Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

page: 26
166
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


yes, there are enough interest groups using political clout for every day of the year and they are all shady and the oil lobby is one of them, the tobacco crowd is another, but that's another thread i guess. they have their fingers in everything, so by that logic, we're all shills, i presume.

wrt conclusions, why bring up tobacco? why should this case not be partly reversed? who was fighting the publication of materials in the case of smoking? who's doing that now and has been doing it from the very start? do i really need to stay away from any AGW related topic just because the reps/neocons have a horse in this race and are, as usual, using underhanded PR & tactics i have come to expect from political groups? i don't think so. even if Dubya himself had leaked these files, their content would still be telling the same story, that preordained results rule the show and their data is so corrupted it's basically unusable - a fact which many researchers seem to be perfectly aware of, going by the emails ('don't tell anyone the UK has the FOIA..., erase before disclosure, etc).


they shot themselves in the foot and instead of seeing a physician, they denied everything. septic shock is always a likely possibility in this analogy and while one can sometimes get away with a cover-up, the chances to pull it off drastically worsen as the severity of symptoms increases. climate science, by this analogy, is suffering from 106F fever and experiencing first spasms. denial won't do at this point. what's plan B like? or is it 'C' already?




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
wrt conclusions, why bring up tobacco?


Because the same well-worn tactics are being used.



even if Dubya himself had leaked these files, their content would still be telling the same story, that preordained results rule the show and their data is so corrupted it's basically unusable - a fact which many researchers seem to be perfectly aware of, going by the emails ('don't tell anyone the UK has the FOIA..., erase before disclosure, etc).


These are private and confidential emails. People speak in a relaxed nature, they joke and poke fun. They can delete what they like from their email accounts. Only time they can't, when an FOI request has been made. If it's rejected, they can delete what they want.

The claims of 'preordained results' and 'corrupt data' is just another smear.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
This is actually a new video (or at least, a video I haven't seen posted here).
From Russia Today:


Hot Tricks: Climate change we can't believe in?



Copenhagen is preparing to host experts and world leaders next month to discuss how to prevent climate change. But while they'll be looking to put new restrictions on greenhouse emissions, not everyone in the scientific community is in agreement over global warming.


[edit on 2009-11-27 by Shirakawa]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
These are private and confidential emails. People speak in a relaxed nature, they joke and poke fun. They can delete what they like from their email accounts. Only time they can't, when an FOI request has been made. If it's rejected, they can delete what they want.

The claims of 'preordained results' and 'corrupt data' is just another smear.




Give it up, mel. It's game over:
Its Conclusive: Climate Data Manipulation At Its Worst!

This line of private this and that is a red herring.

Send up the white flag. Admit defeat. To push on, in your case, only makes it that much more shameful. I'm trying to help you out, little buddy.


[edit on 27-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Because the same well-worn tactics are being used.


well, some people are always using influence and PR, no matter the subject at hand. Doesn't mean evidence of misconduct should be ignored, does it?




The claims of 'preordained results' and 'corrupt data' is just another smear.




I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
www.eastangliaemails.com...


iow, we don't have data, but should it ever surface, it will have to be censored. if that's not pre-ordained then i don't know what is. what do you think would have happened to someone innocently producing 'undesirable' data about that time period, without explicit knowledge of the corporate policy apparently in place at the CRU? if they were willing to go after editors, it begs the question what have they done to their own fellows?


==============================================

i'll append this passage, because no new post has been added since my last and the thread is long enough as it is. (and i'm trying to compensate my previous double posts. /jk)


from 1067194064.txt www.eastangliaemails.com...


two people have a forthcoming 'Energy & Environment' paper that's being unveiled tomoro (monday) that -- in the words of one Cato /Marshall/ CEI type -- "will claim that Mann arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for missing values that dramatically affected his results. When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th century.

Personally, I'd offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann's methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries. Anyway, there's going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann's very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from
the past...."



yea, i could rant about the substitution part, which would be somewhat unproductive, because it's apparently standard procedure and has been covered before. What i'm more interested in is how 'early centuries' should affect the reproduction of present time data? what's in this model and why wouldn't they calibrate in a separate step, beforehand?

it looks as if the model needed some data before it can start to produce meaningful results, or am i getting it wrong?

[edit on 2009.11.28 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

The claims of 'preordained results' and 'corrupt data' is just another smear.



I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
www.eastangliaemails.com...


iow, we don't have data, but should it ever surface, it will have to be censored. if that's not pre-ordained then i don't know what is. what do you think would have happened to someone innocently producing 'undesirable' data about that time period, without explicit knowledge of the corporate policy apparently in place at the CRU? if they were willing to go after editors, it begs the question what have they done to their own fellows?


Where is the evidence of malpractice in that email? Perhaps you can outline it a bit better. The first sentence of yours is rather incoherent and I can't see the relationship to the email.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angiras
Great Video on the Climate Scam.
GW Scam

Good link, Angiras.

All ye green soldiers think. Would you destroy life in order to preserve another life? Elite presents us with a problem and shoves their solution up our arses. Do you know what the carbon tax will do? Do you know how many millions of fellow humans will die? Or do you also think that the only solution to all problems is to reduce human population? Will you then offer your life as a noble sacrifice and example to us all?

Do you know what will happen if climate warms? More food. Do you know why this would be a bad idea? Even if the problem presented by the elite has some merit, you should be wary of their solution.

Do you know what will happen to our freedom after the treaty/deal kick off in Copenhagen? Will the end justify the means? Is there another way to care about the tree and a bird without discriminating against human peasants?

And don't worry, the deal will go as planned, you'll get your global governance. Talks here will not prevent it, I merely call to your senses.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Interesting video summary of who's involved in ClimateGate:


ClimateGate Who's Who





posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Where is the evidence of malpractice in that email?


'try to contain the putative medieval warming period even if we don't have data going that far back yet' - what does that mean?

contain ~ keep under wraps OR maybe in the meaning of 'localise' (does not make much sense here imho) the data isn't there yet, but they already know beforehand what to do when it arrives.

the intended result is that an MWP does not exist, i'd any data indicating the contrary will therfore be 'contained', ie. hidden, that's the intention that is obviously conveyed in this paragraph. what kind of system will only release data after examination with a clear concept of what should or shouldn't be there? that's plain old censorship, how's the logic incoherent?

i seriously doubt one can construct a case of malpractice around an email alone, without examining publications and the raw data it's based on in detail.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
'try to contain the putative medieval warming period even if we don't have data going that far back yet' - what does that mean?

contain ~ keep under wraps OR maybe in the meaning of 'localise' (does not make much sense here imho) the data isn't there yet, but they already know beforehand what to do when it arrives.


It does make sense to take contain as inclusion. The MWP is a period in time, the discussion relates to period in time.


I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…


Start at the beginning. Using a timeframe of 2000 years rather than 1000 years would be good. Most proxy reconstructions only go back 1000yrs. So, from say 1000ad to 2000ad. The MWP is suggested to be what? 800-1300ad? So using this timeframe, only a part of the supposed MWP is covered/contained/included.

The point that Peck made related to some memo, was that it would good to contain the MWP even without hemispheric mean proxy which wasn't available at that point (that far back i.e. before 1000 years). Using 0ad to 2000ad would be better. There is a difference between a 'hemispheric mean reconstruction' (e.g., MBH 1998) and regional proxies (the mean hemi data is formed from multiple regional proxies). Not all proxies go back 2000 years.

So finding a way to cover that period would be useful ('trying to adopt a timeframe'). And that's what has happened. There are now reconstructions that go back 2000 years and contain the full MWP period.

This is discussion between scientists about addressing issues that are important in their field.


but they already know beforehand what to do when it arrives


and earlier


iow, we don't have data, but should it ever surface, it will have to be censored.


Where does it say that? What were they going to do? This sort of innuendo is ridiculous.

Go and read the full email: 1054736277

I've seen it elsewhere and it discusses publishing data. They even mention submitted work on this issue ('Phil and I have one under review') and also about methods of using data going back 2000 years. The email is titled 'prosepcrtive eos article' or something, the discussion is related to presenting data in a figure and here is the article with the data figure:

www.geo.umass.edu...

Why don't you post the whole email rather than a quote-mine?

[edit on 28-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Where is the evidence of malpractice in that email? Perhaps you can outline it a bit better. The first sentence of yours is rather incoherent and I can't see the relationship to the email.


I've already outlined it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You keep refusing to address it, and everyone sees it.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more'



UN IPCC's Eduardo Zorita: 'By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication'

A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues "should be barred from the IPCC process." In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: "CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process."

Zorita writes: "Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore."


READ ON


U.S. Scientist on ClimateGate: 'It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity'



The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.

It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.
...
Two factors have enabled this particular conspiracy to survive for so long.

First, the actual data for surface temperatures have been available only through a small number of organizations. Every experienced scientist has had occasion to doubt a colleague’s reported experimental result. No problem: The skeptical scientist merely has to try to replicate his colleague’s result, and a failure means that the claim is false. But how does one replicate the claim that the average temperature of the Earth — an average computed from taking the data at thousands of temperature stations all across the globe — was one degree Fahrenheit lower in 1900 that it was in 2000? It is impossible to visit all the stations today, to say nothing of the stations of 1900. Replication is impossible.

I am automatically skeptical of any claim that by its very nature cannot be replicated by other scientists. What keeps scientists honest is not that scientists are more honest than other people — we aren’t — but that we know our colleagues are looking over our shoulders. Everyone is honest when he knows he is being watched.

We must seriously question whether climate “science” is, or even can be, a true science if skeptics cannot check its experimental claims. The only way climate “science” can approach being a real science is for all of its raw data to be made available. Only then is it possible for outsiders to check, at least partially, the claims of the insiders.

The second reason this conspiracy has been able to survive so long is simply that climatologists are now trained to believe in global warming theory. Remember the overwhelming urge of scientists to believe in their own pet theory, to believe that the data simply must confirm the theory, to believe that the only valid data points are those which confirm the theory? Data that are inconsistent with the theory are not recorded by believers, or not published. To true believers, such data are obviously due to an error in making the measurements, and so need not be recorded.

This human failing is why we need outside non-believers to check the theory against all the data — not just the data selected by the believers.


READ ON

Nope, its settled, oust the climate criminals. Millions of people die due to starvation based on neglect via AGW obsession, and food prices being nearly double after food pastures have been replaced with bio-fuel crops.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


It does make sense to take contain as inclusion. The MWP is a period in time, the discussion relates to period in time.
...

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…


Why don't you post the whole email rather than a quote-mine?




ok, i'll admit that, having now taken another look, i have been reading too much into that particular quote, for whatever reason. must have been these quotation marks and the next line, 'whether it's kosher to show it' which sent me off on a tangent. still, that's not an excuse.

at any rate, reading a lot of these emails did not help my accuracy, so i'll give this thread a rest for a while. it should be obvious, though why i won't post long quotes, that's what references are for and i'm glad you are actually verifying them.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
...
i seriously doubt one can construct a case of malpractice around an email alone, without examining publications and the raw data it's based on in detail.

In the email\1138398400.txt file are what looks like 7 sets of data


Simulation B1.1: Bern2.5CC_bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1000-1998_ar4.dat
Simulation B1.2: Bern2.5CC_bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1000-1998_ar4.dat
Simulation B2 : Bern2.5CC_WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1000-1998_ar4.dat
Simulation B3.1: Bern2.5CC_bard08_volcCrow_CO2_anthr0_1000-1998_ar4.dat
Simulation B3.2: Bern2.5CC_bard25_volcCrow_CO2_anthr0_1000-1998_ar4.dat
Simulation B3.3: Bern2.5CC_WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_anthr0_1000-1998_ar4.dat
Simulation B4 : Bern2.5CC_ctrl_1000-1998_ar4.dat


From email\1137686657.txt

># In order to ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to
># evaluating the forcing terms I use I am sending each of you an ftp address
># where you can download estimates of volcano, solar, greenhouse gas,and
># tropospheric (1000-1998) using total forcing prior to accounting for the
># planetary albedo.
>#
># The ftp address is:
>#
># anonymous FTP to stommel.tamu.edu
># cd incoming/FORCING
># get forc-total-4.12.01.txt
>#
># a few other comments -


That ftp address does not work but the file can be found here:

ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt

ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...
(description sane as from email\1137686657.txt)

Would you not think that these would constitute the raw data?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
ok, i'll admit that, having now taken another look, i have been reading too much into that particular quote, for whatever reason. must have been these quotation marks and the next line, 'whether it's kosher to show it' which sent me off on a tangent. still, that's not an excuse.


Kudos for reassessing. I've often noticed that you're generally open to the evidence when poked a bit, lol (unlike many).

The 'kosher' bit is basically Mann being unsure whether the article they have submitted (Jones and Mann) and is under review is sufficient to have the peer-reviewers accepts their claims. They both have an article in 2004, not sure if that's the article, but it doesn't look like it does the 2000 years business. So perhaps they had to revise the manuscript, or even submit in a lesser format with less extreme claims. It happens.

For people who are part of a supposed conspiracy of thousands, seem a bit unsure of themselves, lol. Almost like a normal academic under the travails of peer review.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
An Interesting Source of Man-Made Global Warming


The US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) reports about a 0.6C temperature increase in the lower 48 states since about 1940. There are two steps to reporting these historic temperature numbers. First, actual measurements are taken. Second, adjustments are made after the fact by scientists to the data. Would you like to guess how much of the 0.6C temperature rise is from actual measured temperature increases and how much is due to adjustments of various levels of arbitrariness? Here it is, for the period from 1940 to present in the US:

Actual Measured Temperature Increase: 0.1C
Adjustments and Fudge Factors: 0.5C
Total Reported Warming: 0.6C


Yes, that is correct. Nearly all the reported warming in the USHCN data base, which is used for nearly all global warming studies and models, is from human-added fudge factors, guesstimates, and corrections.

I know what you are thinking – this is some weird skeptic’s urban legend. Well, actually it comes right from the NOAA web page which describes how they maintain the USHCN data set.


NCDC.NOAA.GOV

The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century.


[edit on 11/28/09 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
An Interesting Source of Man-Made Global Warming


That isn't sourced to NASA, the CRU or the IPCC. i.e. it's completely irrelevant mis-information. All datas is to be taken as matter of fact, no matter how many adjustments (complexity) it takes to get there.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
ok, i'll admit that, having now taken another look, i have been reading too much into that particular quote, for whatever reason.


Just about sums this thread and whole non-story up.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by melatonin





Millions in personal wealth?

Millions as in money?

This file in the "documents" directory shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected $22.6 million in grants.
spreadsheets.google.com...


lol

Get a clue.


Wow! Substance? Not even close. More of your denial.


And for the likes of jdub (back on ignore, you're boring me again), here's the exemptions to the FOI in the UK, as you obviously have issues clicking links and understanding simple information (due to T&Cs, what I have to hide is my disdain for you - perhaps submit an FOI to ATS, I'm sure the three amigos will appreciate it).


Posting a list of subject headings and subheadings says nothing about the contents. Not a single one of the "exemptions" you've listed (another great copy/paste job, which you do so well without attribution) legally exempts any of the information thus far described in the FOI and FOIA requests that have been made public.

The closest you can get is "readily available," but you ignore the fact that the person/entity withholding data must put forward the specific exemption, not just a "rejection."

I can "reject" any requests made of me for anything, but if I cite no authority, my claim of privilege fails.

As does your claim of authority on the subject. Claim your exemption, or disclose. The presumption is always on disclosure.

You are way behind and losing ground, Hadley.

Think of new slurs, your old ones have grown tiresome.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 28-11-2009 by jdub297]

[edit on 28-11-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
j, your ignorance of how research funding works in academia is not evidence of Phil Jones making millions in personal wealth.

[Repeat the second quote of mine here] - acquire clue.





top topics
 
166
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join