measurement errors are often greater than the alleged "human-caused temperature increases".
See for example
http://www.surfacestations.org/
No, what I am saying is he said the CRU data matched the observations in the 20th century.
Welllllll, from 1960 on, it didn’t because he compared temperature readings to temperature readings. Of course it would match.
When he made his statement in the report, he just said the CRU data agreed but never told anyone that from 1960 on that he was using the temperature data.
I think that makes it a lie.
ping
Post hoc ergo propter post ergo propter post...
We see the wolrd buying into the old fallacy that garbage is somehow ennobled by passing it through a computer. (I would say a million dollar machine rather than computer, but that is so last century.)
Stopping the proxy data and splicing in the instrumental record is an even bigger lie.
All proxy data needs to be calibrated to the present. We all knew why they were doing this crap...they were hiding the lack of warming.
You mean they were hiding the lack of warming in the proxy data which means their models are crap.
The instrumental record does show warming.
The whole deck of cards human induced warming is built on though (along with the predictions of coming doom) is that the proxy data predicts future warming that hasn’t happened.
I think this is the core of this lie.
Proxy data doesn’t match the observed temperatures and therefore models are crap and model predictions of global warming in the future are crap.
The models have always been crap. I feel sorry for all the real scientists that were systematically ostracized by these aholes.
One in particular comes to mind from reading all these emails...David Legates.
I hope Dr. Legates feels vindicated now.
there aren’t any credible data that can be shared and then “improved” by “feedback”. Just look at the harry_readme.txt file – it chronicles some poor guy’s attempts to do just that – “improve” the data, flying by the seats of his pants. At some point, he declares it impossible:
“You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).
…
So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – … In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em…"
—
This is malfeasance of epic proportions. Phil Jones knows it – his specific input into this work is mentioned in several places – and tries to hide it. Only choice if he wants to keep his job.Now he may experience some “unprecedented warming in both hemispheres” (© commenter Phil on Bishop Hill’s blog).
When the hack was announced and it was said that the dump included thousands of emails, I was pretty sure that it was genuine because ponying up that volume of stuff to have any level of internal consistency and yet be believable would have been essentially impossible.But to suppose that someone could also pony up working code that would reproduce previously published data without looking like it was designed merely for that purpose truly beggars imagination. So we know that the dump is, at least predominantly, real info. One does have to admit the possibility of some strategic additions. But still . . .
Things like the comment in the code which this article quotes, being in the calling routine and the called subroutine, and being a just-slightly-different version of a quote in a damaging email, are gonna be really hard to explain away. IMHO.
YouTube: Climate Change Bombshell: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails
I thought it would take longer to uncover.
Anthony Watts - “I’ll give Dr. Jones and CRU the benefit of the doubt, maybe these are not “untowards” issues, but these things scream for rational explanations.”
Is he backing off a bit realizing what fools skeptics will look like if there is nothing to this climategate stuff?
"Global Warming" SCAM - Hack/Leak FLASH in forum [Ticker]
******************************EXCERPT*************************************
There's a very disturbing "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file in documents that APPEARS to be somebody trying to fit existing results to data and much of it is about the code that's here. I think there's something very very wrong here...
This file is 15,000 lines of comments, much of it copy/pastes of code or output by somebody (who's harry?) trying to make sense of it all....
Mr. Ian (Harry) Harris, employed at CRU since 1996. Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming.
For a photo, see this link. For more info, read the posts by Asimov on that page and subsequent pages.
Perhaps their middle Initial is different...
and some more:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-comment-on-cei/
(Oct. 09)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/busted-2/
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/emails-that-damn-cru-head-jones
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html
(from a conservative physicist and w/ good points, I’d say)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html
(not a true skeptic’s site)
http://www.climate-resistance.org/tag/phil-jones
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/11/21/crus-climate-tricksters-context-is-everything/
http://entry.swenglishrantings.com/?tag=phil-jones
(warning: black background)
http://enviroknow.com/tag/phil-jones/
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/294944.php
Found another Youtube:
Dr. Tim Ball on Alex Jones: The anatomy of a fraud, 'climate change' 1of6
Complete with heavy Music....
This is the British Phil Jones who heads the UEA CRU.
I am the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. I was born in Surrey in 1952 and completed a B.A. in Environmental Sciences at the University of Lancaster in 1973 and an M.Sc. (1974) and Ph.D. (1977) at the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. My Ph.D. was titled "A spatially distributed catchment model for flood forecasting and river regulation with particular reference to the River Tyne."
Regarding link at #38...interview was dated 06/30/09.
Dr. Tim Ball on Alex Jones: The anatomy of a fraud, 'climate change' 2of6
More on Maurice Strong....George Soros was mentioned on First Youtube
oh crap, sorry all
ClimateDepot.com: Substantial Fraud in Climate Change Hoax?
November 20, 2009
*******************************EXCERPT*********************************
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
 |
RUSH: By the way, folks, I want to give you a website to go to when you get a chance. It's called ClimateDepot.com. Something fascinating has happened, and I was first alerted to this today by our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer. "A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU." That is Britain's largest climate research institute. They're a huge proponent of global warming. The hacker "seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the 'evidence' on global warming; the unlawful destruction of records to cover up this fraud" to keep it away from Freedom of Information Act requests, for example. Deceit in the entire operation. And the best place to get all the detail is Marc Morano, our former "man in Washington" on my TV show, who runs ClimateDepot.com. All the details are there. It's a great place to keep up on the global warming debate. He's probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what's going on here. 
But apparently they got 62 megabytes of e-mails from this computer, and it looks bad. And it looks like... You know, you see something like this and you say, "Okay, we gotta make sure this is not a hoax." Dr. Spencer looked at this. He said, "This is too, too, too elaborate to be a hoax," in his estimation. I don't know if the jury's still out on that, but more and more people are picking up on this. I've instinctively known this from the get-go, from 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up, and the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it! When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus. It's never what they say it is. There's always a hidden reason behind the objective. The objective, stated objective, is just designed to get you feeling guilty, responsible, frightened, scared -- and your kids as well. But it looks like substantial fraud -- a lot of evidence of substantial fraud -- in reporting the "evidence" on global warming. Clarice Feldman at the AmericanThinker.com has posted on this, and she's got a sample of the purportedly hacked materials here. There are 1,079 e-mails and 72 documents, and they are available online. The hackers put 'em up. "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 temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from the 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline [in temperature]." To hide the decline in temperature! |
Thanks...
********************************EXCERPT INTRO*****************************
Posted on Mon 05 Oct 2009 02:59:23 AM PST by Scanian
For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large. But in the past week or so, it’s become more apparent than ever that those who’ve accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along.
This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous “Hockey Stick Graph.” The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium’s global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).
LOL!...Excellent!
Lying for big grants. Lying for the big bucks and destroying the credibility scientists have built up over the years... shameful.
Research Fellow David R. Legates
************************************EXCERPT*****************************
David R. Legates is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Associate Professor and Director of the Center for Climate Research at the University of Delaware, Associate Delaware State Climatologist, and Associate Director of the Delaware Space Grant Commission. Professor Legates received his Ph.D. in climatology from the University of Delaware, and he has taught at Louisiana State University, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Virginia. He has been Research Scientist at the Southern Regional Climate Center, Chief Research Scientist at the Center for Computational Geosciences, and Visiting Research Scientist at the National Climate Data Center. Professor Legates is the author (with W. Soon, S. Baliunas, C. Idso, and S. Idso) of the important new study, “Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal,” in the journal Energy and Environment (v. 14, pp. 233—296).
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.
