Climategate: The Plot Thickens?

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on November 29, 2009

[tweetmeme]

Possibly. Scientists in New Zealand are alleged to have cooked the books as well. Whether this turns out to be the case or not, it is clear that the leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have caused significant credibility problems for the climate research community.

The scandal is bad enough that even dedicated believers in the theory of anthropogenic global warming–like George Monbiot–feel obliged to issue cris de coeur:

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote “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!”

One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.

Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased. However good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren’t going to follow or understand them. Jones’s statement, on the other hand, is stark and easy to grasp.

In this case you could argue that technically he has done nothing wrong. But a fat lot of good that will do. Think of the MPs’ expenses scandal: complaints about stolen data, denials and huffy responses achieved nothing at all. Most of the MPs could demonstrate that technically they were innocent: their expenses had been approved by the Commons office. It didn’t change public perceptions one jot. The only responses that have helped to restore public trust in Parliament are humility, openness and promises of reform.

(Hyperlinks omitted; you should click and read the whole thing, of course.) It was once considered inconceivable that the climate science community could arouse Monbiot’s ire so. And yet, they have; an indication of just how much trouble the community is in.

It is reassuring to see that the East Anglia scientists are now committed to publishing their data for the world to see. But this kind of thing should have happened much earlier. Whatever one’s views on anthropogenic global warming–click here, and follow the links to get a sense of mine–even climate skeptics should want believers of AGW to be on the up and up, so as to ensure that the most honest and upfront debate possible can, and will occur concerning the issue. Instead, proponents of AGW find themselves on the defensive, their methods and arguments suddenly distrusted as never before.

I suppose that all of these problems would have been avoided if more people adopted the attitude taken by Judith Curry. But that certainly did not happen.

VERY QUICK UPDATE: Well, this isn’t helpful, now is it?

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

  • mrjohnqpublic

    You can smell the stink of the Motley CRU from across the ocean. “Sorry, can't find the original data – all we have is our cooked data. Take it or leave it.”

  • Clausenlt

    What Monbiot leaves out about the email where Jones says… “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!”…is in that same email he talks about getting the editor of that journal ousted. So Jones and crew were behind him getting fired…not what Monbiot claims was the reason!

  • ehmoran

    Amazing!

    The data are in the faces of Man-Made Climate Change supporters and they still refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

    These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth's physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me.

    I always knew that when man-made global climate change was shown as insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word “FAITH”, in science. But this event and exposure is by far worse for the science community; but “Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)”.

    Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. But no outcry and defense for those scientists?

    IF you see no problem with this and not wondering if the public has been misled by these scientists, then you are not scientists, you're in denial, and you stand for no moral principles.

    On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..

    Now, Al Gore PUBLICLY states Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn't have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. SO WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can't, because if they do, the gig is up.

    The phenomenon I discuss in my research has been studied for nearly 50 years and accepted as highly plausible by the Royal Society (I have the Publication) but the process and connection were unexplainable; the only drawback of all Magnetic Intensity and Ambient Temperature studies, in their WORDS, up till now. We explained the Process in our paper along with the data analysis. Unfortunately, we used the Hadley Global Temperature Datasets. The data used were yearly averages, which was well explained both in the original paper and the 2008 AGU presentation. Just didn't see any RealClimate people at the presentation. But they knew about it. I informed them
    The following is what I perceived as personal intimidation and a threat to call my USGS supervisor for doing this study. The only reason someone uses words like “Does your boss know what your doing” in the context of this event is a threat to get you FIRED if you don't cease and desists. Now if the study and theory were not plausible and a potential explanation of global temperature variability, then why would RealClimate.org do what they did in their posts? Not very professional for PhDs. Additionally, there are many other areas on that website where conversations took place.
    QUOTE
    “264
    John Mashey says:
    30 June 2007 at 1:04 AM
    re: #261: Chuck: you can stop worrying. Tindall has been at USGS for while,……………………………………..
    Mr. Moran, if you’re still watching:
    I have read USGS 370.735.5 and I hope you (and James Tindall) have.
    Do managers SAF and LE HB know about this? Any constructive comments?”
    UNQUOTE
    From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200

  • Critical_Thinker

    There are now four kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, statistics and computer models

  • Rmoen

    The purloined emails that many now call 'Climategate' underscore the need for the United States to convene our own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission. The Climate Research Unit's emails show small-minded, embattled thinking that reeks of zealotry, not science. It appears the researchers weren't beyond drawing conclusions that were relatively unsupported. Two of the authors, Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth, were the lead authors of one of the most important chapters in the United Nations Fourth Assessment Report. This is no small matter since the EPA, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, based its conclusions on the UN reports.

    For twenty years I believed in man-made global warming theory, but the evidence has changed. During that period we’ve had ten years of warming then ten years of little or no warming. I blame my confusion on the United Nations for getting ahead of their facts. When they claimed CO2 drives global warming, I think they were more concerned about politics and funding than science. One only needs to look at their track record: UN forecasts do not fit what actually happened.

    - Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

  • FTM

    Sincerely folks, we need to get the US out of the UN and then get the UN out of the US.

    Google ITER and then google the z axis accelerator. ITER stands for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. The pilot plant is being built in France. The project was started ten years ago and thanks to massive international political corruption the forty hectare site has been recently cleared. I think that I could clear a forty hectare forest in ten years with a pocket knife.

    In a nutshell, ITER has the potential to produce more power than the human race consumes at present with helium gas being the major biproduct.

    Then there's the pebble bed reactor design, the pilot plant is being built in South Africa. An air cooled run-away proof fission reactor that doesn't require a tenth of the safety infrastructure that a “conventional” water cooled reactor requires.

    By the bye, has anyone calculated the “peak” in uranium?

    Speaking off which, there's a bunch of folks of late calling the validity of the 1947 “Peak Oil Theory.” Peak oil is the idea that we're running out of oil. Problem is we keep finding more and the other problem is that pumped out fields for some reason or another have some oil in them again. Once again, google the topic for more information.

    Lastly, the idea of carbon sequestration has a couple potential show stopping bugs. The really bad one is the concept of using oil wells as a storage sump for waste CO2 gas from fossile fuel power plants. The potential problem is this, oil is pumped out of the ground. Something takes the place of the oil or the ground above the oil deposit sinks. Now, based on the assumption that the folks pumping out the oil aren't pumping something into the ground to take the place of the oil then where is the gas taking the place of the oil coming from? And if you pump a couple thousand pound per square inch CO2 into the ground, how do you keep it from leaking out? If you happen to live on the land with a CO2 sump under it and the CO2 leaks out what's to stop the stuff from suffocating you and your family?

    Stuff like that.

  • wambesi

    Gloabl Warming really is man-made – at CRU by 'scientists'.

  • weylanmcanally

    I find all of these leaked emails to be a confirmation of what I always suspected. The numbers are manipulated – plain and simple. I read the original “hockey stick” paper. Having been trained in science I found it to be preposterous. Tree rings to estimate temperature? This paper formed the foundation of the popularized warming movement. It was a piece of junk.

    I read a letter-to-the-editor in my local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News. In it the author explains his background. He was an engineer with Texas Instruments. His research group studied CO2 as a possbile conductor for computer applications. His group found that CO2 had a very limited ability to retain heat. The heat retention was at it's maximum at around 150ppm. If I recall correctly, that number did not increase until over 2,500 ppm. The earth does not have enough carbon to reach those atmospheric CO2 levels. In other words, CO2 has produced all the warming that it will ever produce.
    I found that little letter to be quite informative since his research was for commercial and not political gain.

  • Paul_Clark

    Yeah Weylan, Prof Ian Plimer says the first 50ppm of CO2 in the air contributes to heating but after that (we currently have 384ppm) there is no contribution.

    Anyways the Brits have shown that cosmic rays affect tree ring growth more than temp or rain:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsi

    “The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.”

    Tree-o-mometer doesn't work.

  • weylanmcanally

    Thanks for the link. It was an interesting article.
    I think this article accidentally points out how little we understand about climate. We only have semi-reliable data for MAYBE 100 years from industrialized countries.
    How can we possibly create climate accurate climate models from unreliable data? We all need to slow down and reevaluate our climate policy initiatives.

  • bondservant1958

    For most of this week I like most minded people have been completely absorbed by the revelations coming from the e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia. Given the lack of reporting from the “trusted” alphabet soup of news organizations, ABC,CBS,CNN,BBC we have ourselves read the e-mails and inspected the notes in the code. My understanding is that the CRU headed by Dr Jones supplied the data in their possession to the United Nations IPCC to support the UN goal of implementing Cap and Trade legislation on the whole world in order to combat a man made contribution to the destruction of the world. A “if we do not act quickly there is no hope scenario” much like the financial bailouts No Time to Think Trust Us This is TOO BIG TO FAIL! Trust is what the e-mails from the CRU speak to and manifest. How can I trust the data used to create the theory that Global Warming was man made and not influenced more by an object 93 million miles away that constitutes 99% of the mass of the solar system and in which we live, in its “atmospheric influence”, recognizing that it only takes 8 min for the warm to reach us. All we ever asked for was Show Us the Math!, well we have seen the math and we have seen collusion, and we have seen stifling of criticism or inspection, and we have seen the trick of adding real temps where your code fails so that anyone else that has records from 1961 on cannot refute your algorithm, and we have seen willful and criminal misuse of US taxpayers money (Roger’s missed trip and all the stuff you did not buy that US hardworking and suffering taxpayers paid for through the NOAA), and we have seen the deliberate destruction of evidence in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am more concerned about what we have not seen. I have not seen or heard a peep from Al Gore. I still see the President of the United States prepared to agree to putting a greater burden on the US taxpayer in the now unfounded belief that somehow man was responsible for this last period of warming that certainly ended more than 10YEARS AGO! Hide the decline my great-mother! I as a law abiding tax paying citizen of the United States Demand a Federal Investigation of this matter Climategate!

  • bondservant1958

    For most of this week I like most minded people have been completely absorbed by the revelations coming from the e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia. Given the lack of reporting from the “trusted” alphabet soup of news organizations, ABC,CBS,CNN,BBC we have ourselves read the e-mails and inspected the notes in the code. My understanding is that the CRU headed by Dr Jones supplied the data in their possession to the United Nations IPCC to support the UN goal of implementing Cap and Trade legislation on the whole world in order to combat a man made contribution to the destruction of the world. A “if we do not act quickly there is no hope scenario” much like the financial bailouts No Time to Think Trust Us This is TOO BIG TO FAIL! Trust is what the e-mails from the CRU speak to and manifest. How can I trust the data used to create the theory that Global Warming was man made and not influenced more by an object 93 million miles away that constitutes 99% of the mass of the solar system and in which we live, in its “atmospheric influence”, recognizing that it only takes 8 min for the warm to reach us. All we ever asked for was Show Us the Math!, well we have seen the math and we have seen collusion, and we have seen stifling of criticism or inspection, and we have seen the trick of adding real temps where your code fails so that anyone else that has records from 1961 on cannot refute your algorithm, and we have seen willful and criminal misuse of US taxpayers money (Roger’s missed trip and all the stuff you did not buy that US hardworking and suffering taxpayers paid for through the NOAA), and we have seen the deliberate destruction of evidence in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am more concerned about what we have not seen. I have not seen or heard a peep from Al Gore. I still see the President of the United States prepared to agree to putting a greater burden on the US taxpayer in the now unfounded belief that somehow man was responsible for this last period of warming that certainly ended more than 10YEARS AGO! Hide the decline my great-mother! I as a law abiding tax paying citizen of the United States Demand a Federal Investigation of this matter Climategate!

  • garyplyler

    And Winston looked at the sheet handed him:
    “Adjustments prior to 1972 shall be -0.2 degrees and after 1998 shall be +0.3 degrees.”

    Winston wondered at the adjustment to the data. At this point, no one even knows if the data, prior to his adjustments, was raw data or already adjusted one or more times previously.

    It didn’t matter. All Winston was sure of is that one of the lead climatologists needed more slope to match his computer model outputs. He punched out the new Fortran cards and then dropped the old cards into the Memory Hole where they were burned.

    “There!” Winston exclaimed to himself. “Now the temperature data record is correct again; all is double-plus good.”

  • garyplyler

    An easy explanation of what ClimateGate means,

    ClimateGate emails and computer programs were taken from a main server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. It is not known if this was a theft or the actions of a whistleblower, disgusted with what the lead scientists at CRU were doing.

    ClimateGate exposed the cabal of 20 – 30 scientists (not just at CRU) that peer reviewed each others papers, strong-armed scientific journals to only print their views, and then sat on the IPCC panels as authors judging which published studies go into the IPCC final reports. This is why they always keep shouting “peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies”. They owned the peer review process.

    ClimateGate exposed that this small group has been adding positive corrections to the raw global temperature data, inflating the amount of published temperature rise over the last 50 years. Both CRU in the UK and NASA-GISS in the US add these biases. At CRU, the programmers did not even know what and why some corrections were added every month. Only since satellite monitoring for comparison have the amounts of biasing leveled off.

    ClimateGate exposed the leaders of this cabal instructing each other to delete emails, data files, and data analysis programs ahead of already filed Freedom Of Information Act requests for raw data and computer codes, clearly a crime.

    ClimateGate exposed the “trick” about the Hockey stick figure and other studies that performed proxy construction of past temperatures. After all, reconstruction of the last 1,000 years of climate is the first step in predicting the future with super computer programs as explained below:

    Everything about all 21 super computer programs used by the IPCC to determine future global warming rely on best-determined past sensitivities to solar and volcanic effects (climate forcings) from the proxy temperature record.

    1. The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (the handle of the hockey stick) was necessary so that past solar effects could be minimized, thereby allowing almost all of the warming in the last 75 years to be blamed on Greenhouse Gasses. Raw data (like tree-ring thickness, radioisotope of mud layers in a lake bottom, ice core analyses, etc.) are used as a proxy for reconstruction of the temperature record for 1000 AD to 1960 AD. To ensure desired results, statistical manipulation of the raw data and selecting only supporting data, cherry-picking, was suspected and later proved.

    2. The slope of long-term 10-year running average global temperature using thermometers from 1900 to present (the blade of the hockey stick) was maximized with the sloppy gridding code, Urban Heat Island effects, hiding the declines, and even fabricating data (documented in the leaked source code comments revealed with ClimateGate). This ensured that the Greenhouse Gas effect coefficient in all 21 of the super computers was maximized, and that maximizes the temperature result at year 2100 based on Greenhouse Gas increases. This thermometer data was used to replace the tree ring-divergence after 1960 and plot this over the climate history data of (1) above giving the false impression that the reconstructed 1000 AD to 1960 AD results are more accurate than they are.

    3. Because tuning of the super computer programs uses back casting, the computer outputs could always replicate the 20th Century (by design); therefore it was assumed that the models had almost everything in them. Because of (1) and (2) above, nearly all climate change predicted by the models was due to CO2 and positive feedbacks and hardly any of the climate change was for other reasons like solar, understood or not.

    4. Over the years, when better numbers for volcanic effects, black carbon, aerosols, land use, ocean and atmospheric multi-decadal cycles, etc. became available, it appears that CRU made revisions to refit the back cast, but could hardly understand what the code was doing due to previous correction factor fudging and outright fabricating, as documented in the released code as part of ClimateGate.

    5. After the IPCC averages the 21 super computer outputs of future projected warming (anywhere from 2-degrees to 7-degrees, not very precise), that output is used to predict all manner of catastrophes. (Fires, floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, insects, extinctions, diseases, civil wars, cats & dogs sleeping together, etc.)

    So shut-up or be called a denier,
    live the way we tell you to live,
    pay more for everything, and
    just send money for my research on the effects of global climate change on horseshoe crabs (which have been around for about 440 million years through all possible temperature ranges).

    I hope that this makes the ClimateGate controversy easier to understand.

  • FTM

    Sincerely folks, we need to get the US out of the UN and then get the UN out of the US.

    Google ITER and then google the z axis accelerator. ITER stands for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. The pilot plant is being built in France. The project was started ten years ago and thanks to massive international political corruption the forty hectare site has been recently cleared. I think that I could clear a forty hectare forest in ten years with a pocket knife.

    In a nutshell, ITER has the potential to produce more power than the human race consumes at present with helium gas being the major biproduct.

    Then there's the pebble bed reactor design, the pilot plant is being built in South Africa. An air cooled run-away proof fission reactor that doesn't require a tenth of the safety infrastructure that a “conventional” water cooled reactor requires.

    By the bye, has anyone calculated the “peak” in uranium?

    Speaking off which, there's a bunch of folks of late calling the validity of the 1947 “Peak Oil Theory.” Peak oil is the idea that we're running out of oil. Problem is we keep finding more and the other problem is that pumped out fields for some reason or another have some oil in them again. Once again, google the topic for more information.

    Lastly, the idea of carbon sequestration has a couple potential show stopping bugs. The really bad one is the concept of using oil wells as a storage sump for waste CO2 gas from fossile fuel power plants. The potential problem is this, oil is pumped out of the ground. Something takes the place of the oil or the ground above the oil deposit sinks. Now, based on the assumption that the folks pumping out the oil aren't pumping something into the ground to take the place of the oil then where is the gas taking the place of the oil coming from? And if you pump a couple thousand pound per square inch CO2 into the ground, how do you keep it from leaking out? If you happen to live on the land with a CO2 sump under it and the CO2 leaks out what's to stop the stuff from suffocating you and your family?

    Stuff like that.

  • wambesi

    Gloabl Warming really is man-made – at CRU by 'scientists'.

  • weylanmcanally

    I find all of these leaked emails to be a confirmation of what I always suspected. The numbers are manipulated – plain and simple. I read the original “hockey stick” paper. Having been trained in science I found it to be preposterous. Tree rings to estimate temperature? This paper formed the foundation of the popularized warming movement. It was a piece of junk.

    I read a letter-to-the-editor in my local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News. In it the author explains his background. He was an engineer with Texas Instruments. His research group studied CO2 as a possbile conductor for computer applications. His group found that CO2 had a very limited ability to retain heat. The heat retention was at it's maximum at around 150ppm. If I recall correctly, that number did not increase until over 2,500 ppm. The earth does not have enough carbon to reach those atmospheric CO2 levels. In other words, CO2 has produced all the warming that it will ever produce.
    I found that little letter to be quite informative since his research was for commercial and not political gain.

  • jjauregui

    Stop bitching, take responsibility and take action. Stop all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. Stop donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The Environmental Defense Fund. Write your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored funding and coordination of this and related propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. Write your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. That’s what I have done in response to this outrageous violation of the public trust. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984” and the US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near to the truth?

  • http://planetaryvision.blogspot.com/ Paul_Clark

    Yeah Weylan, Prof Ian Plimer says the first 50ppm of CO2 in the air contributes to heating but after that (we currently have 384ppm) there is no contribution.

    Anyways the Brits have shown that cosmic rays affect tree ring growth more than temp or rain:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsi

    “The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.”

    Tree-o-mometer doesn't work.

  • weylanmcanally

    Thanks for the link. It was an interesting article.
    I think this article accidentally points out how little we understand about climate. We only have semi-reliable data for MAYBE 100 years from industrialized countries.
    How can we possibly create climate accurate climate models from unreliable data? We all need to slow down and reevaluate our climate policy initiatives.

  • bondservant1958

    For most of this week I like most minded people have been completely absorbed by the revelations coming from the e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia. Given the lack of reporting from the “trusted” alphabet soup of news organizations, ABC,CBS,CNN,BBC we have ourselves read the e-mails and inspected the notes in the code. My understanding is that the CRU headed by Dr Jones supplied the data in their possession to the United Nations IPCC to support the UN goal of implementing Cap and Trade legislation on the whole world in order to combat a man made contribution to the destruction of the world. A “if we do not act quickly there is no hope scenario” much like the financial bailouts No Time to Think Trust Us This is TOO BIG TO FAIL! Trust is what the e-mails from the CRU speak to and manifest. How can I trust the data used to create the theory that Global Warming was man made and not influenced more by an object 93 million miles away that constitutes 99% of the mass of the solar system and in which we live, in its “atmospheric influence”, recognizing that it only takes 8 min for the warm to reach us. All we ever asked for was Show Us the Math!, well we have seen the math and we have seen collusion, and we have seen stifling of criticism or inspection, and we have seen the trick of adding real temps where your code fails so that anyone else that has records from 1961 on cannot refute your algorithm, and we have seen willful and criminal misuse of US taxpayers money (Roger’s missed trip and all the stuff you did not buy that US hardworking and suffering taxpayers paid for through the NOAA), and we have seen the deliberate destruction of evidence in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am more concerned about what we have not seen. I have not seen or heard a peep from Al Gore. I still see the President of the United States prepared to agree to putting a greater burden on the US taxpayer in the now unfounded belief that somehow man was responsible for this last period of warming that certainly ended more than 10YEARS AGO! Hide the decline my great-mother! I as a law abiding tax paying citizen of the United States Demand a Federal Investigation of this matter Climategate!

  • bondservant1958

    For most of this week I like most minded people have been completely absorbed by the revelations coming from the e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia. Given the lack of reporting from the “trusted” alphabet soup of news organizations, ABC,CBS,CNN,BBC we have ourselves read the e-mails and inspected the notes in the code. My understanding is that the CRU headed by Dr Jones supplied the data in their possession to the United Nations IPCC to support the UN goal of implementing Cap and Trade legislation on the whole world in order to combat a man made contribution to the destruction of the world. A “if we do not act quickly there is no hope scenario” much like the financial bailouts No Time to Think Trust Us This is TOO BIG TO FAIL! Trust is what the e-mails from the CRU speak to and manifest. How can I trust the data used to create the theory that Global Warming was man made and not influenced more by an object 93 million miles away that constitutes 99% of the mass of the solar system and in which we live, in its “atmospheric influence”, recognizing that it only takes 8 min for the warm to reach us. All we ever asked for was Show Us the Math!, well we have seen the math and we have seen collusion, and we have seen stifling of criticism or inspection, and we have seen the trick of adding real temps where your code fails so that anyone else that has records from 1961 on cannot refute your algorithm, and we have seen willful and criminal misuse of US taxpayers money (Roger’s missed trip and all the stuff you did not buy that US hardworking and suffering taxpayers paid for through the NOAA), and we have seen the deliberate destruction of evidence in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am more concerned about what we have not seen. I have not seen or heard a peep from Al Gore. I still see the President of the United States prepared to agree to putting a greater burden on the US taxpayer in the now unfounded belief that somehow man was responsible for this last period of warming that certainly ended more than 10YEARS AGO! Hide the decline my great-mother! I as a law abiding tax paying citizen of the United States Demand a Federal Investigation of this matter Climategate!

  • garyplyler

    And Winston looked at the sheet handed him:
    “Adjustments prior to 1972 shall be -0.2 degrees and after 1998 shall be +0.3 degrees.”

    Winston wondered at the adjustment to the data. At this point, no one even knows if the data, prior to his adjustments, was raw data or already adjusted one or more times previously.

    It didn’t matter. All Winston was sure of is that one of the lead climatologists needed more slope to match his computer model outputs. He punched out the new Fortran cards and then dropped the old cards into the Memory Hole where they were burned.

    “There!” Winston exclaimed to himself. “Now the temperature data record is correct again; all is double-plus good.”

  • garyplyler

    An easy explanation of what ClimateGate means,

    ClimateGate emails and computer programs were taken from a main server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. It is not known if this was a theft or the actions of a whistleblower, disgusted with what the lead scientists at CRU were doing.

    ClimateGate exposed the cabal of 20 – 30 scientists (not just at CRU) that peer reviewed each others papers, strong-armed scientific journals to only print their views, and then sat on the IPCC panels as authors judging which published studies go into the IPCC final reports. This is why they always keep shouting “peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies”. They owned the peer review process.

    ClimateGate exposed that this small group has been adding positive corrections to the raw global temperature data, inflating the amount of published temperature rise over the last 50 years. Both CRU in the UK and NASA-GISS in the US add these biases. At CRU, the programmers did not even know what and why some corrections were added every month. Only since satellite monitoring for comparison have the amounts of biasing leveled off.

    ClimateGate exposed the leaders of this cabal instructing each other to delete emails, data files, and data analysis programs ahead of already filed Freedom Of Information Act requests for raw data and computer codes, clearly a crime.

    ClimateGate exposed the “trick” about the Hockey stick figure and other studies that performed proxy construction of past temperatures. After all, reconstruction of the last 1,000 years of climate is the first step in predicting the future with super computer programs as explained below:

    Everything about all 21 super computer programs used by the IPCC to determine future global warming rely on best-determined past sensitivities to solar and volcanic effects (climate forcings) from the proxy temperature record.

    1. The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (the handle of the hockey stick) was necessary so that past solar effects could be minimized, thereby allowing almost all of the warming in the last 75 years to be blamed on Greenhouse Gasses. Raw data (like tree-ring thickness, radioisotope of mud layers in a lake bottom, ice core analyses, etc.) are used as a proxy for reconstruction of the temperature record for 1000 AD to 1960 AD. To ensure desired results, statistical manipulation of the raw data and selecting only supporting data, cherry-picking, was suspected and later proved.

    2. The slope of long-term 10-year running average global temperature using thermometers from 1900 to present (the blade of the hockey stick) was maximized with the sloppy gridding code, Urban Heat Island effects, hiding the declines, and even fabricating data (documented in the leaked source code comments revealed with ClimateGate). This ensured that the Greenhouse Gas effect coefficient in all 21 of the super computers was maximized, and that maximizes the temperature result at year 2100 based on Greenhouse Gas increases. This thermometer data was used to replace the tree ring-divergence after 1960 and plot this over the climate history data of (1) above giving the false impression that the reconstructed 1000 AD to 1960 AD results are more accurate than they are.

    3. Because tuning of the super computer programs uses back casting, the computer outputs could always replicate the 20th Century (by design); therefore it was assumed that the models had almost everything in them. Because of (1) and (2) above, nearly all climate change predicted by the models was due to CO2 and positive feedbacks and hardly any of the climate change was for other reasons like solar, understood or not.

    4. Over the years, when better numbers for volcanic effects, black carbon, aerosols, land use, ocean and atmospheric multi-decadal cycles, etc. became available, it appears that CRU made revisions to refit the back cast, but could hardly understand what the code was doing due to previous correction factor fudging and outright fabricating, as documented in the released code as part of ClimateGate.

    5. After the IPCC averages the 21 super computer outputs of future projected warming (anywhere from 2-degrees to 7-degrees, not very precise), that output is used to predict all manner of catastrophes. (Fires, floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, insects, extinctions, diseases, civil wars, cats & dogs sleeping together, etc.)

    So shut-up or be called a denier,
    live the way we tell you to live,
    pay more for everything, and
    just send money for my research on the effects of global climate change on horseshoe crabs (which have been around for about 440 million years through all possible temperature ranges).

    I hope that this makes the ClimateGate controversy easier to understand.

Previous post:

Next post: