Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/20/2009 2:45:41 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.
As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. It is here just as a curiosity!
You can either search using the keyword search box above, or use the links below to browse them 25 emails at a time.
(Excerpt) Read more at anelegantchaos.org ...
Supplied at post #208 on this thread:
Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released
This is BIGGER than Watergate.
It’s a global multi-trillion-dollar hoax perpetrated by governments upon billions of people. It’s HEGEMONY.
When Socialists “object” to the hacking, tell them:
“Maybe if hackers had exposed it early, the Watergate horror would never have happened!”
Then watch them stand there silent, like Communist stooges.
fyi
It's a Global Swindle...absolutely!
Fantastic.
Now I’ve got to get to work on this.
Thanks for posting this. I downloaded the torrent earlier....but this is much easier to read. :)
Beware this stuff, and download and save everything! What was done to get those emails out was likely illegal. Though the release does show that some of those scientists were deliberately fudging data and and covering up issues. Not to mention deleting materials subject to foia documents!!! Also illegal!!!
I am trying to follow a lot of stuff.
Alleged CRU Emails - 1252154659.txt
The below is one of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
From: Darrell Kaufman To: Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , David Schneider , Jonathan Overpeck , “Bette L. Otto-Bliesner” , Raymond Bradley , Miller Giff , Bo Vinther , Keith Briffa Subject: Arctic2k update? Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700 Cc:
All:
I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn’t be
wasting time reading the blogs.
Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series
has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the
calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the
density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of
the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have
used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact
that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that
directly with temperature.
This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I
suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected composite
(Nick’s graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree?
There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:
(1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but do
we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals? Apparently, there’s
also a record from the Indigirka River region, which might not have been published and
doesn’t seem to be included in Keith’s recent summary. If we overlooked any record that met
our criteria, I suggest that we explain why. Keith: are you back? Can Ray or Mike provide
some advise?
(2) The correction for Dye-3 was criticized because the approach/rationale had not been
reviewed independently on its own. Bo: has this procedure now been published anywhere?
(3) We didn’t publish any error analysis (e.g., leave-one-out ), but I recall that we did
do some of that prior to publication. Would it be worthwhile including this in our update?
The threshold-exceedence difference (O&B-style) does include a boot-strapped estimate of
errors. That might suffice, but is not the record we use for the temperature calibration.
(4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. The only records that I know of
that go back 1000 years that we left out were from the Gulf of Alaska that are known to be
related strongly to precipitation, not temperature, and we stated this upfront. Do we want
to clarify that it would be inappropriate to use a record of precip to reconstruct
temperature? Or do we want to assume that precip should increase with temperature and add
those records in and show that the primary signals remain?
(5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
10-year mean values (10-year means were up on the NOAA site the same AM as the paper was
published). The only “non-published” data are the annual series from the ice cores
(Agassiz, Dye-3, NGRIP, and Renland). We stated this in the footnote, but it does stretch
our assertion that all of the data are available publicly. Bo: How do you want to proceed?
Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
Please let me — better yet, the entire group — know whether you think we should post a
revision on RealScience, and whether we should include a reply to other criticism (1
through 5 above). I’m also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly to
apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.
Other thoughts or advise?
Darrell
On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote:
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.
I took a look at the original reference - the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray
density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had
higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,
unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this
sound right to you?
This dataset is truncated at 1800, so it doesn’t enter the calibration, nor does it
affect the recent warming trend.
The attached plot (same as before) shows the effect of re-orienting the record on the
reconstruction. It doesn’t change any of our major or minor interpretations of course.
Nick
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nick McKay <[1]nmckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
Hi all,
I haven’t checked the original reference for it’s interpretation, but I checked the code
and we did use it in the orientation that he stated. He’s also right that flipping
doesn’t affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes it fit in better with
the 1900-year trend.
I’ve attached a plot of the original, and another with Korttajarvi flipped.
Nick
[cid:2D818DBD-2A02-494E-B050-C1C5BACE9984@xxxxxxxxx.xxxdsltmp] Embedded Content: Effect of
flipping Korttajarvi.jpg: 00000001,0da94ca9,00000000,00000000
References
fyi...seach for steve in these Emails....
I think I have been there before...or maybe it was a physics experiment...
Maybe why I switched to pure Math.
You searched for Steve
There were 144 results for the exact phrase Steve, see below for more results.
Long time lurker, first time poster (and bro to Hegewisch Dupa - although I’m not sure that gains me any legitamacy...) Really been enjoying following this today and wanted to make a contribution.
Found this in the pile of info. from CRU. Screenshots from a PR agency, explaining to the “unbiased” scientists at CRU exactly how to sell thier message:
http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16387
I could spend weeks with this site! Thank you!
***************************************************
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065
****************EXCERPT For Formatting reasons.*************************
From: "Graham F Haughton" To: "Phil Jones" Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we've had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!'
Graham
-----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: 28 October 2009 16:39 To: Graham F Haughton Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
Dear Graham,
Thanks for the speedy reply. Just like you are, we are trying here to do bits of research mostly related to the current set of contracts we have. Trying to respond to blogs is just not part of the deadlines we have entered into with the Research Councils, the EU and DEFRA.
You are probably aware of this, but the journal Sonja edits is at the very bottom of almost all climate scientists lists of journals to read. It is the journal of choice of climate change skeptics and even here they don't seem to be bothering with journals at all recently.
I don't think there is anything more you can do. I have vented my frustration and have had a considered reply from you.
Cheers
Phil
Morner, the world’s leading authority on sea level, has
been very clear in saying there is very little evidence to justify the IPCC’s sea-level
projections. The IPCC itself forecast up to 0.94m sea level rise in a century in its 1996
report; up to 0.88m in its 2001 report; and now 0.43m in its 2007 report. If one loosely
defines whatever t he IPCC says as the “consensus”, then not only does the “consensus” not
agree with itself: it is galloping in the direction of the formerly-derided sceptics.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=32&pp=25
This illustrates one of the problems bedevilling the
climate-change question: too much of the data and processes on the basis of which we are
trying to draw conclusions are unreliable, incomplete or very poorly understood. This
should not deter scientists from trying to make increasingly intelligent guesses
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=32&pp=25
Well.... welcome ....help is always appreciated on one of the great websites of the WWW!
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.