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.
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.