CRU E-mails and data

[jethro]

Speaking as a sceptic of AGW, or at least the extent of AGW, I still can't see anything about these emails which is more than hearsay. They've been in the public arena for quite a few days now, we all know there are lots of ardent sceptics who would dearly love to find damning evidence contained in the CRU stuff, surely if it's there, we would have heard about it by now.

Seems they're guilty of poor practise but that's about it, isn't it? Sure it's fodder for ranting but is it productive ranting?

Maybe more will come out in the future, but to date, there doesn't seem a lot to get excited about.

[Devonian]

Speaking as a sceptic of AGW, or at least the extent of AGW, I still can't see anything about these emails which is more than hearsay. They've been in the public arena for quite a few days now, we all know there are lots of ardent sceptics who would dearly love to find damning evidence contained in the CRU stuff, surely if it's there, we would have heard about it by now.

Seems they're guilty of poor practise but that's about it, isn't it? Sure it's fodder for ranting but is it productive ranting?

Maybe more will come out in the future, but to date, there doesn't seem a lot to get excited about.

So, what's next? Sceptics going through the CRU dustbins?

[jethro]

The original source for this leak claimed that the stuff released thus far is only some of the hacked information. One has to assume there is more to come.

[yamkin]

Global warming seems to be based on large amounts of CO2. I see this as scare mongering by certain governments in the world.

There has been a shift in the earth's axis which is giving unseasonable weather patterns in many countries. This in my view has no bearing on the so called global warming we are led to believe.

Yes, the earth's climate is changing and has always had a form of change just like in the 14th century where the UK had a mini ice age 200 hundred years ago. Global warming? No, just climate change.

In central London, certain roads are called Vine Road etc due to the fact that there were vineyards believe it or not. Global warming? No, just climate change.

CO2 emissions were very evident during 1940 +, but the temperature remained lower. Global warming? No, just climate change.

Greenhouse has many gases, but for some unknown reason, we are fed incorrect info that CO2 is the main threat to us.

Volcanoes, animals, bacteria, dying vegetation, and oceans spread more CO2 than anything man made!

The sun plays a big influence to our climate changes. Global warming? No, just climate change.

A thousand years ago, Greenland was much warmer than it is now. Global warming? No, just climate change.

Global Warming is a big 'Bucks' establishment which is politically motivated.

Third world countries are told that due to the so called Global Warming, they must not have electricity the way the US & UK do for example.

Africa for example has in abundance so much coal and oil, but again they are told that this will contribute greatly to the so called Global Warming. This is so untrue. Both oil and coal will/do not contribute to the Global Warming the way we have been led to believe is effecting our planet.

Now, who do you think runs the oil platform in Iraq? The Western countries do. Are they not the ones crying out 'Global Warming'!

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM........

I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.

It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.

The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I have to agree with Jethro and VP - there's not a great deal in this stuff for skeptics to wave around as proof of anything. What I think it shows is a group of scientists who believe that they are right and who are sick of skeptics getting on their cases. Obviously, if they believe they are right, they are bound to get a bit sick of the constant haranguing by climate skeptics. Their dismissal of skeptics is kind of understandable in this regard, but it gives no evidence whatsoever to the scientists being either right or wrong - it's just the way it is.

The emails suggest that Michael Mann is just a scientist who believes that what he has done is honest and correct, and he's getting fed up with skeptics accusing him of wrongdoing or deceit. This does not, I might add, mean that MBH98, for example, is a result of perfect, unbiased science; it only means that Dr Mann believes that it is. (Bias does not have to be intentional, and I think most people would agree that bias very rarely is intentional - bias is caused by a preconceived belief, and it is easy to blind yourself to alternatives.)

I am not saying that skeptical scientists are not biased, by the way. Despite the fact that science should always be objective and unbiased, the fact is that everybody has biases whether they are aware of them or not. A scientist will rarely pursue a lengthy investigative process into something they have no interest in, and they will always make subconscious assumptions about what they will find.

Having said that, the e-mails do seem to show some evidence of a desire to play down certain aspects of our understanding of climate, and to play up certain other aspects. I thought I had better cross-reference the comment I posted earlier with the actual IPCC AR4 and I found that the suggested altered wording does appear in the report (though in section 6.5.1.6 rather than 6.4.1). It seems that there is a desire to play down solar effects because of uncertainty - I would argue that the uncertainty is precisely the reason why it should not have been played down.

Of course, this uncertainty would make policy decisions very difficult, because it gives an "out" for those who wish to ignore the possibility of AGW. The scientists involved are so sure that AGW is real that they want to get people to do something about it. I, personally, would call this an abuse of science. I'm sure the reason behind this abuse is with the best of intentions, but it is still an abuse. Uncertainties in solar effects should prompt further investigation, but instead it seems that the preference is to sweep it under the carpet.

Anyway, I've rambled on for far too long. In conclusion I would like to say that I don't feel that anyone's integrity has been irreparably damaged by this hack (or leak, or whatever it is). One could argue that the integrity of climate science has taken a bit of a dent, but so far there is nothing damning in the documents released.

I shall go back to the leaky integrator, I think.

:winky:

CB

[Devonian]

I have to agree with Jethro and VP - there's not a great deal in this stuff for skeptics to wave around as proof of anything. What I think it shows is a group of scientists who believe that they are right and who are sick of skeptics getting on their cases. Obviously, if they believe they are right, they are bound to get a bit sick of the constant haranguing by climate skeptics. Their dismissal of skeptics is kind of understandable in this regard, but it gives no evidence whatsoever to the scientists being either right or wrong - it's just the way it is.

The emails suggest that Michael Mann is just a scientist who believes that what he has done is honest and correct, and he's getting fed up with skeptics accusing him of wrongdoing or deceit. This does not, I might add, mean that MBH98, for example, is a result of perfect, unbiased science; it only means that Dr Mann believes that it is. (Bias does not have to be intentional, and I think most people would agree that bias very rarely is intentional - bias is caused by a preconceived belief, and it is easy to blind yourself to alternatives.)

...

:winky:

CB

Exactly!

And why I so detest comments about certain scientists lying or committing fraud, all the eidence point to honesty of scientific belief.

Now, and again I agree, this doens't mean the science is necessarily right just that it's not necessarily dishonest.

It's thus a mark of the very worst sceptics 'arguement' that they resort to accusations of lies and fraud. If these e mails confirm anything it's honesty of belief (in the scientific sense of the word I guess I better add...).

[Methuselah]

I have to agree with Jethro and VP - there's not a great deal in this stuff for skeptics to wave around as proof of anything. What I think it shows is a group of scientists who believe that they are right and who are sick of skeptics getting on their cases. Obviously, if they believe they are right, they are bound to get a bit sick of the constant haranguing by climate skeptics. Their dismissal of skeptics is kind of understandable in this regard, but it gives no evidence whatsoever to the scientists being either right or wrong - it's just the way it is.

The emails suggest that Michael Mann is just a scientist who believes that what he has done is honest and correct, and he's getting fed up with skeptics accusing him of wrongdoing or deceit. This does not, I might add, mean that MBH98, for example, is a result of perfect, unbiased science; it only means that Dr Mann believes that it is. (Bias does not have to be intentional, and I think most people would agree that bias very rarely is intentional - bias is caused by a preconceived belief, and it is easy to blind yourself to alternatives.)

I am not saying that skeptical scientists are not biased, by the way. Despite the fact that science should always be objective and unbiased, the fact is that everybody has biases whether they are aware of them or not. A scientist will rarely pursue a lengthy investigative process into something they have no interest in, and they will always make subconscious assumptions about what they will find.

Having said that, the e-mails do seem to show some evidence of a desire to play down certain aspects of our understanding of climate, and to play up certain other aspects. I thought I had better cross-reference the comment I posted earlier with the actual IPCC AR4 and I found that the suggested altered wording does appear in the report (though in section 6.5.1.6 rather than 6.4.1). It seems that there is a desire to play down solar effects because of uncertainty - I would argue that the uncertainty is precisely the reason why it should not have been played down.

Of course, this uncertainty would make policy decisions very difficult, because it gives an "out" for those who wish to ignore the possibility of AGW. The scientists involved are so sure that AGW is real that they want to get people to do something about it. I, personally, would call this an abuse of science. I'm sure the reason behind this abuse is with the best of intentions, but it is still an abuse. Uncertainties in solar effects should prompt further investigation, but instead it seems that the preference is to sweep it under the carpet.

Anyway, I've rambled on for far too long. In conclusion I would like to say that I don't feel that anyone's integrity has been irreparably damaged by this hack (or leak, or whatever it is). One could argue that the integrity of climate science has taken a bit of a dent, but so far there is nothing damning in the documents released.

I shall go back to the leaky integrator, I think.

CB

You can add my total agreement too, CB. :winky:

[pottyprof]

You can add my total agreement too, CB.

And mine..........

[stewfox]

I was interested in seeing the attached article.

Private e-mails size upon by climate sceptics which effectively suggested that robust data to support global warming didn't exist.

Rather then another debate re does/doesn't global warming /climate change exist

What DAMAGE is done if people don't want to publish their figures or even HIDE the figures they have ?

If I was being paid £50,000+ a year to investigate global warming would I really want to publish figure that suggest it isn't and my job then go ??

I noted Gordon Browns 2^nd main priority in a recent speech was climate change that was above unemployment or even the ongoing wars.

http://www.dailymail...d-sceptics.html

[laserguy]

If I was being paid £50,000+ a year to investigate global warming would I really want to publish figure that suggest it isn't and my job then go ??

You've all seen those dentists on teevee ads,getting paid a fortune to sell a product which promises to reduce cavities,plaque,etc? Where would those dentists be if we all brushed and flossed three times a day and avoided sugary snacks an' stuff?

[Thundery wintry showers]

CB, that's one of the best posts I've ever read in the climate area!

The stuff mentioned in the last couple of paragraphs- the downplaying of areas of uncertainty that might put the projected extent of AGW under question- relates to a common problem, namely that whenever politics comes into it there tends to be a desire to make out that the science is more certain than it really is, so as to "eliminate unnecessary uncertainty". The problem with that is, if people can see through it (and many people aren't as thick as it commonly believed), then it leaves the scientists and politicians wide open to allegations of misleading and deceit. This in turn undermines the support for the AGW argument which is the opposite of what they want.

The points relating bias often being unintentional and not part of any kind of deceit/conspiracy, yet still very much existing, are well worth taking note of. As someone heavily involved with CRU I can say that they try to be non-biased, but on a subject as emotive as this, it is near-impossible to be completely non-biased. I have biases of my own as well- on the one hand wanting to pass on the case for taking action re. sustainability, and on the other, hoping that AGW is being overestimated, for the sake of ease of adaptation and holding onto winters that are capable of delivering snow events.

[paul tall]

Oh dear.

Smoking gun at this link. Forget context. It's a smoking gun.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/

If these e-mails prove to be genuine, and we should be able to find these very e-mails within the hacked files if they are, then the game is up. Heads will roll. Explanations will be needed.

And some people will still deny, I fear.

Has anybody actually read the 2nd and 3rd e-mails on the link supplied? It seems as though the revelations on there are being glossed over.

They are caught, bang to rights, wondering how they can manipulate data to suit what they want to show. Whilst I don't necessarily fully agree with the commentator's perspective on the sentences highlighted in bold, there is enough there for me.

Yet we have people saying stuff like "what is the context", "means nothing", "these e-mails have been out for days now" etc, etc. The second and 3rd e-mails are a smoking gun. What goes peeps? Do you just not want to see? Can't face it maybe? What?

[stewfox]

You've all seen those dentists on teevee ads,getting paid a fortune to sell a product which promises to reduce cavities,plaque,etc? Where would those dentists be if we all brushed and flossed three times a day and avoided sugary snacks an' stuff?

If someone provided proof that going to the dentist did you no good what so ever , what would the Dentists do then ?

I would suggest manipulate the data. Remember no global warming for 11yrs.

Global warming is a very big business and as has been reflected by many posts on here, the real data it would appear is rather irrelevant to some.

That doesnt mean it isnt going to happen.

ps maybe the BBC will only send 20 people now rather then 35 to the Climate change sumit and save one African village ?

http://anhonestclima...does-in-a-year/

Edited November 23, 2009 by stewfox

[johnholmes]

And mine..........

mine too

a sensible post amidst some of the hysteria, from both sides of the fence to an extent, and very few have read all the e mails to get a sense of what was being discussed or whether the e mails were simply 2 rather fed up scientists 'larking about' for want of a better term.

I agree we need more information on the e mails and fuller statements from those who sent them about what they meant.

At the same time I'm just a bit suspicious about why now with Copenhagen almost here?

Again I stress I'm more for than 'agin AGW but, as I have, from the late 80's-early 90's when I first became aware of its arrival from UK Met sources, I am sceptical of some parts of it.

[Devonian]

Has anybody actually read the 2nd and 3rd e-mails on the link supplied? It seems as though the revelations on there are being glossed over.

They are caught, bang to rights, wondering how they can manipulate data to suit what they want to show. Whilst I don't necessarily fully agree with the commentator's perspective on the sentences highlighted in bold, there is enough there for me.

Yet we have people saying stuff like "what is the context", "means nothing", "these e-mails have been out for days now" etc, etc. The second and 3rd e-mails are a smoking gun. What goes peeps? Do you just not want to see? Can't face it maybe? What?

Look, Paul, you're a convinced sceptic. You see corruption everywhere, fiddling, probably worse. What on earth do you think you're going to see in emails leaked to sceptic blogs and spun for all they're worth? Vindication of AGW? Anthony Watts finding out Phil Jones is a really pleasant chap of faultless integrity? No, you see what you, and they, want to see.

But, to see who is really right join me here in 2015, 2020 and hopefully several more times this century...I'm pretty sure by then it will be, globally, warmer and that, even when I'm dead and buried, people still saying it's not happening...But, if not, you can have a real go at me

[osmposm]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

You might find this commentary interesting,particularly the second last paragraph.... or not! (Dev won't like it one bit - hey-ho).

http://factsnotfanta...print-scam.html

Those who are completely and seamlessly convinced to your side will find it interesting. Those who have similar feelings on the other side will find it infuriating. Those who have open-ish minds will wonder why we have to read another political rant. What is achieved? I've never understood this curious habit of linking to vehement and entrenched opinion pieces, rather than to scientific papers or data. All you are basically saying is, "I agree with this person, and since he's been published (and uses more words and sentences than me), he must have done deep & meaningful research, and must be right."

We know your opinion, guys, there really is little point in just waving someone at us who says the same thing as you, but longer.

Yes, CB, thank you very much for your very fine post. To me it rang unmistakably of truth, in particular because it addresses and understands how real people actually are - in all their paradoxical brilliance & stupidity, benevolence & arrogance, dedication & impatience, foresight & blindness.

Edited November 23, 2009 by osmposm

[Methuselah]

It seems to me, that far too-many folks see only what they want to see?. Can anyone properly refute the fact that CO₂ is a GHG?? If so, then do so, by all means...

In the mean time, there is no smoking gun. There's innuendo aplenty, that's for sure. But, ATM, all I see are dozens of deniers (who, for obvious reasons, prefer to call themselves 'sceptics') running around pointing fingers and saying: I told you so!

Well, I'm sorry: but the truth is far more complex than that!

And (BTW) there ain't no industry bigger than BAU!

Those who are as completely and seamlessly convinced to your side will find it interesting. Those who have similar feelings on the other side will find it infuriating. Those who have open-ish minds will wonder why we have to read another political rant. What is achieved? I've never understood this curious habit of linking to vehement and entrenched opinion pieces, rather than to scientific papers or data. All you are basically saying is, "I agree with this person, and since he's been published (and uses more words and sentences than me), he must have done deep & meaningful research, and must be right."

We know your opinion, guys, there really is little point in just waving someone at us who says the same thing as you, but longer.

Yes, CB, thank you very much for your very fine post. To me it rang unmistakably of truth, in particular because it addresses and understands how real people actually are - in all their paradoxical brilliance & stupidity, benevolence & arrogance, dedication & impatience, foresight & blindness.

Absolutely agree, Os!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thank you to everyone for their kind words. I have to admit that the e-mail hack (leak/whatever) has actually made me feel rather more kindly towards the "Pro" scientists than I did before, because they show up the degree of frustration they feel. Many of their public words and actions are clearly as a result of this frustration. (Heck, I even started to feel a modicum of sympathy towards Michael Mann, which is quite a shock even to me!)

But all joking aside, I don't see anything damning in these e-mails (besides, perhaps, my aforementioned criticisms of rewording the AR4 - but that probably has more to do with politics than science anyway). The whole "hiding the decline" fiasco, I feel, has been blown out of proportion. When VP and I were working on the leaky integrator it became apparent that we had a mismatch with the self-same post-WWII dip. We were looking at ways to force the data to dip at that point.

The reason we did this was not to fraudulently recreate the temperature trend of the 20th Century. The idea was that if we could figure out what kind of forcing would be necessary to cause the dip, and to what degree that forcing would have to operate, then perhaps we could find a mechanism by which such a forcing could occur.

In the end we found that SST data from the period was likely untrustworthy (due to the proximity of the thermometers used to the ships' engine rooms), and so we dropped the artifical forcing out altogether and just accepted the leaky integrator data as it stood.

In all likelihood, this is precisely what the CRU people did. It wasn't a case of "hiding the decline" so much as trying to figure out what would be needed in order to "hide" it.

Anyhoo, off to pick the kids up from school, so I'll see you all later.

Thanks again, everybody!

CB

[stewfox]

Look, Paul, you're a convinced sceptic. You see corruption everywhere, fiddling, probably worse. What on earth do you think you're going to see in emails leaked to sceptic blogs and spun for all they're worth? Vindication of AGW? Anthony Watts finding out Phil Jones is a really pleasant chap of faultless integrity? No, you see what you, and they, want to see.

But, to see who is really right join me here in 2015, 2020 and hopefully several more times this century...I'm pretty sure by then it will be, globally, warmer and that, even when I'm dead and buried, people still saying it's not happening...But, if not, you can have a real go at me

If you have underestimated natural cycles and their impact on global weather but still fundamentally believe in global warming and its consequences you may wish to show data you have in a more favourable light.

It must be frustrating if you believe in something but can't find data to back it up (bit like dark matter).

I guess we will all have to wait around.

Juries out its half time and its

Tottenham 1 v Wigan 0

Still not too late for wigan (CO2 cuts) to come back , if we leave it too long maybe it is then too late 9-1 to Tottenham who could have predicted such a disaster at half time ?

Edited November 23, 2009 by stewfox

[VillagePlank]

When VP and I were working on the leaky integrator it became apparent that we had a mismatch with the self-same post-WWII dip. We were looking at ways to force the data to dip at that point.

Which, I might add, was resolved when another poster on the LI thread pointed me to a paper that explained the problem, and we adjusted accordingly. That paper was written, and published, in Nature, by Phil Jones.

So, it seems, both a reasonable sceptic argument, and the face of the consensus find the same problem, and then find a solution and the world moves on.

Well, at any rate, it does for some.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Which, I might add, was resolved when another poster on the LI thread pointed me to a paper that explained the problem, and we adjusted accordingly. That paper was written, and published, in Nature, by Phil Jones.

So, it seems, both a reasonable sceptic argument, and the face of the consensus find the same problem, and then find a solution and the world moves on.

Well, at any rate, it does for some.

Quite right - I should have made that a bit more explicit!

CB

[The PIT]

Anyway I'm going to have a good long look at them tomorrow if I can. None of the part extracts for me and since I have the contents I can pass a comment on them.

[PersianPaladin]

Trying to persuade people on conspiracy forums that this leaked-emails controversy is taken completely out of proportion and misunderstood - is very difficult. Heck, I even saw the same mentality on Canada Free Press and other right-wing news sites it seems.

Right-wing conspiracy theories seem to be very popular for some reason. Do people not ask sensible questions anymore, like "who benefits?" or "how would they get away with it?", or "what could possibly be the motive?", or "how could they control many independent scientists not helping to sell a product/financial derivative as part of research?", etc.

Dead ears.

Edited November 23, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[PersianPaladin]

Back to the real world: -

http://rawstory.com/...oto-scientists/

A society based on waste, greed and consumption - deserves a demise.

Edited November 23, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[snowray]

You might find this commentary interesting,particularly the second last paragraph.... or not! (Dev won't like it one bit - hey-ho).

http://factsnotfanta...print-scam.html

Thanks for that laserguy, I looked on google as well and found lots and lots of stuff about this, and a lot of angry people too.

I'm not a paranoid person, but with all the lies we are told I sometimes worry about my own sanity. Seems us plebs have been very well conditioned, but it takes a bit humility for a confirmed suporter such as myself of man made AGW up to recently to admit he's been hoodwinked!

Edited November 23, 2009 by snowray