reply to post by masqua
Do you consider the IPCC a credible source, in light of their massive, admitted, decade long fraud?
From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):
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 (failure of computer models):
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 (truth doesn't matter):
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.
What else. So much to chose from.
From Phil Jones (witholding of data):
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
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 !
Dont let that pesky truth get in the way of your agenda!
From Phil Jones (witholding of data):
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.
Anyone condone this coward?
From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):
Mike, 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.
Should have deleted the emails suggesting deletion! DOH!
From Ben Santer * (witholding data) :
We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we
write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I
am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived"
model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse
such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these
issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to
determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.
From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of
this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
Wouldnt want those silly *skeptics* get in the way of true faith, err, i mean science!
From a document titled "jones-foiathoughts.doc" (witholding of data):
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 David 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.
Seems to be a whole lot of 'removing' and 'omitting' going on here!
ect ect ect ect....
the jig is up. AWGers should start updating their resumes, and this time try not to riddle them with lies and fantastic claims.