It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

page: 22
166
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Shirakawa
 


Mark my words: if there are any missing emails or data, it will ultimately be blamed on the hacker. Jones will claim that his emails regarding deleting data/correspondence were jocular. And unfortunately, the hacker will have put us in a position where we can neither confirm nor deny those accusations.

Well, ATS time is up for me today. Good luck in your search for the truth, members.

-FT.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by FellowTraveler]




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FellowTraveler
 


Actually that puts them in a very precarious position, seeing how Jones has already come out and said that he didn't delete any e-mails.

As the quote I posted earlier said:

"It's not the conspiracy that gets you caught, it's the cover-up."

Edit to add -

It also has the potential to be even more damning seeing how schools usually have tape back-ups of just about everything that happens on school servers.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FellowTraveler

I absolutely understand. Phil Jones in particular has no real future in academia if the more severe charges against him are proven (along with any of the 4 scientists who destroyed data/email at his direction). No one will trust him again. Mike Mann is in hot water as well. I thought Tom Wigley came out looking better than just about anyone else. Though the volume of emails in which he participated is low, he was consistently challenging certain approaches, and noting shortcomings of them.


Of course, science depends on trust between scientists and those outside.

However, take your issue with deleting emails, if that's the one I've seen about AR4, it would be perfectly appropriate to do so in some circumstances - for example, science depends on anon review, were the emails related to that? I've no idea, and nor do you or anyone here. If they were, they maintaining the anonymous status of those reviewers would trump any FOIA request. And if a request is not even in process, he can delete what he likes from his email system.

I've never heard of any restriction on deleting emails for faculty in university. Indeed, many webmail systems blindly do it for you if you allow them.


While I find your position personally somewhat amusing (you'll read what's posted here even if it is a direct quote from the source material that you won't read), I do agree that it is at least a much more fair position than it could be.


As I said earlier, golden rule. I find it pretty easy to sympathise with Phil Jones. But it's one way around the issue, lol.


I guess my point is that your position implies the need for patience because it may be several weeks before a proper treatment of all this information can be done.

-FT.


That's cool. Pity those more interested in propaganda won't do the same (depends on whether maximum noise is the aim).

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

If you want to make a claim of scientific fraud/malpractice:

1. Specify the exact problem with a particular dataset and study.
2. Specify how and why it is fraudulent.

I know you might be big on trial by blog and forum opinion, but generally any charges need to be more than based on the quote-mining of emails.


1. Revision of the "hockey stick" to "hide the decline" sort of springs to mind. Refusal, dating back to 2001, to produce supporting data from a publicly funded "research" organization undercuts the veracity of every Hadley and IPCC position. Absent reproduciblity and publication of underlying data, all conclusions are proprietary and suspect.

2. FOIA is a very straightforward avenue of oversight. Any attempts to avoid compliance evince deceit.

You are a Hadley/CRU lackey.

jw

[edit on 24-11-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

However, take your issue with deleting emails, if that's the one I've seen about AR4, it would be perfectly appropriate to do so in some circumstances - for example, science depends on anon review, were the emails related to that?


Um, no. Publicly funded research is not subject to selective publication. You consider public funding to be a gratuitous license to speculate without accountability. Basic sucking on the most readily available public tit.


I've no idea, and nor do you or anyone here. If they were, they maintaining the anonymous status of those reviewers would trump any FOIA request.


Anything funded by public treasure is subject to FOIA. You want to pursue a private agenda, do it on your own nickel and your own time.

Your fear and desperation grow by the minute, Hadley.

jw



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
It's pretty well-known and has been noted in all of Briffa's studies using these proxies (1998+). The proxies are correlated well with modern temps until 1960+ (applies mostly to certain proxies). The reason why is a currently open question in the literature. For a tree to be a reliable proxy its growth must be highly dependent on temperature (not moisture/precipitation etc), and for some reason some proxies begin to diverge from temperature dependence in the 1960s. A number of studies have focused on this phenomenon.

Bit of a crap fraud, though. Pretty well-known and discussed in the Briffa articles and wider literature. Even McIntyre has known about it for years.


Hmmmmmm....


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Well then...
From the emails:

There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are shown on the same graph. The issue of why we dont show the proxy data for the last few decades ( they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained.
camirror.wordpress.com...

Oh, dear... and I was just commenting to melatonin about the issue of why they dont use the tree ring data for the past few decades.


So, this so-called phenomenon is that proxy temps dont match modern temperature data? Meaning, the more sophisticated we get at measuring temperature the less the proxies match real measurements? It's no wonder the tree ring data emits a straight line as in Mann's hockey stick, and why he has to lay over satellite data as the so-called tree temp data would still be a rough albeit straight line, up to today. FRAUD!

How odd, that the proxy data, under their methods, indicates certain temps for history before real measurements, but when real measurements come in the proxies dont match the real life temps. It sounds to me like the proxies are inconclusive, ie irrelevent.

The idea of taking flawed historical data and then extrapolating it with flawed models to generate future projections using flawed computation techniques is insanity. Especially when we're talking about global government, global taxes, global deindustrialization, et al.

I will be fair and point out that land station data is by and large unreliable, as riddled with urban heat island effect in many cases, with some stations even being located near air conditioner units exhausts. So one could argue weakly this could have to do with the 'decline', but the problem is that the proxies dont even match the satellite data, do they? Meanwhile, this little aspect implicates the 'more reliable' temp data, as even the land station data is deeply flawed.

I BEG YOU, WHAT DATA BEFORE 1980 IS RELIABLE???


Photos of flawed surface stations:




MANY MORE:
www.surfacestations.org...

[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
For a tree to be a reliable proxy its growth must be highly dependent on temperature (not moisture/precipitation etc), and for some reason some proxies begin to diverge from temperature dependence in the 1960s.


Have you ever grown a nice sized vegetable garden, in containers? I have one, right now, massive with hundreds of plants, in containers of different sizes, with different amounts of plants in each, using all different sorts of soils I've gathered throughout the year. The types of plants grown next to each other can also affect growth. There could be years in a trees life where certain plants that stunt its growth flourished in it area, that eventually stopped growing near it. Countless possibilities, with more things that could slow its growth than accelerate it.

Do you have any idea how many factors can affect a plants growth? If you have grown vegetables, have you tried to grow perennials (i.e. trees)? They can have even more quirks than herbacious plants. Container growing is important for my perspective here, because using different soils and in different locations the results you get can be dramatic.

Emails criticizing / questioning Mann about the tree ring proxy:


Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell. However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers.

As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009). As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;

1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the "Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner.

Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers. As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science.

There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller.



Tree ring studies are vitally important to the conclusions reached by the U.N.'s IPCC report, which is the main foundation for the claim that anthropogenic global warming has been "proved." That being the case, one would think that Briffa, one of the two or three primary authors of the tree ring studies, would have a ready response to these very basic questions. But no: he did not reply to Dr. Keiller's email. That prompted this second inquiry from Dr. Keiller:



Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology; ([5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm) and the chronology itself; ([6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/)

Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre ([7]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588) Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions

1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?

2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low individual weighting?

And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my initial email.
Dr. D.R. Keiller

www.powerlineblog.com...

[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Of course, science depends on trust between scientists and those outside.

However, take your issue with deleting emails, if that's the one I've seen about AR4,


So if they refuse to release the data they used to get their results, for years, thereby stiffling open review, while implicitly implying draconian measures in response, then they shouldn't be trusted, no?

Hey could you please explain what "AR4" is. I've yet to see this covered and it's been driving me nuts.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Um, no. Publicly funded research is not subject to selective publication. You consider public funding to be a gratuitous license to speculate without accountability. Basic sucking on the most readily available public tit.


Sorry, you'll find that is wrong. The emails are actually property of the university and they will protect confidentiality issues.

Check the FOI act in the UK. Privacy is still protected here in the EU, and exemptions cover personal information, confidential information, and prohibited disclosure.

However, people are breaking UK laws by posting those emails.


Anything funded by public treasure is subject to FOIA. You want to pursue a private agenda, do it on your own nickel and your own time.

Your fear and desperation grow by the minute, Hadley.

jw


lol, you sound like some crap Bond villain.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So, this so-called phenomenon is that proxy temps dont match modern temperature data? Meaning, the more sophisticated we get at measuring temperature the less the proxies match real measurements? It's no wonder the tree ring data emits a straight line as in Mann's hockey stick, and why he has to lay over satellite data as the so-called tree temp data would still be a rough albeit straight line, up to today. FRAUD!


Some don't. Some do. They correlate well for much of the modern observations, but some diverge in the last few decades.

Nothing to do with 'sophisticated' measures.

And the 'It's no wonder blah blah' is a non-sequitur. Has little to do with straight line or satellite data. Indeed, even non-dendro proxies give a similar outcome. Also, the tend not to use satellite temps, they are too restricted for suitable use.

Shout 'fraud' as loud as you like, I know all you have is noise. So go for it.


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So if they refuse to release the data they used to get their results, for years, thereby stiffling open review, while implicitly implying draconian measures in response, then they shouldn't be trusted, no?


You make it all sound so simple. Much data may not be a researcher's to give. It is owned by private companies and/or restricted by being another researcher's dataset.

If someone like the self-appointed 'frauditor' wants to get the data, he is free to source it himself, pay his dues and/or ask nicely to the original researcher.

McIntyre was refused his data FOI request for these reasons, and it looks like they have him labelled as 'vexatious'. Won't help his case in future. Of course, people could just break criminal laws in a desperate attempt to show how unethical scientists are, lol. CRU had already said they were attempting to be freed from the restrictions to allow free access to the data.


Hey could you please explain what "AR4" is. I've yet to see this covered and it's been driving me nuts.


Refers to the IPCC 'fourth assessment report'. What would you guys do without me, eh?

As for Keiller, who cares? He's a fraudit regular. Of course, he'll whine about Briffa showing McIntyre to be an scientific amateur.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Ok, so then there exists no reliable data to use, not even satallite? We're talking about global climate here.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Admittedly, the email situation is sticky. It's hard to tell what "delete" encompasses, namely whether the local copy was deleted or whether server copies were deleted too. But let us assume that the emails in question truly no longer exist in order to continue this discussion.

Many of these emails spanned institutions and it is unknown how much mail is retained by the mail servers of any of the institutions. What is clear is that any comments in the emails about deleting other emails always occurs in the context of an FOI request that has recently been issued, and not in any other.

That the impetus for the deletion is that the CRU is getting FOI requests is disconcerting. Jones specifically directs people to delete emails after these requests come in. Any time an isomorphism of the word "delete" appears in an email, it typically exists along-side mention of "FOI" or occurs shortly after an FOI request.

Here is a prime example:

On 05 May 2008, David Holland submitted an FOI request for correspondence between Briffa, Jones, and others in regards to AR4. I have not seen the request itself (though I would be interested), but understand from Holland and from CRU people talking about it what it encompassed.

On 29 May 2009, Jones sends the following email:


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


If that correspondence actually was subject to Holland's FOI request (and it appears to be since the FOI people at CRU warned Jones against deleting emails), then destroying the correspondence is a breach of the Freedom of Information Act of 2000. Criminal conviction and a fine are possible under the provisions of the legislation.

Given these circumstances, I do not believe that it was perfectly acceptable to delete the emails (which they did after the FOI request came in). I too am unaware of restrictions on faculty email deletion, but I believe that in this case, since the correspondence was related to an FOI request, it was illegal to delete the information.

I will admit that I may be misinterpreting the scenario but the fact that Jones himself says that the FOI people at CRU told him not to delete emails, makes it seem as if it was not OK to do so. I am willing to hear arguments about privacy (Briffa notably attempts to make one himself in some of the emails). My understanding of British laws is obscenely minimal, so I may be wrong here.

Additionally it may be possible for CRU to hide behind IPCC's international status and thereby subvert FOIA in some circumstances. This may actually be one of them, but I am unsure. I will have to do further investigation in regards to that angle.

-FT.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by FellowTraveler]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Ok, so then there exists no reliable data to use, not even satallite? We're talking about global climate here.


Absolutely no idea how you came to that conclusion from my post.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Reread my post. I begged you what temps are dependable.



Hey could you please explain what "AR4" is. I've yet to see this covered and it's been driving me nuts.


Refers to the IPCC 'fourth assessment report'. What would you guys do without me, eh?


So why did they conspire to delete and hide data related to AR4? Er wait...


Won't help his case in future. Of course, people could just break criminal laws in a desperate attempt to show how unethical scientists are, lol. CRU had already said they were attempting to be freed from the restrictions to allow free access to the data.


Your spindoctoring is off the chart today


[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FellowTraveler
If that correspondence actually was subject to Holland's FOI request (and it appears to be since the FOI people at CRU warned Jones against deleting emails), then destroying the correspondence is a breach of the Freedom of Information Act of 2000. Criminal conviction and a fine are possible under the provisions of the legislation.


And they have a 20 day process. The information is released within 20 days unless exempt.

Submitted 5th May, exempt by 25/26th if not released. Deleted around the 29th.

The funny thing is that on most systems the emails are only deleted locally anyway. Even asking for this sort of correspondence is ridiculous. It's private and confidential, and little to do with university business.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks. I was unaware of a 20-day process. Out of curiosity, do you happen to know if it is 20 calendar days or 20 business days? How does that work with the following established timeline of events?

05 May 2008 – Initial FOI request from Holland
06 May 2008 – Acknowledgement of FOI request by CRU
29 May 2008 – Jones sends email asking Briffa/Mike Mann/etc to delete related emails.
03 June 2008 – CRU issues FOI rejection notice issued to Holland.
04 June 2008 – Holland appeals the rejection.
20 June 2009 – CRU rejects the appeal.

It seems odd that the emails are deleted roughly 4 days prior to the FOI request rejection (and prior to any appeals), and that they would not respond in the 20-day window you describe, but I suppose that by day 20 they may have simply said "we're never going to allow this request through" and the rest is just a matter of lag and process.

-FT.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by FellowTraveler]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Reread my post. I begged you what temps are dependable.


Cool, just trying to work out a line of thought from ya, didn't follow at all from my post or your questions. I don't have the patience for scattergun BS, just so you know.

All are within particular levels of uncertainty. Thus for modern obs it's about +/-.01 or something. For dendro the reliability is lower (uncertainty higher) and it reduces the further back in time we go. Again, uncertainties are determined statistically. Satellites won't be so different from station data in their uncertainties.

It depends is the answer, lol. A 100 gram scale with divisions of .1 is not dependable for measuring tens of milligrams.

But my point was that sateliite data only starts from the late 70s. Little use for dendro purposes, and the land station data is very comparable during overlap, and goes back much further. Hence why I couldn't figure out the point of the question. I'm just used to a logical line of argument.


So why did they conspire to delete and hide data related to AR4? Er wait...


The IPCC reports contain no original research. It's a summary of the literature. You don't even know it's data. The mails could be related to anything.

Sorry, dude, I've never heard that faculty can't delete what they want off their webmail systems. Looks like some dude had a FOI request and it was refused.



Your spindoctoring is off the chart today


[edit on 24-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


You can read the recent responses from the UEA and CRU. They label the FOI requests 'vexatious'. It means they'll view these people requesting as being a pests and timewasters.

ABE:
www.uea.ac.uk...

As for a crime, yeah. Stealing documents is as much a crime as deleting emails under an FOI request, so is posting them. Just the truth.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FellowTraveler
Thanks. I was unaware of a 20-day process. Out of curiosity, do you happen to know if it is 20 calendar days or 20 business days? How does that work with the following established timeline of events?

05 May 2008 – Initial FOI request from Holland
06 May 2008 – Acknowledgement of FOI request by CRU
29 May 2008 – Jones sends email asking Briffa/Mike Mann/etc to delete related emails.
03 June 2008 – CRU issues FOI rejection notice issued to Holland.
04 June 2008 – Holland appeals the rejection.
20 June 2009 – CRU rejects the appeal.

It seems odd that the emails are deleted roughly 4 days prior to the FOI request rejection (and prior to any appeals), and that they would not respond in the 20-day window you describe, but I suppose that by day 20 they may have simply said "we're never going to allow this request through" and the rest is just a matter of lag and process.

-FT.


You could complain they deleted them before the requestee was informed, but I would think that Jones et al would have been told beforehand.

There's no way they would get an FOI request through for such information. It's private and confidential. I'm actually amazed that anyone thinks that a random someone can just make a random request (with little purpose) and get such personal information. Be a stupid situation. Faculty would just use non-official email systems, lol.

As for business or calender, no idea.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


The point fo the question is EVERYTHING about global warming alarmism has to do with the temperature record, which shows to be deeply flawed overall, and weak at best in a few cicumstances.

It's a shame you've invested so much into this issue at this site, for so long, you'll never bring yourself to give in on any of this.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The point fo the question is EVERYTHING about global warming alarmism has to do with the temperature record, which shows to be deeply flawed overall, and weak at best in a few cicumstances.


Not at all, but whatever.


It's a shame you've invested so much into this issue at this site, for so long, you'll never bring yourself to give in on any of this.


Yeah, cheers. I do wonder why I invested so much time responding to your inane posts.

Ciao



new topics

top topics



 
166
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join