Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not sure if anyone posted this but it is interesting. I have actually spent too much time reading these emails but from what I read only the dimmest of the dim can't see the obvious that this is not about science but $$$ and some stupid people's agenda. This is pathetic.
Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).
Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
The evidence is damning but there will be those that will come here and defend it.
I suspect there will be more "out of context" types of posts. And then a redirect to a AGW website that targets the people that freed up this information rather than spout facts and data.
BUT, BUT, these were taken out of context!!!!
BTW, has anyone seen or heard of Al Gore lately? He's suspiciously silent.
Nah. I'll be among the first to condemn them, when and if it's proven. Sorry to burst your bauble, but even with your amazing intellect, you haven't convinced me. I am not stonewalling. I am indeed a wait and see type.
"provide discussion"? They were immediately hostile and assumed the end "truth" the entire time. They also assumed the motives of all claimants and marginalized anyone who put any stock in it as sheep. Discussion my a$$. You must be pulling that out of the same dictionary you're pulling your definition of "context" from. If anyone acted like children, it was (and is) the deniers.
But hey, I'm not one to stand in the way of people who seem to be compensating for something by waxing smug and avuncular on an internet forum, so carry on professor.
Maybe, in a week or two, I will be feeling generous and take you off the ignore list again. Probably not. People who operate under the illusion they hold all the cards, all the time, bore me to death, and then some.
Go get'em tiger!
The problem is that your questions are ignorant. Many of us here have been close to the issue for many years.
I am referring to the logical fallacy and yes, you are indeed "appealing to authority" being as you expect people to accept these claims and not question them. That is exactly what a "consensus" serves in this situation. Don't question, these are big smart scientific organizations, they are right!
All you have are fallacies? Seriously, can you not discuss a topic without degrading it to that level? What does my publishing have anything to do with the evidence from those who have published claim? Each time this discussion comes up, the oh so repetitious "appeal to authority" and then the attack credibility are thrown out like clockwork without once dealing with anything concerning the actual information.
Answer to the surface station records.
Answer to the problems with dendrochronology proxy correlations.
Answer to the stone walling of data within many of these scientists making claims.
Answer to something rather than throwing out more fallacies.
You do realize all of these issues have been brought up? Hansen has been caught in the game of cheery picking and had his temp records changed. Mann has been caught with poor use of data and sloppy math to tailor his results. The surface records have been shown to be severely lacking, even by statements from GISS itself. And many of the stone walling that has been going on has been documented and displayed for all to see.
Maybe a bit more objective reading might do you some good? Or not. /shrug
We have been dealing with this for a very long time. Notice that a year ago, my mention of the concerns the auditors were having (and I am not the only one back then that was asking these questions, there are several on the board) with these exact issues. Notice each point and think back to my post to you on "context". We were not surprised by the validation of our speculations, the data analysis was showing very odd behavior and after finding Mann and Hansen incorrect through replication study, the issues with stone walling and poor procedure with the journals, the information obtained from the CRU was simply the last piece required to fit all the pieces together.
So we are not simply operating out of an oppurtinity to distort the issue, this has been the position all the long.
This is why you are ignorant of the issue and why your attempts to counter anything we write is so misinformed that it merely looks silly.
I agree that the information should be organized and properly validated to each case, this is what the investigations will achieve. We are not jumping the gun here, we are merely repeating the same problems we had from the beginning. It is simply your ignorance of the issue which leads you to assume that we are blindly making accusations.
I wouldn't get all up in arms over the existence of the "hide the decline" comment in the code, as I understand it that was used for divergence in the tree ring data which is controversy itself. Certainly they would want a way to be able to adjust for it even for experimental purposes so you should expect such a function to be available. The bigger questions there would be was it used for published material and if so was it documented that it was.
This is going to take many months to sort out, I'd suspect over the next year many revelations will surface, all not good for the people at CRU.
Good point, the existence of such material is an issue of motive, not the end result here. As you said, proper analysis is required to find the links if there are any to some of these specific code references.
That said, I will speculate that this will not be too difficult. For instance, while steve has yet to comment directly on the code, Anthony and many others who were directly involved with inquiries concerning problems with the replications showing divergence with the CRU's work are finding the "smoking gun" in the code because they have their own work already containing mysteries in the replication. If those mysteries happen to sync with these findings, then you have an answer and as I said, they seem pretty confident in what they are seeing.
What will be the real step is when they and Steve start running comparisons of the data and begin to track down all relations. Bring in the emails and code comments and it may all fall in place.
Ultimately time will tell here, but... like I said, there is so much background here that many (mainly those specifically working with the issues) are already seeing the links. I honestly think formality to approach is all that is left in some of these findings. This will happen eventually, but for those close to the issue (Watts, McIntyre, Mckitrick, Peike jr, lucia, etc...) it is essentially a candy land at the moment for them to have access to such that which they have been trying to obtain through requests for many years. Christmas came early for them this year.
Don't waste your time Nomander. Me thinks ativar has a dog in this hunt and probably is making money off the whole global warming debacle. Anyone, ANYONE that reads those emails with all of their admission to twisting data to suit their own agendas and comes on here to defend them either has serious comprehension issues or they have money at stake.
Go ahead, keep posting your drivel and raising this thread to the top of the forums yankers.
Oh I agree, he is a waste of time and if this were prior to this find, I would likely attempt discussing about the facts for a bit and then eventually put him on ignore for being an obvious political pusher.
They have used politics to get as far as they have. CRU and those involved are continuing to attempt this tactic in the face of the evidence in hopes that they can misinform the public and spin this to their advantage.
It is important to keep hitting these frauds with the data each time they open their mouth. No arrogant claim to position should go without proper rebuttal of the information.
If every time they open their mouth with assumptions and spin, we should be right there to provide the evidence to the contrary and show them for the idiocy they are attempting. Let too many lies go unquestioned and they will cast enough doubt to try to blow by this.
Those involved are doing this, the media is assisting in doing this, and the posters here are also facilitating this as well. Now is the time to pin the ignorant to the floor and give no quarter for their manipulation. They need to be pointed out for the ignorance that they are.
These findings will not blow over, officials are bailing quick so as not to be associated.
Support for such legislation will be political suicide right now.
If Obama runs to Copenhagen and signs, it will fold in his already weak standing. Especially when the evidence comes to pass officially.
How do you explain to the American people that while the evidence was coming out of such seriousness that you disregarded it and went into agreements specifically dependent on using that information for its support?
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.
In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.
These findings will not blow over, officials are bailing quick so as not to be associated.
Support for such legislation will be political suicide right now.
If Obama runs to Copenhagen and signs, it will fold in his already weak standing. Especially when the evidence comes to pass officially.
How do you explain to the American people that while the evidence was coming out of such seriousness that you disregarded it and went into agreements specifically dependent on using that information for its support?
You don't - and I haven't seen any reason as of yet to think you would even need to. Most of them haven't a clue as to what is going on - nor do they care to. I just don't see that changing suddenly or anytime soon.
They are "on board" with the GW religion and no longer care what it is based on - if they ever did.
I'm sorry - I just think you're putting more faith in the common sense of the American public than is warranted. Again, I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about this, but I think in the pathetic state of America today minds like yours are the exception to the extreme. Most are clueless and putty in the hands of environmental leftist fanatics. How could we be where we are today - talking seriously about "carbon credit" trading and other such nonsense - if that were not the case?
Your link of evidence is simply random excuses with no backing by those who are specifically in a position of heat and you think you can honestly question others here as being closed minded?
Closed mindedness seems to be the problem, because you have been instructed to take the emails as proof of something, but when you read them you are quite not sure what you are looking at. A program has been modified, and that is proof? No, modifications are a part of the lifecycle of a computer program.
Closed mindedness seems to be the problem, because you have been instructed to take the emails as proof of something, but when you read them you are quite not sure what you are looking at. A program has been modified, and that is proof? No, modifications are a part of the lifecycle of a computer program.
Modified? Are you contesting such and holding the position that these are forgeries? By what evidence do you lay support to such claim and by which reference do you contest their authenticity?
The fact is in the 3 code examples I posted to you is that they use alternated MXD data which specifically omits the decline data so as to hide the divergence.
Your continued attempts to play stupid is astounding. The code is simplistic beyond belief in those examples. look for the variable entries to which are labeled MXD and in conjunction with the comments statement of the use of that data, it explains the issue.
Look, you have no clue about what you are talking about. You are bobble heading like the rest of the spin-defense in the news. Your position is eroding fast and you can either save face by at least acknowledging this as important or you can play stupid and render anything that you might comment on in any subject from here on as nothing more than unsubstantiated spin of ignorance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
