UPDATE: CRU apparently been hacked – ..AGW HOAX revealed...

[Air Force Met]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

"The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.

"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact the police about the data breach."

AFM Comment - I've read some of the emails...if these are real...its very damning stuff and its is what MANY of us have been trying to tell some here for YEARS. Many emails. For instance: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

For me...the most OUTRAGEOUS...and even you global warming/climate change supporters out there ought to agree with this...is how these guys are working together to squeeze skeptics out of the peer review process. Now...some of us have been saying that for...well...it seems like forever. We know its going on. Within NOAA and the NWS very FEW of the actual METS and MICS support man-made climate change...its only the high-end leadership...but the rest are silenced. Same thing in academia.

Example: "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal! So what do we do about this? 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. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board …What do others think?"

When your research is no longer subject to peer review...its junk.

And I leave you with this: The climate changes.

Title edited so people will be aware of what this means...

[Air Force Met]

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Global-warming-Intent-to-deceive

"The leaked correspondence does not call into question the science behind global warming--but it certainly casts into doubt the 'revisionist warmism' this team has pushed so strongly since the IPCC's last report, including at the weblog Real Climate, where many are contributors and which is subject to the same strict message discipline as they tried to establish and enforce elsewhere.

Many of the emails regard adopting a unified communications strategy to exploit recent data--but also to perform damage control when the data didn't support their political positions. This exchange is illustrative:

Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

"Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to *****."

Another email clearly advocates the destruction of correspondence to avoid complying with Freedom of Infomation requirements:

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with ***** re AR4? &&&&& will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email $$$$$ and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting %%%%% to do likewise."

Another email shows a discussion on how to frustrate the spirit of Freedom of Information, while complying with the letter of the act:

"Options appear to be: 1.Send them the data 2.Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that **** can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s. 3.Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them."

[Aslkahuna]

It's going beyond the Hadley Centre-two scientists at the University of Arizona are among the names involved in the leaked info.

Steve

[Air Force Met]

Here are some more:

"You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

" Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:
AD 1000 AD 1400 AD 1600 I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the
residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably
larger uncertainties farther back... You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can't even remember what the other columns are! Let me know if that helps. Thanks, mike
p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try
to distort things...

"Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term
decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what
it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things. I don't think the
world was much warmer 6000 years ago - in a global sense" -

We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines. You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios provided by the synthesis team. If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley a political decision.

The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.

So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's
series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate
(through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere
patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major
discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of
spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary
here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that
explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar
seasonality
*and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in
exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the
problem we
all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
series.

So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that
"something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case.

[Air Force Met]

Even more.....

"In an odd way this is cheering news !" - Response to this email-"It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly.

The low interannual variability and the minimum occurrence of
cold extremes during the 20th century, argue that the most recent
decades of this long summer record represent the most favourable
climate conditions for tree growth within the last four
millennia.'

I'm not sure that this statement follows unambiguous from results
presented in this paper. Because mean temperatures during last
decades, according presented reconstruction, are not exceptional.
Besides, e.g. period about 1700 BC, according this
reconstruction, represent probably the same conditions taking
into account low variability, low occurrence of extremes and high
mean temperature.
May be to soften this statement and replace 'the most favourable'
with something like 'highly favourably' or 'probably the most
favourable'?



Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.


From Nick McKay:

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?


From Tom Wigley:

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.


From Phil Jones:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.


From Kevin Trenberth:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.


From Michael Mann:

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.


From Phil Jones:

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !


From Michael E. Mann:

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


From Phil Jones:

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

[Air Force Met]

More...
Alan:

Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations are increased and continued grant funding, university advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.

Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _I am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and thankfully there is a goodly share of those._

-gene


Gene:

I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take away from it:
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall, nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century temperature reconstruction.

2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of his own work, where that work is the critical core of the chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is, of course, the majority of such analyses.

As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground."

Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research, including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that the current alarmism is justified.

David Schnare


Eugene I. Gordon wrote:

David:

I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!

-gene

AFM Comment - A GAME to get some people RICH....

[Air Force Met]

More...

Phil

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20 Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is) cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

[vbhoutex]

BUSTED!
I have never been one to deny the existence of global warming due in part to manmade reasons, however, I could never support the AGW "extremists" and what I saw as an agenda and not obviously scientifically supported data(my observations based on data available to any of us).
IF and I do mean if, this is all proven to be true, and I do believe it is at least partially true, then AGW has taken a major hit and there are going to be a lot of people with mud on their face and Universities losing major funding, etc. I have to stop before I go political. It would not matter what the subject is-In the scientific community what has been released IS TOTALLY UNCACCEPTABLE!! JMHO.

Quite interesting how we haven't heard much, if anything, about this in the major media!!!????

[Air Force Met]

Quite interesting how we haven't heard much, if anything, about this in the major media!!!????

Posted the exact same thing on another blog this AM. They are guilty in part of the cover up...as many of their enviro reporters are part of the larger agenda. They report only the part of the AGW story they want. Only FOX has reported this story...none of the others. Which...of course...is just another clear example of the bias that exists in the press...especially the TV press. Here is more from the Canada Free Press:

"Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.
Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”

[srainhoutx]

The Emporer has no clothes.

[vbhoutex]

The Emporer has no clothes.

LOL!!! Indeed!!

I am always suspicious of anything "taken out of context"(supposedly much of the leaked info was), BUT I have seen enough now to come to a more final conclusion than I have had previously that much of the AGW(see my previous post b efore you conclude I don't think AGW happens)community was on agenda that would enrich them and there "programs" in the long run. IMO, many heads and many programs need to roll for these apparent outright lies and manipulation of data and opinions by SUPPOSED scientists(a true scientist does not do this). Sad that some university programs may end up suffering mightily from these peoples own egocentric and self-serving desires.

[Air Force Met]

I am always suspicious of anything "taken out of context"(supposedly much of the leaked info was), BUT I have seen enough now to come to a more final conclusion than I have had previously that much of the AGW(see my previous post b efore you conclude I don't think AGW happens)community was on agenda that would enrich them and there "programs" in the long run. IMO, many heads and many programs need to roll for these apparent outright lies and manipulation of data and opinions by SUPPOSED scientists(a true scientist does not do this). Sad that some university programs may end up suffering mightily from these peoples own egocentric and self-serving desires.

I've read most of the emails that are cited...and most aren't really taken out of context. I put up the highlights...much of which I copied and pasted directly from the emails. What you see is what you get. These guys were peer reviewing within their community and shutting out dissenters; they were covering up data that didn't agree and they were making sure the data fit the agenda. The problem is that THESE guys were who the Al Gore's of the world were getting their info from. The house was built on a foundation of sand.

At the end of the day...what you are going to find is that AGW does not exist because of CO2 and that the work that has been done (and consequently rejected by those who have an agenda because they have agenda...and not because the science it bad) shows CO2 FOLLOWS GW (due to an increase in ocean temps and its subsequent release of CO2) and is not the cause of GW. Data throughout the geological record bears this out...and its no different now.

What you will also find is a grand solar max combining with favorable PDO and AMO that created a nice spike in temps during the last 30 years. The correlation for those indexes and the rise in temps is much greater than the correlation b/w temp rise and CO2. Now...we are getting into a solar min and the PDO and AMO's are reversing.

To put the cherry on top...we have the urban heat island effect. This is something I am very interested in...and so were these climate scientists...but not for the same reason. I am interested in it because I believe it explains some of the temp increase. According to some of the emails I have read (and I've only read a couple of hundred)...they were interested in it because they realized IT could be skewing the data upwards (increasing temps)...and not CO2...and that wasn't what they wanted...so they really didn't want to research it. In particular the China temps had them concerned.

During the cold war...we needed obs (we had an entire career field in the AF just to take obs). Since the end of the cold war...a couple of thousand observing sites have ceased. These sites were mostly rural. The ones left today are mostly urban. Its called the heat island effect for a reason...except those who are compiling the data want to pretend it doesn't exist. We all know it exists...we openly talk about it...but doesn't ANYONE stop and think: "Hey...if there is a heat island...and we compare data to 30 years ago...maybe it is hotter because the 'heat island' has expanded over the last 30 years with increased urbanization." Of COURSE the heat island effect is greater than it was 30 years ago...and that means it will be HOTTER at the urban observing sites. Therefore...that's a rise in temps based on heat island...not CO2.

Take KIAH and KHOU for example. 30 years ago...these airfields were in the cornfields. Today...they are in the city. This has effected data...especially the overnight lows. Its the same all over the world. Not a lot of study has been done on this...but I could easily see the heat island effect adding at least a .5C-1C on the observing sites. This would totally taint the data and you would be comparing apples and oranges if you compared today's data to the same observing site 50 years ago. One of the emails admitted this...especially with the Chinese obs and ESPECIALLY with there overnight temps (and the impact of smog). This means there would be another cause for temp increases BESIDES CO2...and it would be something you really cannot do anything about...unless you cover everything with grass...lol.

[brunota2003]

I've been backing GW as mainly natural causes for years now. There is just too much data saying the Earth goes through cycles...one of those cycles was mentioned above, being the MWP, followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA). Ever since then, the Earth has been warming, and one day it will start cooling again. Mother Nature is hardly perfect, and is constantly balancing herself out...anyone that watches Hurricane Seasons knows that.

Also, on the heat island solid concrete thing...I've been wondering how much of an effect that has on precipitation downstream of the city.

Aren't CO2 levels also taken a lot in/around major cities?

[artist]

More...

Phil

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20 Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is) cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

AFM do you have any more? I am posting what you have found to another site. This needs to go viral. And thanks for getting ahold of them before they shut the server down.

[aerology]

The view point from Australia...
http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthre ... =20&page=1

Of course, considering what has happened with the revelations about the HADCRU and GISS scientists [ ?? ] manipulation of data and their ability to both select or arrange for in house reviewers of their submitted papers and the manner in which they are seen to manipulate editors and other reviewers, any further discussion on Anthropogenic Global Warming may be totally superfluous.

The AGW hypothesis was a creation of Mrs Thatcher, the British Prime Minister from 1974.
It was a way to gain prestige in international circles and a the political animal that has morphed into the Anthropgenic Global Warming ideology.

An excerpt from the late John Daly's, "Global Warming; How it all began;"

Quote:
Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. (This is probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue; i.e. Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry). Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue.


The whole concept of global warming has relied on the fact that global temperatures were rising and the theory that human origin green house gases were responsible for this rise.
This hypothesis had to be confirmed by observation from reputable scientific sources from somewhere or it would not be accepted as a valid hypothesis by the scientific community.
Enter Thatcher's creation of what was to become the Hadley Climate Research Unit [ HADCRU ]to verify Global Warming and Thatcher's international standing.
As we now subsequently know, CRU has supplied the necessary and now known in many cases, to be deliberately manufactured key sets of data or cherry picked proxy based evidence that supported the concept of Anthrogenic Global Warming.
Without either HADCRU and GISS run by Hansen in the USA and some of the personnel in the current debacle are heavily involved in both organisations, there would never have been any verification of the supposed warming due supposedly to the human origin release of and very minor input of human origin CO2 to the much larger but still vanishingly small amount of naturally occurring CO2.

Now with the revelations that are continuing to pour out of Climategate of deliberately corrupted data, cherry picked data both in source and time frames, revelations of manipulation of editors and reviewers of papers, maximum pressure on various journals whose editors were "convinced" to prevent the publication of papers that were sceptical of the claims of AGW Team and in the end whose editors were ultimately too weak and spineless to enforce their editorial policies of transparency in both data and methods of computation underlying the conclusions of the papers from the Team in HADCRU and GISS.

Without the very corrupted data of HADCRU and GISS that almost alone is the complete underpinning of the claims for AGW, the entire recent warming of the planet would have been accepted and probably verified as being due entirely to natural fluctuations in the global climate, fluctuations that have occurred ever since the Earth moved out of the last Great Ice Age some 12,000 years ago.
Now that the HADCRU debacle is public with more revelations possibly still to come, the entire rational behind the claims of AGW have disappeared.

Eventually the changes in the global temperatures will be seen to be no more than normal fluctuations of the global climate and may be seen to be the outcome of a number of interacting and telecommunicated natural local oscillations around the planet with Old Sol up there the single major driver of all the changes but whose role is yet to be teased out as so many other climate affecting factors also have to be found and researched and their roles understood in the total overall climate picture.

The AGW ideology no longer has any rationale for it's existence but that won't stop the believers in the AGW ideology as they will lose their rationale for their now firmly fixed beliefs.

Unfortunately, due to the CRU and GISS the concept of a dangerous global warming arising from human related activities is now firmly fixed in the western mind and many on this forum who are skeptics will still have trouble thinking in different terms about any global warming even if proven to be of an entirely natural nature.

For the full on believers in the AGW ideology, only when the last of the believers in AGW die will the planet see the last of what was on the point of being the Greatest Financial, Moral and Political Scam in History.

In science, sometimes it may take a long time but eventually as we have seen in so many recorded historical cases, the true science will eventually rise to the top and the memories of perpetrators of false and fraudulent science will be consigned to the dust bins of history remembered only for the lessons in bad and fraudulent science that they left behind for later generations to study.

Edited to include link.

[MGC]

Great job AFM! Expose the GW sham!

"We must get rid of the Medevial Warm Period" this has been my big question for GW advocates. What caused the medevial warm period? Sure was not humans burning fossile fules? And, as far as peer reviewed studies, I have likened that to Hitler asking his henchmen to review Mein Kampf......MGC

[brunota2003]

Sooo, assuming all this is real and AGW is really just a large hoax...does that make the hacker a good guy (for exposing the hoax) or a bad guy? (for hacking into a secure server in the first place)

[artist]

Sooo, assuming all this is real and AGW is really just a large hoax...does that make the hacker a good guy (for exposing the hoax) or a bad guy? (for hacking into a secure server in the first place)

personally, since they have ignored all FOI requests, I consider this similar to a whistle blower. Just my take on it. If they won't comply with law then how do you expose them?

[aerology]

It's just my opinion but from the handle the"hacker" used, I would consider it an inside job, as it contains almost everything that was asked for in the FOI request and some extras.
If I were a lower level worker who thought highly of the "value of truth in research" I would have opened more flood gates than this.

[Crostorm]

CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story

There’s a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents from CRU. A commenter named Neal on climate audit writes:

People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:

Here’s the code with the comments left by the programmer:

Code: Select all

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;

[b]and later the same programming comment again in another routine:[/b]

Code: Select all

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/c ... eal-story/