91
motionview says:
20 November 2009 at 3:00 PM

I’ve had a look at HARRY_READ_ME.txt . Forget the conspiracy, forget the emails: the software development and database management practices are atrocious. I’m sure their CS colleagues are mortified. You could not get a simple medical device on the market with that kind of software development, yet these results justify fundamentally changing the entire world economy?

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't, and can't teach, create a fake ecological disaster so that they can get grant money."

Shill Writes:
Lets ignore the smoking gun in a legal sense, and think about the scientific method for just a moment....

I do believe this is more than one gun and there's some opaque mist coming from the "fun" end. I won't claim it's smoke, but holy ****, this is incredible.

For those who've grabbed the document set (Marc et alia), it's worth a look at the one called "HARRY_READ_ME.txt". It's not your usual README, but rather a very long and involved narrative of an analyst's attempt to revive and use (perhaps over a period of years, 2006-9) both datasets and programs used in earlier studies. Lots of console clips interspersed with commentary. I surmise that "Harry" could well be the "Mr. Ian (Harry) Harris" in the CRU directory listing his work areas as "Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming" which certainly seems to fit.

For someone with the expertise and patience to chug through it, this file appears to be pretty much a gloss on the original data, likely many of the manipulation and analysis programs contained in the cru-code folder (much of it is apparently recent generation FORTRAN), as well as the various alterations to both that were apparently necessary to replicate earlier results.

Mr. Ian (Harry) Harris
Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming

My god people, have you just been skipping over everything I've posted from that HARRY_READ_ME.txt file!?!?

The data itself is a HUGE unknown, even to the researchers themselves as they attempt to decode what's gone before.

Sure, the emails indicate the possibility (and certainty in some cases) of fraud. That one file PROVES HOW UNRELIABLE THE DATA ITSELF IS!!

They "lost" the original data?? I believe it now. v2.10 was run with a ****ton of code that was undocumented, made no sense and was FULL of bugs. Is v3.0 better when half the data from 1980 on is SYNTHETIC?!? Or when it used the output from the buggy 2.10 version (which is all they had) to produce NEW data?!?!

This is a ****ing joke. The emails are FAR from the most damning thing in this. I can't wait for somebody familiar with the code to start going over it and seeing how many "So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0)" instances exist.

"And how often do you only get partially valid results, say ****it and go with it anyway?" Asimov

Exactly. If you get rid of the political and social impact of AGW and just look at the problem they have as demonstrated by HARRY_READ_ME it becomes pretty clear. They have data from land stations that move over time, stations that don't report consistently, C02 data, data from tree rings in the last 20 years that breaks down, cloud and precipitation data that doesn't match the land station data values or locations, a cooling trend recently and a warm period 500 years ago all from different people at different times in different formats with probably different goals and different agendas. And they suspect that the earth is warming and want to perform a robust analysis of CO2 versus temperature across the surface of the earth. Compound it all with forcing effects of volcanism and latitude. They need better algorithms and programmers to have any real trust in the output they are getting yet they press on and just force the data to reveal their "truth". AGW in this context is not a cohesive theory supported by all the evidence. That's bad mojo if you need the next GW grant to eat. Their solution? Fraud. The data is insufficient or contradictory and it should be dropped, but instead they use synthetic data when "necessary".

No ****. I went to the salon today to get my hair cut. The place was jammed; they were having a special discount....anyway lots of people who work there follow FedUp and since hair stylists hear a lot of sad stories (most economic-centered) during the day, when they find someone who might be helped with some information, they send them to FedUp. Anyway....I walked in the door and I've got a ton of people just utterly MORTIFIED about this revelation. Mind you, there are plenty of more liberal-minded folks there - and honestly, some of THEM were the most ticked off. Apparently, the 'general populace' that was more or less inclined to think the science did support this, got smacked upside the head today. While there are certainly plenty of us who never believed in the first place, these guys really look like they'd been taken for a one-way ride.

Oh and none of the excuses or explanations thusfar offered, seemed to be even remotely convincing. They all believed exactly how it looks - damning....and they feel like suckers.

We have here a stellar example of it in real life in the above example where a “squared” value (that theoretically can never become negative) goes negative due to poor programming practice.
...
But yes, from a programmers point of view, to watch someone frantic over this “newbie” issue is quite a “howler”…

And that is why I’ve repeatedly said that every single calculation needs to be vetted for rounding, overflow, underflow, precision range, …

Because otherwise you are just hoping that someone did not do something rather like they clearly have done before…

Notamment nous n’avons pas la réponse de Briffa aux deux demandes de Donald Keiller (prof à l’u. Anglia Ruskin)
02 octobre 2009

Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell…

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.

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…

Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre…

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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This scoping report marks the end of the first phase in developing and implementing a new approach to pro-environmental behaviours and influencing
behaviours.
...
The scope of work has ranged beyond behaviours which impact directly on carbon emissions to those which impact indirectly (e.g. consumption of goods) or which are important for other environmental reasons (e.g. certified and assured food). Furthermore, it has considered a wide range of existing and potential interventions taking an
integrated approach to policy and communications.
...
In theory an environmental behaviours strategy based around the kinds of behaviours described in this report could take us about one sixth of the way towards the
60% CO2 reduction target and more if offsetting were included (annex B). This is based on a crude assumption that we could engage up to 10 million households in a significant degree of behaviour change covering energy, water, waste, transport and product purchasing and that producers would respond. But the considerable gap between values/attitudes and actions/behaviour remains.
...
Based on the social marketing theory, our strategy therefore needs to address
four behavioural domains:

• Behaviour formation and establishment;
• Behaviour maintenance and reinforcement;
• Behaviour change;
• Behaviour controls.

I received a lot of emails in response to Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam

Many were from religious zealots of global warming theory, and as you might surmise they were not printable.

A few common sense comments came my way suggesting that the hackers or insiders (I believe the latter) did not prove global warming was a scam, only that that there is proof scammers are involved in global warming.

I have to admit that is true. Apologies offered. That admission aside, even more damning data has surfaced in regards to data manipulation.
.
.
.
Does any of that matter to the modern day crusaders? Of course not. Propaganda trumps science and causes select people. Once selected it is extremely difficult for those selected to give up the crusade. Instead they become missionaries for the cause.

Thus "We need to save the earth from global warming" whether it is warming or not, whether it is caused by greenhouse gasses (if indeed it is warming), and whether or not the plans to do so make any sense (which they don't).

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Full story at The Australian Link.
cynical1 (Reply)
Mon 23 Nov 09 (07:16pm)

You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.

Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Des informaticiens commencent à regarder le code du CRU (Phil Jones et comparses) et c'est pas beau.

jmw (Industrial)
23 Nov 09 7:31
Good tip in the threads... look at the Harry read me txt in documents.....
This is some poor programmer trying to make sense of the data.

I think the mails have provided a quick high but the real fireworks are going to come from the documents and the computer code.
Oh, and the next tranche of stuff downloaded if and when it happens.

But people, as caring human beings, spare a thought for the warmists who are going ape trying to shoot down deniers and hold up the researchers.

"Just typical private email language you'd find anywhere" they claim but other scientists, not in their cosy group, seem not to agree.
Here's a link to a thread discussing harry_read_me.txt :
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421

From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" <****@insec.quorus.e-burg.su>
To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: schijatov
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
Dear Keith, March 6, 1996
.
.
.
Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions. The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times during the last some years. That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money. I and Eugene have a possibility to participate in the Cambridge meeteng in July, but we need extra many and special invitations.
If you do not have enough money to invite both of us, Eugene does not insist upon this visit.
The best wishes to you and Phil.

Yours sincerely Stepan Shiyatov

SHELL INTERNATIONAL

Mick Kelly and Aeree Kim (CRU, ENV) met with Robert Kleiburg (Shell International’s climate change team) on July 4th primarily to discuss access to Shell information as part of Aeree’s PhD study (our initiative) and broader collaboration through postgrad. student project placements (their initiative), but Robert was also interested in plans for the Tyndall Centre (TC). What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.

1. Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.

2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.

3. Robert seemed to be more interested in supporting overseas (developing world) than home/EU studentships, presumably because of the credit abroad and their involvement in CDM. (It is just possible this impression was partially due to the focus on Aeree’s work in the overall discussion but I doubt it.) It seems likely that any support for studentships would be on a case by case basis according to the particular project in question.

4. Finally, we agreed that we would propose a topic to this year’s MSc intake as a placement with Shell and see if any student expressed interest. If this comes off we can run it under the TC banner if it would help.

I would suggest that Robert and his boss are invited to the TC launch at the very least (assuming it will be an invite type affair). Question is how can we and who should take this a step further. Maybe a meeting at Shell with business liaison person, Mike H if time and myself if time? I’d like to/am happy to stay involved through the next stage but then will probably have to back off.

We didn’t cover the new renewable energy foundation.

Mick Kelly
11 September 2000

Central Government
1) Department of Trade and Industry (Renewables Programme; Construction Industry)
2) Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (energy efficiency, energy crops, Environmental Improvement Fund, Warm Front, Community Energy)
3) Department of Transport, Land and the Regions (planning, transport, public sector building)

Regional Government
4) Regional Development Authorities (RDAs)

Local Authorities

Government Agencies
5) The Environment Agency
6) Countryside Agency

Other Public Sector
7) English Partnerships

Energy Agencies
8) The Carbon Trust
9) The Energy Saving Trust
10) Northern Energy Initiative
11) Renewables North West

Academics and Think Tanks
12) The Economic and Social Research Council
13) The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
14) Centre for Research Education and Training in Technology (CREATE)

Private Sector
15) Urban Regeneration Companies (eg Igloo Regeneration Fund)

Other
16) EU Commission
a. (6th Framework Programme,
b. ALTENER,
c. SAVE,
d. SRB,
e. ERDF,
f. CITIES

African Centre for Technology Studies

Rescuing the Kyoto Protocol: Perspectives for African Negotiators

A Special Issue of Innovation

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION FUNDS

Summary
The African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) is seeking US$ 10,742 to finance the production and distribution of a special issue on Climate Change of its regular magazine, Innovation. This issue will aim to better prepare the African delegates to the resumed sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6) meeting to be held in May 2001 in Bonn, Germany by providing up to date overview of main issues at stake for Africa. The talks follow the failure to make a breakthrough by negotiators from 170 countries that gathered in The Hague in November 2000. The meeting will aim to (a) set the operational details for commitments on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol, and (b) reach agreement on actions to strengthen implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) itself. Africa is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change and its impacts, and has low capacity to adapt to these changes. Most/many delegates from Africa lack the necessary negotiating skills needed at international meetings such as the COP. The Climate Convention and its Protocol present numerous opportunities for Africa to adapt to climate changes and its impacts while achieving other urgent development needs at the same time. It is important, therefore, that all efforts to rescue the Kyoto Protocol—deadline at COP 6—be pursued. The costs to this continent as a result of the Protocol not going into force are more than it would benefit. It is imperative, therefore, that African delegations be equipped with the necessary information to boost their negotiating tasks on the various issues at stake. As a contribution towards this effort, ACTS will be publishing the special issue of Innovation that will be distributed to African delegations just before the Bonn. Articles in this issue are being prepared by some of the most seasoned negotiators on climate change on the continent.

This proposal is being submitted by a research consortium. It will be coordinated by the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. In the process it will be guided and assisted by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). While IVM will be responsible for the quality of the process-related issues of the dialogue, the coordi-nation of the scientific expertise necessary will be undertaken by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia. The other project partners are Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi, India, ENDA Tiers Monde in Dakar, Senegal and COPPE/ Climate Centre at the University of Rio De Janeiro in Brazil (See Table 1).
.
.
.
This proposal addresses phase 1 of a two-phase proposal entitled: Helping Operationalise article Two (HOT): A science-based policy dialogue on fair and effective ways to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system and implications for Post-Kyoto policies. The aim of this project is to operationalise Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention which provides the long-term objective of the climate change regime.
.
.
.
4.7.2 Budget of preparatory phase
Table 5 provides an overview of the total estimated costs of the preparatory phase for the con-tractor (IVM).
Total 167.8k EUR

The issue is this: Just how is it that funding from renewable energy interests evades charges of bias, yet subsidies from traditional power entities scream bloody conflict when each is equally friendly to the recipient’s cause?

As with all things AGW, the alarmist quick-draw canard that the science is settled but for a few outliers in the fossil fuel industry's pockets is quickly losing whatever civic support it may have had. And the scientific subterfuge exposed last week by the CRU emails and documents represents but the latest of many recent outrages sure to accelerate the ongoing public awakening to the hoax that has been perpetrated upon them.
.
.
.
And it has become abundantly clear that it is not, nor was it ever, the AGW skeptics who were the liers. Or the cheaters.

For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large. But in the past week or so, it’s become more apparent than ever that those who’ve accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along.

Both Mann and Briffa had been challenged for years to produce their data, methods, and source code by Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre. Both ignored the tenets of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) McIntyre cited and fought every effort to induce their coming clean. And actually not without good reason -- last month, CRU was effectively forced to release the Yamal information, whereupon an analysis by McIntyre proved that Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting records not friendly to their position.
.
.
Criminal? Oh yes, indeed. As this mock-science serves as justification for trillions of dollars in imposed and proposed new taxes, liens, fees, and rate hikes -- not to mention the absurd wealth-redistribution premise of international climate debt "reparations" -- such manipulation of evidence should be treated as exactly what it is: larceny on the grandest scale in history.

Sorry, Al -- the science hasn’t been settled. It’s merely been meddled.

54
Bas says:
23 November 2009 at 6:49 AM

What’s scientific about this…..?

“So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

From HARRY_READ_ME.txt …….you’ll find it…..

[edit]

[Response: Anyone who has worked on debugging code tests things and sometimes find odd behaviours that are obviously wrong. You then fix them, as 'Harry' goes on to do. No "smoking gun" in finding that debugging code finds bugs. - gavin]

58
Adam Gallon says:
23 November 2009 at 7:27 AM

Interesting as the e-mails are, from a point of view of group-dynamics and as Judith Curry’s post over at Climate Audit shows, a “Circling of the Wagons”, the real interesting material is contained within the documents, the one labelled HARRY_READ_ME about the computer programming behind the CRU data.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/ being specially interesting.
Is it not high time, that this archaic, patched, botched & distorted set of models was consigned to an electronic dustbin and a new model started, with proper inputs?

[Response: What 'Harry' was doing is exactly that - upgrading legacy code so that it actually works and can be used by others. And these aren't 'models' in any case. - gavin]

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 60 peer-reviewed publications.

4 Conclusions

The Tornetra ¨sk records of MXD and TRW are updated to
AD 2004. By including MXD data from relatively young
trees in the most recent period, a previously noted apparent
loss of sensitivity to temperature is eliminated. These new
data enable a much improved reconstruction of summer
temperature for the last 1,500 years in northern
Fennoscandia.
Previous climate reconstructions based on tree-ring data
from Tornetra ¨sk were biased by a divergence phenomenon
in TRW around AD 1800 and therefore show erroneously
low temperature estimates in the earlier part of the records.
Tornetra ¨sk MXD does not show this ‘‘divergence problem’’
and hence produces robust estimates of summer tempera-
ture variation on annual to multi-century timescales.
The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in
the new Tornetra ¨sk record: On decadal-to-century time-
scales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were
all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this
new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on
AD 1000. A ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ is supported by other
paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia,
although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetra ¨sk sug-
gests that this period was much warmer than previously
recognised.

Yes, it is published right here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow

And summarized here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

My last link for you is to the blow by blow on how it was produced. It documents the three years of Harry's life that went into producing the HADCRUT3 dataset.

It really doesn't take long to get a fair idea on the quality of the work coming out of this place. I've given at least one example for each of the points you raised above. There are many more examples for each of your questions in the actual files linked below. Read it for yourself.
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html

After entering into debate with Barrie Pittock, I have decided to shift to using the 1 sigma level as a mask for all maps. This will not affect any of the temperature plots you have done until now, but means that the China and C.America precipitation maps will need re-drawing using 1 sigma. Please let me know when these are done.
Note also for Russia and that everything from now on for WWF (both T and P) should use 1 sigma as the mask.

Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

CLIMATEGATE: My analysis of the CRU files, starting with "documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt"

Warwick Hughes
on November 23, 2009 at 6:12 pm

In my view Jones ref to using GHCN is a classic obfuscation. The GHCN is a 1990’s construction, the key Jones et al work was done by 1986. There is only one way to understand what Jones et al did and that is to use the station data they used and track the changes they made.
No other way – but of course PDJ does not want you doing that.

IN A NUTSHELL:

AGW = Airports Globally Warming

Hahaha!

It looks like the last email was Nov 12, 2009. There is also evidence that the number in the number.txt file name is sequential with date (though more work would need to be done to validate that presumption for all text files).

Once again, it looks like someone working through an email log, pulling out bits that match a FOIA request, and putting them in numbered text files.

While it would be “nice” to have the date stamps on the files, it looks to me like a pretty easy conclusion that the last data “saved” was about November 12 to November 14 (basically, that week ending, modulo the whole “time zones where people are” vs “timezones where computers date is set” thing. We then have the “leak” at about November 17 / 18 (same ‘where in the world is your time zone issue… all this really ought to be normalized to GMT, but I’m feeling lazy

That gives us a “window” of about 3 to 6 days, spanning a weekend, for the data to “get out”.

IMHO, it is not possible for a hacker to download all the raw sources from which this selected set would be compiled (i.e. the whole email archive, the whole file server with source code, etc.) and do this extract in the time available. The extraction and collation was done, most likely as an ongoing process, over a fairly prolonged period of time as an internal process at UEA and probably under the pressure of a pending FOAI request.

Only at the last step did this internal work product end up on the “outside”. That most likely happened as a “monatomic” event. A single 60 MB download.

I would look first at the potential for a “flubbed” permissions issue on the external FTP server. Basically, the data was put “at the ready” and a change was made to “public” in error.

I could easily see someone saying “That FOIA2009 file, we can let it go now.” Meaning delete it; but the sysadmin takes it to mean “let it be public now”… Yes, I’ve seen that kind of thing happen…

Anonymous said...

CHECK THIS OUT:
lines 13745 - 13747:

So the temps are in degs C, vapour pressure's in hPa, wind's in m/s and cloud's fractional.

Then I thought about it. 17.5mm/day is pretty good - especially as it looks to be Eastern Sahara.

I am only a non-climate physicist,
but would this spell out to 17l/m2??
- in Eastern Sahara ??
And he appears content with that???
11/24/2009 10:53:00 PM

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.

Why I feel qualified to speak as a scientist on climate.

I am a modeler. I model the lithosphere as opposed to the atmosphere. So much of what I do has some similarity to the climate modelers.

I’ve followed the literature in the scientific journals on this subject since 1988.

In 1988 a civic group to which I belonged ask me to give a talk on global warming. All I knew about it at the time was what I read in science news letters. It sounded plausible to me, at least on the surface. I knew from my courses in Historical Geology that we were in a warming trend coming out of the Little Ice Age. This was well established. I just assumed that the people putting forth this CO2-warming idea had, like all good scientists, nomalized their data with respect to the warming trend so that their warming was over and above the long-term underlying trend.

To prepare for my talk I got Hansen’s paper (Geophys. Res. Lett. 15, 323-326, 1988), a classic now in the global warming literature, and another paper on atmospheric CO2. What I read shocked me. Not only was there no acknowledgment of the post-Little Ice Age trend, but most of the warming in Hansen’s paper came before WWII, whereas most of the CO2 increase came after WWII. No way could you say CO2 was driving warming! This wasn’t science as I had learned it.

Hansen was very coy about causes in his paper. His last sentence reads: “However, causal connection of the warming with the greenhouse effect requires examination of the expected climate system response to a slowly evolving climate forcing, a subject beyond the scope of this paper.” He was less reticent in his Congressional testimony, as some of you may remember.

I wasn’t really sure what was going on, but I suspected funding or politics or both. Everything I’ve learned since then has only reinforced my belief that CO2 is NOT driving climate change. And also AGW is not driven by a desire for scientific discovery by by funding and political ideology.

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
.
.
.
We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Results 1 – 10 of about 229 for climategate

This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office.

The UK's weather service projects that, unless there is an exceptionally cold spell before the end of the year, temperatures will be up on last year.

Climate sceptics had pointed out that the temperature rise appeared to have stalled in the last decade or so.

That was caused in part by the Pacific La Nina current, which cools the Earth.

But the influence of La Nina declined in the spring and the Met Office project that, barring a very cold December, this year will be the fifth warmest on record.

Other sources say it could even be the third warmest.

The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average.

Although the Met Office was pilloried after forecasting a "barbecue summer", it was their rainfall forecast, not the projected temperatures, that was wrong.

Next year we will see the influence of the warming El Nino current, and the Met Office says there is a 50% chance that global temperatures will hit an all-time high.

I have been following the CRU story since it broke. I am one of the bloggers that has been quoted in many places.

I suggest anyone wanting information on the CRU story use a search engine, and search for CLIMATEGATE or better still HARRY_READ_ME.txt

The difference in reporting between the Main Stream Media (MSM), and the blogosphere is quite frankly astounding.

The MSM (in the main) has been portraying this as "good scientists suffering from nasty hacker".

In great contrast the blogosphere has been working extremely hard examining the emails and the data files.

The revelations from the emails were shocking enough, but emails can be open to interpretation.
The FACTS in the data are way beyond any doubt. That is why I suggest searching for HARRY_READ_ME.txt
You'll soon find me listed

There is one huge file, a diary of "Harry", who is Mr. Ian (Harry) Harris. It covers his work from 2006 to 2009.
It clearly shows that the basis of all these Met Office reports is to put it mildly, poor. The methodology is poor, the data is poor, and there are many reasons to believe manipulation of the data to serve the agenda.

Thankfully some of the MSM is starting to report the details. Those who read them will then realise that articles like this one are not to be believed.

There is good reason to believe that this data was released by a whistle-blower, someone of conscience within the CRU. If so, they have done science and all of us a great service, for which I thank them.

My hope is that this saga will eliminate the poor science, and we can get back to good science.
Steve (NeuralNetWriter)

Hackers claim confidential mails from scientists show that climate change data has been forged. Former minister MP Peter Lilley joined RT to discuss the scandal dubbed Climategate.

groovemonzter (3 hours ago)
.
The implosion of the whole "climate change" hoax is certainly the biggest news story at the moment. I see it's being covered by FOX news and interestingly not a? word from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC. And gee, which network do all the liberals and leftist hate. Folks, are we starting to see a pattern here? When do we say these other networks are criminal?

Steve197201 (19 minutes ago)
.
I love the contrast in the demeanor of these two guys! Chris Horner has this look of satisfaction of his face, like? he's saying "Yeah, I told you so. Who's your daddy, who's your daddy???", while Howard Gould looks like he's gonna crap his pants!

The news media wont even cover this story. They will all lie and act like it never happened and they will laugh like we are all stupid and ridiculous for even mentioning that it isn't true. I betcha that happens.? And in a year the fear will be back again just the same.

As a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, minority leader of the Oklahoma Senate, mayor of Tulsa, congressman from Oklahoma’s First Congressional District, to his present role as Oklahoma’s senior U.S. Senator, Jim has served Oklahomans with pride and honor. Simply put, no one consistently represents common sense, conservative Oklahoma values more than Jim.
.
Jim considers one of his unique qualifications for office to be the 30 years he’s spent in the business community being over regulated by the federal bureaucracy. Throughout his political career, Jim has been a strong advocate for the principles of limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. He believes that the federal government works best when it returns dollars, decisions, and freedom to our local communities and families.