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 centers 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 Mikes 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 Keiths 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?
Theres 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:
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 arent any credible data that can be shared and then improved by feedback. Just look at the harry_readme.txt file it chronicles some poor guys attempts to do just that improve the data, flying by the seats of his pants. At some point, he declares it impossible:
You cant 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 dont 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 Hills 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 - “Ill 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.
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.