Posted on 11/20/2009 2:45:41 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
There should be prosecutions from what these Emails reveal....and some politician's heads should roll too.....let's start with Barbara Boxer.....
You searched for McIntyre
There were 109 results for the exact phrase McIntyre, see below for more results.
*********************************************
Now that is a ton of reading.
Lets start with Al Gore, go to Kerry, Boxer, 0b0z0, the weather channel Gorebullwarming liars, ABCNNBCBS pushers of this BS, and anyone else in the food chain from being green traitors to humanity.
Making this hacked data rsearchable so quickly shows what brilliant people we have on our side, the AGW skeptics
With the McIntyre search the most recent emails are at the bottom. About ten up from the bottom you will find this gem-—>>>
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1039&filename=1254756944.txt
Best part of this email is at the end
Keith Briffa is their major f-up and any email with him in the header is gold. Probably any email with him in the body too
i would like to know what software they are using....and more about the website.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann).
http://den-a.plr.liquidcompass.net/player/flash/audio_player.php?id=WWTCAM&uid=159
Talking about emails now on Patriot Radio.
Must be registered to see the full twitter....mostly info on campaigning.
Mentioned Powerline...will check there.
Now mentioning the email where American Stinker...and Keith has himself in a mess....
Talking about this email on the American Patriot link roses of sharon just mentioned.....
Thanks...just tuned it in
Keith Briffa (Yamal tree rings) is the most moronic of them all. He has a huge beard and looks like a hippie. He’s probably the kind of eco-wacko that wants society to be destroyed and us all go back to hunter-gatherer.
He got 800,000 UK pounds grants over ten years for his baloney research
NOW to Powerline:
The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
*********************************EXCERPT********************************
November 21, 2009 Posted by John at 8:18 AM
A fascinating, hot-off-the-presses story emerges from the emails that were hacked yesterday from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre. It is one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.
The story began when Steve McIntyre, the same researcher who was largely responsible for destroying Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph purporting to show unprecedented warming in the 20th century, turned his attention to a famous article published by Keith Briffa of East Anglia's CRU in 2000. This article analyzed the diameters of tree rings, including rings from an area called Yamal in Siberia, and conveniently generated another hockey-stick shaped graph. You can read an account of the ensuing controversy here. McIntyre's work appeared to show that Briffa had cherry-picked trees in order to get the result he was looking for. One fact that this story highlights is that global warming alarmists publish their results in scientific journals, but refuse to make the underlying data publicly available so that the validity of their analyses can be checked.
McIntyre's revelations caused a firestorm of controversy, in response to which the alarmist community circled its wagons to fend off the threat from an outsider. This process can be clearly seen in the East Anglia emails.
The alarmists' effort to respond to McIntyre was complicated by the fact that Briffa had been ill and undergone surgery, and was then recuperating. So several of them wrote to Briffa's co-author, Tim Osborn, for advice on how to respond to McIntyre's critique. Osborn replied on September 29, 2009:
Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month ....
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil....
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this....
So: these scientists don't really have any idea whether McIntyre's critique of Briffa's work is correct or not. Even Briffa's co-author professes ignorance. There is one person they could approach who could "shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal." But they don't do it. Why? Because "he can be rather a loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted...." In other words, his loyalty to the cause of climate alarmism may not be absolute. This is much like the case noted here where Michael Mann, one of the recipients of the above email, warns against sharing information with a scientist named Andy because he is "not as predictable as we'd like."
Despite having no idea what the facts are, the alarmists don't hesitate to formulate a position. Thus, on the next day, September 30, Osborn writes:
Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc. in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
That's good enough for Osborn's fellow alarmists. Michael Mann replies:
great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues, i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.
Note that the alarmists are willing to denounce McIntyre's work as "not legitimate science" even though, at this point, they still have no idea whether his analysis was right or wrong. That is not, however, what they tell the outside world. On September 29, Andrew Revkin, environmental reporter for the New York Times, wrote to Mann asking about McIntyre's critique:
needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct?
Mann, ignorant of the facts, responds by slandering McIntyre:
*************************************
You searched for Keiller.
There were 1 results for the exact phrase Keiller., see below for more results.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 20:04:00 : Filename: 1256760240.txt*********************************EXCERPTS*********************************
From: Phil Jones To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009
Keith,
There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this
person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.
You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now.
[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments
This is what happens - they just keep moving the goalposts.
Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.
Cheers
Phil
******************************snip****************************
Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:39:48 -0000
From: "Keiller, Donald"
Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered
from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy
surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology;
([5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm)
and the chronology itself;
([6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/)
Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am
more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre
([7]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588)
Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions
1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data
and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?
2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can
still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low
individual weighting?
And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my
initial email.
Dr. D.R. Keiller
Check the updates.
A roundup of some interesting links...please excuse if you already have them!
http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16387
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2009/11/20/warmal-gloating/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
***********************************EXCERPT*********************************
y Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 1:45 PM on 21st November 2009
One of the world’s leading climate change research centres has been accused of manipulating data on global warming after thousands of private emails and documents were leaked.
Hackers targeted the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and published the files, including some personal messages, on the internet.
Among the most damaging is one which appears to suggest using a ‘trick’ to massage years of temperature data to ‘hide the decline’.
he CRU, which plays a leading role in compiling UN reports and tracks long-term
changes in temperature, has repeatedly refused to provide detailed information about the data underlying the temperature records.
It is thought that this could have triggered the theft. Climate change sceptics claim that some of the leaked messages discuss ways of manipulating data that fails to comply
with the establishment view that climate change is real and is being driven by man.
The email suggesting ‘hiding the decline’ is purported to be from Phil Jones, the unit’s
director.
He denied trying to mislead, telling the TGIF digital newspaper he had no idea what he
meant by the phrase.
‘That was an email from ten years ago,’ he said. ‘Can you remember the exact context of an email you wrote ten years ago?’
Another message has been interpreted as an attempt to control the publication of
research carried out by sceptical scientists.
One way of doing this would be by loading the panel of researchers who review papers ahead of publication with experts who are ‘on-message’.
Talk of a figure being ‘shoehorned’ into a report from the UN’s International Panel of
Climate Change appears in another of the documents.
Although the data was stored on the university’s computer system, the email exchanges also involve experts from other institutions around the world.
A spokesman for the University of East Anglia said: ‘We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.
Global Warming SCAM: A Further Look
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1651-Global-Warming-SCAM-A-Further-Look.html
(Karl Denninger)
Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center
********************************EXCERPT****************************************
But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.
"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."
In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.
Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.
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.