CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code ...... tells the real story

Watts Up With That? ^ | Nov 22 , 2009 | Anthony Watts Editor:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Youtube interview of Dr ball continues :

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

[hyperconservative]

oh crap, sorry all

[PapaBear3625]

Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline Now what could possibly have happened which would have shown warming from 1900 up to around 1960, but declines thereafter? I wonder?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Pulled this link out of one of your links...to Rush Limbaugh site:

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!
 

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks...

[devolve]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Been looking back thru threads and I find some good stuff on this one....from Oct 09 and starts with American Thinker article...Graph regarding the fraud on the Yamil trees :

UN Climate Reports: They Lie

********************************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).

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!...Excellent!

[GOPJ]

Lying for big grants. Lying for the big bucks and destroying the credibility scientists have built up over the years... shameful.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for that name...some info for others:

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).

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See link at #34.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Chasing more stuff...:

The CRU hack: Context
— gavin @ 23 November 2009

****************************************EXCERPT*******************************************

This is a continuation of the last thread which is getting a little unwieldy. The emails cover a 13 year period in which many things happened, and very few people are up to speed on some of the long-buried issues. So to save some time, I’ve pulled a few bits out of the comment thread that shed some light on some of the context which is missing in some of the discussion of various emails.

• Trenberth: You need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.
• Wigley: The concern with sea surface temperatures in the 1940s stems from the paper by Thompson et al (2007) which identified a spurious discontinuity in ocean temperatures. The impact of this has not yet been fully corrected for in the HadSST data set, but people still want to assess what impact it might have on any work that used the original data.
• Climate Research and peer-review: You should read about the issues from the editors (Claire Goodess, Hans von Storch) who resigned because of a breakdown of the peer review process at that journal, that came to light with the particularly egregious (and well-publicised) paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003). The publisher’s assessment is here.

I can update this if there is a demand. Please let me know in the comments, which, as always, should be substantive, non-insulting on on topic.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From comments at link see #52:

********************************************

17

Chris Byrne says:

23 November 2009 at 1:54 AM

Gavin,

Have you had a look through the coding comments in Harry_Read_Me.txt? There’s a lot of speculation in the blogosphere about this. I have to admit I had a chuckle.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html

[Response: That file is obviously just a notebook for someone piecing together work legacy code made by other people. Messy for sure, but certainly not the 'final version' of the code. It was probably produced in moving from the CRU TS 2.1 to 3.0 version (which is a completely separate data set from the standard HadCRUT numbers by the way) and involves a lot more interpolation. See here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg.htm (when their server comes back up), also Mitchell and Jones (2005). - gavin]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Further into the comments see Link at #52:

**************************************************************

34

Ms Hansen says:

23 November 2009 at 4:11 AM

I see a lot of contradiction right here (see below). I am by no means a sceptic, but I do question just how much of the climate change we are experiencing is natural vs AGW? More importantly, I’m keen to know more about CRUs refusal to provide info in a FOIA request. Science should always be open – the moment it gets conducted behind closed doors is the moment you open yourself up to scepticism!!

Your responses to the below interest me – one moment you know, and then another you’re not sure.

Jay says:
20 November 2009 at 1:54 PM
Again, I write to the moderator. What did I write that was so inflammatory that you would not post it? I have not attempted to stir anything up? I would like to know the truth. Thats all. The truth needs no moderation nor to be covered up. What is wrong with my saying that? Maybe you can post this and a response as I don’t see what could possibly be wrong with this post.

My only questions now is…

I hear a lot about the FOIA and data that was being withheld that is now lost or destroyed. Is there an explanation or a reference to that which would answer what I have been hearing on the other end?

[Response: No data has been lost or destroyed. - gavin]

John Masher says:
20 November 2009 at 2:12 PM
Can you explain the multiple references in the emails to evading FOIA responses, for example as in “delete all email [on certain topic] and I will do the same”?

[Response: No. But I am not party either to those FOIA requests, nor the timing and nor do I know what happened or what the scope was. - gavin]

[hyperconservative]

Good find.
And you keep up the good work!

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

The MSM won’t even report this. Mark my words.

---

Rush reported today that the NY Slimes, the old Gray Whore, took the principled stand of saying since the material was “not intended for the public eye” it won’t publish it in its pages.

Just like what they did in the Pentagon Papers - oh wait ....

[potlatch]

Good combos devolve. Mr. Greenie watching over his ‘endangered’ menagerie....!

[potlatch]

Thanks for the ping Ernest

 

[SauronOfMordor]

As Nixon found out, the conspiracy to destroy evidence is often far more damning that anything the evidence would have revealed.

[potlatch]

[the conspiracy to destroy evidence is often far more damning that anything the evidence would have revealed.]

No doubt about it. When people hide things, you always suspect there is even more to be suspicious of.