Slashdot Mirror

Then you may well have fallen prey to a well orchestrated misinformation campaign.

The kind of misinformation campaign that attempts to hide inconvenient declines in temperature proxies?

>>The troll here is the asshole who keeps parroting the blatant lies about the hacked e-mails.

So... you?

I've read the primary documents, fuckwit. You haven't, apparently. I'm sorry if truth conflicts with your tightly-held ideals.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=914

>>If you follow that site, then you must know that the data is all publically available and has been for a long time. Here's the link where they summarize data sources.

I do follow the site, and sure, I've seen all that before. Plus, after Climategate, Gavin went to great lengths to talk about how he's always been a believer in having data freely available, etc., etc., and posted more data available.

Not, of course, the data that was FOIA requested from Phil Jones, of course. They don't like to talk about that.

They also don't like to talk about the fact that Phil was discussing strategies of dodging FOIA requests with Gavin. As I said, RC.org deletes every post on their site referencing this.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=914

"Based on the fact that the numbers he used for deforestation were... aggregated over different collection methods..

Isn't aggregating numbers over different collection methods (in this case, tree ring data and thermometers) the basis of the infamous Nature trick?

Here is what climate scientist Edward Cook wrote regarding the accuracy of dendroclimatology:

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all).

From the climategate emails

Here is what Phil Jones said in his BBC interview regarding the Medieval Warm Period:

There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

So Phil Jones is unsure if the MWP was global in extent and Edward Cook thinks we have very little idea at all. Perhaps the certainty in wikipedia is overstated.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil

There you go - one of the most influential and powerful AGW proponents using his influence to keep journals from printing papers that contradicted some of the basis for his work. Even if he has to "redefine what peer-reviewed literature is!"

There is even more supression in the mainstream media.

I take it you haven't read the emails from East Anglia? Obfuscation, "hide the decline," discussion of how to destroy the careers of those who disagree with them, and subvert legal FOIA requests. Hardly the behavior of people who want to go on public record.

I take you haven't actually read even the 4 emails that keep getting quoted by the sceptics? How about this one (that doesn't get as much press): http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270

According to a report by Associated Press today (appended below), Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was elected as Chair of the IPCC at a plenary meeting in Geneva. As you would be aware from our earlier SSI alerts of the past several weeks, this follows on from intense lobbying of the US government by the fossil fuel industry to remove Dr. Robert Watson as Chair. Although reports from Geneva are still sketchy, our sources on the ground tell us that there was intense behind-the- scenes lobbying by Saudi Arabia, with assistance from Don Pearlman -- a well known oil and gas lobbyist with strong connections to industry-backed organizations opposed to climate change mitigation. Through their maneuvering, the co-chair compromise approach -- comprised of former chair Dr. Robert Watson and Dr. Pachauri -- was not considered. As a result of this election, there is considerable concern in the climate science and environmental communities -- reinforced by the intensive lobbying from fossil fuel interests on this decision -- that the Bush Administration's lack of support for former IPCC Chair Dr. Robert Watson signals a more general lack of support for the IPCC as a credible international scientific assessment process that provides governments with sound information on climate science, impacts, and solutions. By supporting Dr. Pachauri for primarily political purposes, the Bush Administration has seriously threatened the scientific credibility of the IPCC process. The conservative fossil fuel interests should be exposed for their role in influencing the US government's stance on this issue, and the IPCC process must remain a scientifically credible and non-politicized process. The next IPCC Climate Change Assessment is due out in five years, and it is the chair's role to oversee this complex process. The scientific community's voice is important in this issue to ensure that the IPCC process remains strong under the leadership of Dr. Pachauri and that the Bush Administration does not erode the effectiveness of this important international body.

Since you take the emails as quoted by your sceptic-overlords as gospel, you will have to agree that almost 8 years ago, several climate scientists predicted that Dr. Pachauri, pushed as head of the iPCC by President Bush, would put a bad light on the IPCC report. Their prediction turned out to be true - just that the plan of the sceptics cabal was actually a little more refined than they assumed.

Pachauri was pushed as the head of the IPCC by none other than Dubya and his cronies, so he could discredit the IPCC. Why do you think one of the many Climategate Emails that never gets quoted is this little gem? http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The e-mails show that Tom Wigley, one of the most highly-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate, thought my paper was "valid". They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to get the journal editor to not publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York, where the research was conducted, carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed: contrary to the university's policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report's release, but I was not allowed to see the report: truly Kafkaesque.

The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud. The leaked files contain the defense against my allegation. The defense is obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record. It is no surprise, then, that the university still refuses to release the report. More details on all this, including source documents are, here.

If you read the links, it is clear that the data upon which Wang's research was based did not exist. Why do you criticize Keenan for exposing that?

Taken from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html :

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

If that were true, then you'd be able to find perfectly good articles were "censored".

Yes, here's one example.

Where are they? Well how should I be able to find them, when they could not publish them. Meanwhile we have a perfectly good report here from Russia that you are dismissing out of hand. How come *you* don't have to prove *that* is false? What happened to the scientific method here where someone else challenges a theory and you explain why the challenge is wrong using facts, instead of Ad-Hominem attacks?

There's that circle again, that you love to spin around so much. Whee!

It's a privately funded free-market "think tank" that is based in Russia.

So since when did it matter who was making a counter-claim, I thought we were talking about science.

After all, with "real" science you'd simply point to the data they are using and show why the results are correct.

But instead we find that the CRU tried to block real scientists from saying the same thing.

But I guess all results that use private funding are inherently invalid, only agencies with government supplied funding can be trusted to always tell the truth, like the CIA for example.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil

Of course it is not proof, but there it's not without reason that people believe some funny business is going on.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil

Now, I'm not saying global warming is a hoax, but at this point, if anyone comes up arguing from an appeal to authority instead of an appeal to evidence, they are braindead. The climate authorities have lost a lot of respect through all this. And that goes for the guys in Russia, too. Let them show us the evidence if they want us to believe.

Don't tell me "climatologists say we should act now to prevent global warming!" show me the estimated radiative forcing changes and how exactly that's going to cause sea levels to rise. Show me the effect CO2 is having on the global temperature, and most importantly, tell my WHY you think that is happening. And if you can't explain it, then I'm not believing you. Because I can explain special relativity in terms simple enough that anyone can understand, and climate science is no more complex than that.

It has been a while since any party held a true loyal majority, like during the of times Reagan and FDR. Meanwhile the independents and swing voters keep both well under the dedicated 50% that is so cherished by fanboys from both sides.

Interesting reads:

Climategate emails.

Obama: 46%
Sarah Palin: 46%

In any case, AIUI the Climate Research Unit was under contractual obligation to the various contributory agencies (in MANY countries) NOT to reveal the information, so all the FOI requests amounted to nothing more than harassment.

The CRU wouldn't even reveal who they obtained the data from. And in the same email where Dr. Phil Jones, the former head of the CRU states he would delete such information before letting it go to a FOIA request, he also states:

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 !

Those dastardly scientists: planning 20 years ahead to "lose" the data before FOI act even existed.

The question is did they lose it 20 years ago or delete it deliberately within the past couple of years? The thing is that Dr. Phil Jones (the head of the CRU at the time) said he'd delete the data first, *then* the CRU supposedly find out that it was lost 20 years ago. That's mighty convenient for Dr. Jones. Deleting data to foil an FOIA request is a crime in the UK.

I think this email states fairly clearly what the situation was as far as the uni was concerned. The requests were a pain in the ass and the scientists had escalated the issue uni higher ups to seek advice. They also opine on how much effort it is to deal requests and how one request is going to open the floodgates for more and more. It's fairly understandable why they don't like them, and certainly not any where close to the "scientists deleted files in FOI cover-up" guff going around the AGW blogs.

Jones suggested deleting data (not emails, actually temp data) rather than share it:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt

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.

So before filing FOI requests it sounds like they were making requests through normal channels. Of course I'm sure Jones was only joking about deleting the data before he would share it, right? Note that Jones also makes numerous references to "hiding" behind various things (non-publishing agreements, data secrecy acts, etc.) This is hardly the acts of someone who loves to share data.

Also note that the data he was "sharing" is his already "adjusted" numbers. Yes there are perfectly valid reasons to adjust data, however the CRU kept no record (apparently) of how or why the numbers were adjusted. Now they say the raw data was thrown out in the 80's (even though they were discussing how to keep it hidden as recently as this summer.)

Whether you agree or disagree with the whole AGW thing, the fact is these guys were not conducting science so much as politics. Anyone looking at this who loves science and believes fully in the peer-review process should be disgusted by what these guys were up to. We essentially have a giant table of numbers they created and their word that nothing is wrong and we should believe them. That's not science.

Unless you can point out, under which law such an action is legal, my point still stands.

Be glad to!

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980023_en_1

Both 43B (1) (a) and (b) are applicable.

I can only reiterate my wish for actual facts,

Here you go.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

The fact of conspiracy is evidenced. The fact of commission is currently being researched.

Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?

The emails referenced in the above link are subject to FOIA requests. Deleting them is a felony.

Even if it were a crime, you seem to claim that the persons in questions are the perpetrators

Given the title of the leaked file, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the whistleblower was tasked with complying with an FOIA request, and when that request was denied leaked the information compiled to comply with it anyways. And quite rightly so, both as a matter of honour and a matter of law.

fyi realclimate.org should be viewed very skeptically. In the leaked emails the fact that realclimate.org is essentially run by these very scientists is discussed in detail

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt

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.... 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.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

(Sorry for the late reply....I got distracted by Thanksgiving).

These guys are making an active effort to prevent the works of others from being published, and are trying to manipulate the system to push their viewpoint. From my readings, I think they are sincere and think they are doing good science, so I don't think you can call it a conspiracy. Rather, I'd say it's just bad science. For example, as a scientist, do you actively try to prevent other's papers from being published by threatening the editors at a journal? Have you ever considered changing the definition of peer review, with the specific intent of keeping out certain papers (if you've merely thought of changing peer review because parts of it suck, I won't hold that against you)?

I think a problem with a lot of the emails isn't so much that they are unusual, but rather they have revealed some of the weaknesses in the system to people who otherwise trusted in it completely. For example, this one talks about finding people to stack the peer review board in the submitter's favor. It sounds horrible, but I suspect it is not uncommon for such things to happen. But if you are the kind of person who thinks peer review establishes truth, then you are going to be surprised.

For me, it is just another level of what already seems apparent to me: that the science is being distorted for political purposes. People talk about the scientific consensus about global warming, and then say if we don't do something the earth could heat as much as 6 degrees, and ice caps melt, etc, but there is no scientific consensus about ice caps melting, or the earth heating 6 degrees, that is sensationalistic. If you read the actual surveys of scientists, the only consensus that exists is that the global temperature record is roughly correct, and that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will contribute to the greenhouse effect. There is no consensus about the amount, or feedback mechanisms, or that the computer models are correct.

Good scientists try to dispassionately find the truth, whatever it is. They don't try to push their viewpoint. Admittedly that is hard. These emails provide evidence that at least a few climate scientists have failed at that attempt, or have not even attempted.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html Nice summarized digest of the CRU et.al emails. Doesn't look good for the Hockey Team. Not good at all.

Here's the particular one you're after: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt

The "statement" from the "beleaguered" "head" is nothing more than a distraction.

From May 2008 comes this little tidbit (sorry about the formatting):

Phil Jones wrote: > >> 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.

Right there is the reality of "deleted data" in clear violation of the FoIA.

Any institution will have jerks. And of course you will only see the most salacious emails. Compare it to this one which I found linked from a skeptic site as an example of how they were suppressing skeptics.

Email chain by department head - http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt Sonja is a former colleague who quit to work for a skeptic organization she is editor for a skeptic magazine and Phil is writing to complain that she keeps usign the university's name on her publications/talks despite working elsewhere.

At 18:45 27/10/2009, Graham F Haughton wrote:
>
>Dear Phil, sorry to hear this. I don't see much
>of her these days, but when I do see Sonja next
>I'll try and have a quiet word with her about
>the way the affiliation to us is used, but at
>the moment in fairness she is entitled to use it
>in the way she does. Fortunately I don't get to
>see many of these email exchanges but I do
>occasionally hear about them or see them and
>frankly am rarely convinced by what I read. But
>as with all academics, I'd want to protect
>another academic's freedom to be contrary and
>critical, even if I personally believe she is
>probably wrong. I agree with you that it'd be
>better for these exchanges to be conducted
>through the peer review process but these forms
>of e-communication are now part of the public
>debate and its difficult to do much about it
>other than to defend your position in this and
>other fora, or just ignore it as being, in your words, malicious.
>
>I can understand your frustration and I am
>pretty sure I'd be feeling exactly the same in
>your shoes, but I am not sure at the moment that
>I can do much more. If you think I can and
>should do more then feel free to ring and I am happy to discuss the matter.
>
>Graham

Sounds like the head of the department is really cracking down on those skeptics. Boy he squelches them every chance he can, doesn't he? Despite having pro-climate stance he respects that she disagrees and feels that people should be able to debate.

It is also worth noting that he organizes conservation activities at the school. If he was part of a large scale climate hoax why would he be hot to reduce the school's environmental impact? Sounds to me he genuinely believes in climate change, is more knowledgeable than anyone posting here, and respects others with different opinion. Yes there will be mean spirited comments in some emails and people who massage data.

I will be happy if the full data becomes public so all researchers can analyze it. But while I see lots of sloppiness in evidence I see no "marching plan" from the "carbon cap industry".

Phil Jones wrote that he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” What Jones meant by "hiding the decline" is being increasingly discovered in the code and related comments. * See evidence in: The Code at Bishop Hill's blog eg the programmer noting: ""***** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********" * From the programming file "briffa_sep98_d.pro": "; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor" etc. * See: Climategate: hide the decline – codified at WattsUpWithThat.com * See discussion at Climate Audit Mirror The Harry Read_Me File * Links to current articles can be found at: Climatedepot.com The emails are searchable at: Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable