Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Global Warming Research Center Hacked (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  30  31  32   
Author Topic: Global Warming Research Center Hacked
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or was it a whistle blower? Either way, it's not looking good for the AGW crowd. A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents was dumped onto a Russian server and is making the rounds. It's been confirmed as the real deal:
quote:
The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."
There is a strong whiff of conspiracy and what appears to be attempts to cover up the faults with the AGW theory:
quote:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
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 temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Jones says he can't remember the context of “hide the decline,” and that the process was a way to fill data gaps rather than mislead. I've never heard of a scientific method where “tricks” in the context of hiding data are applied.

There is also an email discussion on how to delete inconvenient data in order to emphasize other data that supports their conclusions as well as one where they are admitting that they can’t find the global warming that they’ve been predicting.

Even RealClimate is in on it:
quote:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

See that? Gavin and Co. don't want any dissenting views even in their comments section and are coordinating with CRU to make sure the "right" message is the dominant, if note sole, message heard.

It even goes so far as to delete evidence before the skeptics at Climate Audit (CA) can get to it:
quote:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Finally, let's end with the "cheering news" of the death of skeptic John Daly, a Tasmanian sceptic who did work sea level rises:
quote:
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal

Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.

Cheers
Phil

Note that here they are relying on intellectual property rights to deny research data to skeptics.

This may blow over (with a willing media there's a reasonable chance) but it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all
You know what would destroy it? Data. Get going on that.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would be surprising for an institution (however virtual) as large as the GW consensus bloc to not have some corruption.

As TOm D said, in so many words, this is about science not political culture.

Data rules, ideologues drool.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, those sound like human beings alright. I wonder what the private emails of the skeptics look like?

SPECULATIVE FICTION:

"I know there's overwhelming data in all these studies, but if we focus on this one bad one we can undermine the whole rotten concept of AGW. Make sure you distribute this as much as possible so we can drown out the consensus scientists, and make all their other data look unreliable."

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all
You know what would destroy it? Data. Get going on that.
If you read the OP, you'll see that any data contradicting AGW is being destroyed and discussion is being censored. Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW. Perhaps you should get going on that.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I knew that would be the response. Any research done independently doesn't count, of course. Note my use of the word 'any'. If one guy can use it in an indiscriminating blanket statement, so can I.

You're my fave poster, G2. Well, today, at least, for I'm a man of ever-changing tastes and passions.

But today, you're IT. That chorus line of dancing ignorebots, that bristling exterior of misconturals and unfounded assertions, that shimmying stack of non sequiturs stacked like wafered wavers...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW.
Do you also believe in fairies, G2? [LOL]

You don't know that. You know, at best, maybe 10 percent of the information the professionals know about global warming. Which makes your opinions and wild speculations completely worthless.

I know you are going to continue spouting your self-righteous, know-it-all nonsense. But that doesn't mean I have to just sit here and listen to it without calling you on it.

Your faith in your own psychic abilities (knowledge without information, conclusions without facts) is impressive, but not in the way you think it is.

Now post your little criticism about how I'm trying to quell dissent about global warming, even though that isn't what I'm doing with this post.

Read it again before you write it, so you have no excuse for your lack of intellectual integrity.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know what would destroy it? Data. Get going on that.

Obviously the emails are getting all the hype, but the leak also provided a lot of Hadley's temperature records. Whether this is enough information to determine HCRUT's methodology to finding their numbers, I don't know. Nor am I qualified to determine this myself. But with the data out there now, perhaps someone will. Then we will actually have independent verification of their methodology, and can see if they're fudging the numbers or not.

It's not everything, but it'd be a big help. The discrepency between satellite data and surface records is too big to ignore.

As for the emails, I'm more concerned about the attacks on scientific openness and honesty than anything else. There's talk of deleting all emails in reference to specific events as well as trying to bully a journal to fire an editor who accepted a paper they didn't like. Of course, it wouldn't be too hard for the hacker to slip in a few fake emails with the rest of this list, so I take it all with a grain of salt. But it links up to some of the other issues that are already out in the open.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KE
Member
Member # 6535

 - posted      Profile for KE   Email KE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mariner,

Are you listening to Rush, too? [Smile] If not the timing of your post is excellent. Rush just started going off on this.

Excellent point about the hacker slipping in emails. I wonder if there is a way to prove or disprove that?

I have no horse in the AGW race I'm just curious.

KE

Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But with the data out there now, perhaps someone will. Then we will actually have independent verification of their methodology, and can see if they're fudging the numbers or not.
*nod* This is the part I'm interested in, too.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all
You know what would destroy it? Data. Get going on that.
If you read the OP, you'll see that any data contradicting AGW is being destroyed and discussion is being censored. Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW. Perhaps you should get going on that.
By destroy do you mean that AGW will be shown to be wrong or that it will be shown to be unsupported? That's an important distinction.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting... I found a very similar quote to the one G2 provided:

quote:
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Found first from slashdot and later from RealClimate.org
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html

quote:
But let's be clear: Jones is talking to his colleagues about making a prettier picture out of his data, and not about manipulating the data itself. Again, I'm not trying to excuse what he did -- we make a lot of charts here and 538 and make every effort to ensure that they fairly and accurately reflect the underlying data (in addition to being aesthetically appealing.) I wish everybody would abide by that standard.
Also, tangentially for that page, some actual temperature charts going back as far as we have reasonably reliable data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry LoJ and Pyrtolin, it's still an unethical manipulation of the data.

Here's the gist of it in a simplified manner. You discover that tree ring length corresponds fairly well with temperature. In other words, you can measure tree ring width, plug it into some equation, and get an average temperature for that year. Now you can keep doing this, going back a couple thousand years, and recreate the temperature profile throughout that time. Hooray!

Only one problem. When you do it for the most recent 30 years or so, you find that the temperature you get out of the tree rings is lower than the actual measured temperature. In other words, tree ring length doesn't keep increasing with increasing temperature, but instead starts to decrease. So now, your temperature profile starts to curve downward in the 20th century instead of still going up. Alas and alack! What to do?

Well, just cut out the tree ring data at the end and replace it with the actual temperature data. What's wrong with that? It's more accurate, right? We should always use the most accurate data, correct? So we use the "trick" of splicing in real data with tree rings in order to "hide the decline" that shows up erroneously with the tree ring data. Perfectly legitimate, right?

No. What happens if you don't do that? If you don't do it, then one can plainly see the divergence between tree ring width and temperatures. One can plainly see that the calibration (ie, equation used to convert tree ring width to temperatures) does not hold for the entire range of temperature data you wish to study.

And why is that important? Because some stupid, amateur scientist might look at it and say, "Hey, wait a minute! If your tree ring reconstruction can't possibly find high temperatures, how do you know there weren't high temperatures in the past? Maybe there were high temperatures, but the trees didn't grow that well, just like what's happening now. So this reconstruction doesn't actually tell us anything about past temperatures!"

To which the intelligent, establishment scientist replies: "Duh, of course that's not true. If it were, then we couldn't scare the public into giving us bazillions in funding."

And so to avoid the possibility of people correctly recognizing the faults of bristlecone pine reconstructions, an additional data set is included to hide the faults.

That is why it's dishonest. Nate Silver doesn't know what he's talking about. And while RealClimate claims that everyone knows about this already, the fact is that they didn't all know about this back then (the email is dated from 1999). This was an attempt to hide the fact that their reconstruction was not robust, and to hide the inevitable conclusion that they couldn't prove that the MWP did not exist. Very, very unethical.

But not a shocking revelation, however. We've known that they did this for years.

Oh, and since Pyrtolin brought up the GISS temperature record, I feel the need to point out that GISS and satellite data have been diverging since as long as we've had satellites. So to use GISS as the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth is incorrect (not that I'm claiming Pyrtolin did this, but just pointing it out for the record).

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, Nate does pretty clearly say that what was done was unethical and misleading. His main point is that the focus is somewhat misdirected, but similar "tricks" are used ethically all the time to make data easier to read. People are making a big deal about the rather mundane part of it because of alternate connotations on the word "trick" and not actually doing as you did and explaining the misleading part.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With contentions like this, a recurrent pattern is that it starts with nut packers and ends with nit pickers.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And why is that important? Because some stupid, amateur scientist might look at it and say, "Hey, wait a minute! If your tree ring reconstruction can't possibly find high temperatures, how do you know there weren't high temperatures in the past? Maybe there were high temperatures, but the trees didn't grow that well, just like what's happening now. So this reconstruction doesn't actually tell us anything about past temperatures!"

To which the intelligent, establishment scientist replies: "Duh, of course that's not true. If it were, then we couldn't scare the public into giving us bazillions in funding."

It's your last step that fails, Mariner. Scientists simply are not that unethical.

Someone, somewhere would simply point this out in a journal, if only in the letters. If not yesterday, then today, or tomorrow. And the scientists who relied on the logic would be shown to be fools. And a vast majority of scientists are far too proud to allow themselves to be shown to be fools. They'd rather lose their "bazillions" in funding.

You can't hide something that obvious.

Your lack of trust of the scientific community allows you to believe untrue things, Mariner. It blinds you to other explanations.

What is the explanation for this? I don't know off-hand. But I bet with just a little digging you could find out. If you were open to the possibility of discovering it.

Are you?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Scientists simply are not that unethical.
Being a scientist doesn't make one a morally superior breed of homo sapiens.

quote:
"Your lack of trust of the scientific community allows you to believe untrue things, Mariner. It blinds you to other explanations."
No... it's trust that always blinds people. Lack of trust doesn't blind them. It might make them paranoid, but it doesn't blind them.

It's you who are proving yourself closed to the possibilities of intentional fraud on the part of scientists.

quote:
What is the explanation for this? I don't know off-hand. But I bet with just a little digging you could find out.
He does have an explanation, and he mentioned it. Since it's you who admit that you don't have an explanation that satisfies you, then shouldn't it be *you* who should be doing the "just a little digging" that will make you find out?

Forcing others to do your legwork to find you an explanation that *you* will be satisfied with, and calling them closed-minded if they are not prepared to indulge you, seems to me rather lame.

No pun intended.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Espy
Member
Member # 6126

 - posted      Profile for Robert Espy   Email Robert Espy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Search engine for emails and docs here

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php

Bishops Hill Blog offers these summeries. The number following each line item refers the the file number in the set. Read each email for context.

* Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
* Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
* Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
* Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
* Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
* Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
* Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
* Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
* Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
* Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
* Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
* Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
* Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
* Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
* Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
* Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
* Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
* Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
* Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
* Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
* Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
* Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
* Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
* Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
* Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
* Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
* Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
* Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
* Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
* Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
* Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
* Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
* Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
* Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
* Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
* Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
* Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
* Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
* Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
* David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
* Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
* Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
* Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Posts: 26 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We are dealing here with a weird conglomeration of prophecy, science, politics, priestcraft,zealotry, ideal public service, and corruption.

What matters is the data itself. Not data about the data, not data about warring science-priest factions, but data data data.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Being a scientist doesn't make one a morally superior breed of homo sapiens.
True.

quote:
No... it's trust that always blinds people. Lack of trust doesn't blind them. It might make them paranoid, but it doesn't blind them.
Not quite true. Firm belief that the other person will "do wrong" at any opportunity blinds one to other explanations. Just look at how much ill President Bush was accused of, or Clinton, or Obama, or just about any controversial politicial you can name. If you want to, if it fits your world view, you can believe anything evil about another person. And you won't question it.

quote:
It's you who are proving yourself closed to the possibilities of intentional fraud on the part of scientists.
I am open to the possibility of intentional fraud. But I also know it is much harder to do in the sciences than it is in most other realms, such as politics. This is because of four reasons:

1. Information is published. Although many of the miriad facts about global warming are not readily available, most of them are, and are subject to scrutiny. If global temperatures have been dropping for the last few decades, this would show up in the raw data and the analysis of the data, and anyone saying the planet was rapidly warming because of human actions, regardless of their political leanings, would be laughed out of the field, because anyone could see that it was untrue. All theories must conform to the facts, and the facts are known.

2. Analyses are checked. Experiments are replicated. Facts are checked. Just because one scientist, or one group of scientists, come up with a result doesn't mean it stops there. Other scientists do the same work, or use the results to do further work. If the initial results were wrong, or fraudulent, this will eventually show up in the retesting or in the failure of the further research. Sooner or later (and often times sooner), the bad results are found out.

3. Facts are checked by other experts. It is not just some guys who know a little bit about a subject that look over these facts and hypotheses. It's guys whose careers are in the same field. One's who know all the traps and pitfalls, because they've either fell into them themselves or because they daily work to avoid them. You can fool some of the people somoe of the time, and most of the people most of the time, but you can't fool your peers hardly at all. Other experts will see stuff that most people will miss. But also, they will understand subtlities that others may not appreciate.

4. Scientists worry about reputation. Success is science doesn't come from the size of your research grants. No one goes into science to make a fortune. They do it because they want to know about the universe, and, more importantly, they want to prove they are smart. Smarter than the other guy. Smarter than their peers. Sometimes this leads to strange and unusual ideas. Some of them even turn out to be true (while most do not). But it's not the grants that they work toward. It's the discoveries that make them noteworthy. Fraud and deceit will destroy the chances of that happening.

Now, certain individuals may not hold to all (or any!) of these ideals. But a majority of scientists do. Which means that obvious fraud will be found out pretty quickly.

What Mariner describes is obvious fraud. Not just amateur scientists, but even first year graduate students will see the obvious flaws in using the tree rings as she describes. And if there is a large enough group, someone will object. Because each scientist knows that his name will go on the paper, and his reputation will be ruined when the fraud or obvious error is found out. And his career will be shot.

It's not moral superiority. It's self-interest that prevents scientists from practicing fraud, especially obvious fraud. Because more than in most fields, it is easy to be found out.

And you got to admit, people, even scientists, are pretty good at looking after their own self-interest. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" a) No... it's trust that always blinds people. Lack of trust doesn't blind them. It might make them paranoid, but it doesn't blind them.


b) Not quite true. Firm belief that the other person will "do wrong" at any opportunity blinds one to other explanations. Just look at how much ill President Bush was accused of, or Clinton, or Obama, or just about any controversial politicial you can name. If you want to, if it fits your world view, you can believe anything evil about another person. And you won't question it."

But a "Firm belief that the other person will "do wrong" at any opportunity" is simply a form of trust.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, obviously that line was facetious; I don't know their motivations. But obvious fraud? That might be going a bit too far. It's dishonest and deserves to be considered fraud, but there might be some technicalities involved. I'm sure something was mentioned in the fine print. But they, and every other construction working with bristlecone pines, hid the obvious caveat that the diversion issue contains. I don't remember exactly when this issue came to the forefront, but I remember reading a lot of rather un-scientific-like actions going on. Failure to properly archive series like the scientists were required to. Failure to release archives that clearly showed the divergence happening. Other random crap like that. But the issue finally came to the forefront, and now nobody uses bristlecone pines anymore.

Did Mann et al get fired for it? Obviously not. There was no censure, no nothing. They didn't lose their jobs or their reputation. Sure, one shouldn't lose their job as a scientist if they used data that is later revealed, through no fault of their own, to be incorrect. But that email strongly suggests they already knew the problems and were trying to hide it. And yet nothing bad happened to them.

Which kinda strikes against your belief that self-interest would stop them from doing this. If they knew that their colleagues controlled the process and controlled the information, and if they knew that most of the tangential scientists in the field supported their cause, what did they have to fear? Who's going to out them? Outing this issue suddenly means that you're helping... the enemy. You're helping Steve McIntyre and Sen. Inhofe and the evil mouth-breathing deniers. And you don't want to be seen as one of them!

Welcome to the intersection of politics and science.

Remember, I work in academia in a politically charged field. I've seen stuff that I hate, even coming from people I normally respect. I've seen people refuse to publish their work because they don't support their position. I've seen people judge papers, not on their own merit, but based on the person who wrote them. I've seen people publish bad data they knew were bad. It happens. It's disturbing, it's ugly, and it makes me want to get out of this place as soon as I can (curse you, Recession!!!). But it happens. And global warming is even more politically charged than what I do.

Don't believe me? Take a look at an even worse abuse, also coming from Mann. The post here is long-winded, but is the clearest explanation of how dishonest this one is. If you don't want to click on the link, here's the gist of it.

One proxy Mann used was the x-ray density of layers in lakes that a guy name Tiljander studied. Basically, the greater the density, the more organic matter there was that year. And science says that there tends to be more organic matter when it's warmer. Unfortunately, looking at the actual data shows a huge drop in x-ray density in the last couple centuries. In other words, it's a hockey stick, but pointed the wrong way. If one were to take the data as is, one would be forced to conclude that we're heading for a major ice age. Of course, that's not the case, and the reason is that human farming has screwed up the data, making it useless.

So, did Mann do what common sense dictates, and throw it out? No, here turned the data upside down!. And then used the inverted picture as proof of a hockey stick! When confronted with this, his only reply was that a regression doesn't care about that sort of thing. That's true, but science and common sense do.

As an example, let's say you wanted to correlate temperature data with the number of people buying ice cream from Baskin Robbins. This is fairly logical, as it makes sense for people to buy more ice cream when it's hot. So the first day, it's 80F and you see 10 people per hour buying ice cream. The next day, it's 70F, but there's 30 people buying ice cream! Turns out B-R had a huge sale that second day that people were taking advantage of. In other words, the logical thing to do is to throw out the data. However, you can create a regression, and say that people buy more ice cream when it's colder. You can then use B-R's sales data to prove that summer is colder than winter.

Sounds like an incredibly stupid thing to say, right? But that's what Mann did. (It gets sillier: apparantly Steig et al in their Antarctica paper flipped actual thermometers upside down, so seeing the mercury go up "really" means it's getting colder!) But it's not outright fraud, since they deal with it in the "fine print" (supplemental information). They admit that the Tiljander series is corrupted and do a sensitivity analysis where they remove it from their data. They claim it makes no difference, but IIRC McIntyre got a different result (last time I checked, CA was still getting hammered thanks to the hacks, so I don't want to search for everything right now). So it's still not clear whether it made a difference in the results. But it does make a difference in the methodology: the series should never have been included in the first place. Forgive me for being accusatory, but that does strike me as dishonest.

I've become a "skeptic" not necessarily because it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that AGW isn't happening. As far as I can tell, there's too much uncertainty, and there's just enough uncertainty to not be able to rule out the (probably incorrect) assumptions the modelers use. But, quite frankly, the more I look into the works of the AGW crowd, the less confident I am of their scientific integrity. And I have absolutely no confidence in the scientific integrity of the IPCC. Many of these emails, if true, further confirm their biases are affecting the science.

You claim this sort of thing is rare in science. Perhaps. But it's very, very common in politics. So what happens when the two of them meet?

quote:
What Mariner describes is obvious fraud. Not just amateur scientists, but even first year graduate students will see the obvious flaws in using the tree rings as she describes.
Is that meant to be me? Because unless I've had an operation recently I'm unaware of, I think you used the wrong pronoun [Smile]
Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm amused that people think scientists are more honest or logically rigorous for being science. It isn't scientists that are more honest and logically rigorous as it is science itself. The peer re view process tends to sort out most of the hogwash.

A similar thing happens but less officially in cooking, where recipes need to be reliably replicable (and Good!) for them to be replicated on a large scale. Most cookbooks are crap; theories of cuisine that will soon be discredited.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW.
Do you also believe in fairies, G2? [LOL]

You don't know that. You know, at best, maybe 10 percent of the information the professionals know about global warming. Which makes your opinions and wild speculations completely worthless.

I know you are going to continue spouting your self-righteous, know-it-all nonsense. But that doesn't mean I have to just sit here and listen to it without calling you on it.

Your faith in your own psychic abilities (knowledge without information, conclusions without facts) is impressive, but not in the way you think it is.

Now post your little criticism about how I'm trying to quell dissent about global warming, even though that isn't what I'm doing with this post.

Read it again before you write it, so you have no excuse for your lack of intellectual integrity.

You know how I know AGW is falling apart? You write mindless personal attack bull**** like that. It's OK, I know it's going to get uglier as this unwinds and more and more of you realize you've been played for witless fools. Look at that list Robert Espy compiled, that's what you've been defending as science and consensus. The wages of your faith are coming due, and that right soon.

You whine about intellectual integrity and hypocritically show us the perfect example of how a real self-righteous, know-it-all without it behaves. Well done.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Espy:
Search engine for emails and docs here

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php

Bishops Hill Blog offers these summeries. The number following each line item refers the the file number in the set. Read each email for context.
....
Lots and lots of detail
....

Thanks for the post RE. It was info laden and much food for thought. [Smile]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As people dig through the evidence, we find more and more good stuff. LIke comments in the programming code:
code:
; Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

What this is saying is growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”. This code was written around the same time as the emails talking about Mike's nature trick to hide the data. Coincidence?

[ November 23, 2009, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More email results:
quote:
From: Phil Jones
To: santer, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler

Ben,

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –

and:
quote:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

What they're talking about (and actually did in some cases) is deleting government data that is subject to a Freedom of Information Act or FOI so that skeptics could not review it. That's not science, that's a crime.

As one blogger wrote:
quote:
Anyone who relies on control and suppression of information to win a debate is suspect in my book. If the skeptics are wrong, then the data should make it more obvious, not less. What is Phil Jones afraid of?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just the recap from the current take:
quote:
1.Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.

2. The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.

3. The scientists block from the UN’s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.

4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.

5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

This is what some here call "real" science.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Out of interest: if it could be shown that opposing scientists engaged in the same behavior, would you refuse to call that real science, as well?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Just the recap from the current take: 1.Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.

I don't really know a huge amount about this field. Are these actually "Prominent environmental scientists"?

quote:
Originally posted by G2:
4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.

Did they actually delete data? I saw the comment where it was mentioned that someone might, but not where they actually did. This latter would seem to be a crime.

quote:
Originally posted by G2:
5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

And of course, fabricating data is usually considered the worst crime among scientists.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Out of interest: if it could be shown that opposing scientists engaged in the same behavior, would you refuse to call that real science, as well?

A scientist fabricating data isn't a "real scientist".
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would agree. I'm curious whether G2 would.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would agree. I'm curious whether G2 would.

This is a rather snarky and underhanded attempt at trying to derail G2's point simply because you are trying to imply that G2's a hypocrite. Lame. [Roll Eyes]

I get the distinct impression that many of the Ornerian's that have been preaching about the First Church of Scientific Consensus and it's Holy Writ that AGW is very real and must be addressed post-haste politically for the last several years are having trouble facing up to these new revelations.

Yeah, a lot of you hate G2 and his gleeful schadenfreude. But this latest is certainly giving merit to the idea that AGW consensus and the whole movement to shape political governance on it is a fraud.

Look at the evidence directly in it's face.

Than re-evaluate your previous arguments and support for a theory you are now actually finding out is based on willful fraud and deceit.

If you were wrong, and you know it, than man up and admit it.

But this garbage of trying to catch G2 into a rhetorical trap of hypocrisy is transparent and contemptible.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TOm D was just coyly pointing out what most of us already know, D. No need to 'trap' G2 in hypocrisy. He regularly goes there voluntarily, although I'm not saying he does this purposely. What is done voluntarily is not necessarily done informedly.

The topic needn't be AGW. Most anything that has partisan aspects will do.

Not that G2 is unique in so doing. Virtually all of us do this here and there.

There are those of, BTW, who approach GW with an open mind and choose no particular side. Many of us, however, have little patience for a side of the debate that bases itself almost entirely on disputing a rather enormous body of evidence without providing much of its own. It's much like the Evolution/ID debate.

Politics have most definitely entered the GW debate. Politics were hugely influential in 50s/60s atomic safety discourse as well. But the hard data prevails. Pointing to examples of corruption serve well to, well, point out examples of corruption.

The data, and interpretations thereof, continue.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You write mindless personal attack bull**** like that.
Mindless? Hardly. Everything I wrote is, I believe, absolutely true.

Personal? Only because I tire of your "self-righteous, know-it-all" attitude. You speak as if you know something. You don't. Yet you call others "witless fools."

I mock you because you mock those who know more than you, are more educated than you, are more knowledgable than you. I mock you because you speak with authority, when you have no more authority than anyone else on this board, and far less authority than the experts you mock. I mock you because you do not listen to criticism and make grandiose pronouncements based on little more than prejudice.

I haven't commented on these "revealed posts" because I see no use in evaluating them. I don't have the expertise to understand exactly what they mean. I can only read them through the filter of my own prejudices. And, I strongly suspect, that you can only read them through yours. While I may see harmless hyperbole, you will see a smoking gun admitting grand deceits. I can never convince you that your view is wrong, since you appear to be impervious to even mathematical refutation. And it is highly unlikely you will ever convince me, since I find your reasoning suspect.

But what I can do is point out when you overstep the boundaries of what can be concluded from the information at hand. And I do this by mocking you. Because in humor the weaknesses and fallicies of your arguments become most clear.

You don't know that "Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW." You can't know that. Because either all the data isn't known, and thus you don't know it either, or it is known and has been judged insufficient to destroy AGW. Either way, you're talking out of your ***.

This should be obvious to even the most disinterested observer. Which means the only good way to point it out is through humor.

You may find it "mindless personal attack," but that is because you are not mindful of your own logic. You draw conclusions when none are justified. And rather than considering that you might be jumping to conclusions, you counterattack instead.

Well, be my guest, G2. Mock me as much as you like. After all, you'll mock me for disagreeing with you anyway. I have nothing to lose. And your logic is still so tainted by your prejudices and biases that your pronouncements are meaningless. They are shouts in the wind, based on nothing but hot air.

Make better arguments, and maybe I won't resort to "mindless personal attack bull**** like that." [Smile]

[ November 24, 2009, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You know how I know AGW is falling apart? You write mindless personal attack bull**** like that."

So what an uninformed person says means...what? I'm saying, even if we accept your characterization at full value. How does that prove anything about whether a theory is correct or not?

This isn't about "us vs. them".

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For G2, everything, and the only thing, is "us vs them."

[ November 24, 2009, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An article looking at some of the data released in the emails:
examiner.com

quote:
quote:
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 temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers

Phil

But what most readers do not generally appreciate is that, one month earlier, Dr. Tim Osborn, also of the CRU, sent an e-mail to Michael Mann (File 0939154709.txt) containing two columns of data from his study of tree-ring densities. That e-mail begins thus:

quote:
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure the same filter was used for all curves.
After the last paragraph, his data set appears. Associated with each year is a quantity called a temperature anomaly, which was the difference between the average temperature in that year from a baseline average of temperatures in the period 1961-1990. Note carefully the emphasized line about stopping the series in 1960.

A line graph of those data, prepared by this Examiner using the OpenOffice spreadsheet program and employing cubic-spline smoothing from one year to the next, appears at right. This graph shows a clear decline in temperatures beginning in 1960, to a low reached in 1978, followed by an uptrend, and then another downtrend.

You can see the actual graph at http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID28973/images/OsbornMann.jpg
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You write mindless personal attack bull**** like that.
Mindless? Hardly. Everything I wrote is, I believe, absolutely true.

Personal? Only because I tire of your "self-righteous, know-it-all" attitude. You speak as if you know something. You don't. Yet you call others "witless fools."

Why don't you take a hard look in the mirror.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QUOTE]I mock you because you mock those who know more than you, are more educated than you, are more knowledgable than you. I mock you because you speak with authority, when you have no more authority than anyone else on this board, and far less authority than the experts you mock. I mock you because you do not listen to criticism and make grandiose pronouncements based on little more than prejudice.

You mock because you fear. You're being proven more and more wrong every day while I'm being proven right. The planet has cooled and those oh so knowledgeable authorities you trust have been exposed for the fraud they are. You mock because that is the way you deal with disagreement, you have a long history of posts here proving that.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QUOTE]
You don't know that "Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW." You can't know that. Because either all the data isn't known, and thus you don't know it either, or it is known and has been judged insufficient to destroy AGW. Either way, you're talking out of your ***.

I can indeed know that. Because the knowledgeable authorities you trust have been caught destroying any data that contradicts the theory. If the data proved the theory, they wouldn't need to hide and destroy it.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QUOTE]You may find it "mindless personal attack," but that is because you are not mindful of your own logic. You draw conclusions when none are justified. And rather than considering that you might be jumping to conclusions, you counterattack instead.

Take another look in the mirror.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QUOTE]
Make better arguments, and maybe I won't resort to "mindless personal attack bull**** like that."

Sure, so far that's all you do.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  30  31  32   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1