"ClimateGate" Continues to Expose Anti-Science Tendencies on the Right Wing

By Chris Mooney | December 14, 2009 8:27 am

It’s pretty unfair to call somebody “anti-science.” I mean, everybody likes science, right?

That’s what I always thought–at least until fairly recently. That Daniel Henninger Wall Street Journal article got me thinking otherwise, a bit–but only a bit.

But now comes a piece in Investors.com (“powered by” Investor’s Business Daily) by David J. Theroux, who is head of the Independent Institute, a think tank that in the past has been a recipient of ExxonMobil largesse. “Science is not the final arbiter of truth,” blazes the headline–but hey, we all know authors don’t write their headlines.

But the rest of the article is actually in a similar vein:

Thanks to the e-mail exchanges and other documents hacked from computers at the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, we now know there has been a conspiracy among some in the science community to spread alarmist views of global warming and intimidate, if not silence, those who disagree.

Let’s hope these revelations result in a sober reassessment both of academia, generally, and the scientific enterprise specifically.

There’s no evidence of a conspiracy, actually, in those emails. Nor is there evidence of anything at all surprising about academia or about science. But Theroux continues:

For far too long, science has been shrouded in a cloak of unquestionable authority as the final arbiter of all knowledge (except, of course, when the research has been funded by business, which for some makes it necessarily suspect).

Such a status has resulted in the creation of enormous, government-funded institutions to examine seemingly every aspect of human existence, with climate science alone receiving $7 billion annually from the U.S. government — more than is spent on cancer and AIDS research.

Unlike business- or even independently funded research, the findings and recommendations of government-funded researchers has been viewed by many as sacrosanct.

Sacrosanct? In my experience, government-funded researchers are under constant fire, and nowhere more than on the climate issue. Indeed, they have been under fire from think tanks like the Independent Institute and its many brethren, who wish to set up an ideological counter academia that will, I assure you, be massively more biased, and massively less dependable, than anything that currently exists in either academia or established science.

Theroux finishes:

The Climate-gate revelations may finally dispel the myth that has surrounded the global warming movement and trigger a movement to put scientific inquiry back into the laboratory and keep it out of the political arena.

Which is weird….because anybody who knows anything about scientists knows that they tend to be really shy about venturing into the political arena. Bizarrely, Theroux wants to lock scientists back up in the lab where, frankly, many would be glad to stay in the first place–because they know well there are many ideological opponents out there, out gunning for them.

It continually astounds me just how much some conservatives live in an upside-down world with respect to modern science. They fear a thing that does not exist; they demonize the unknown. I simply don’t understand how they could talk about “ClimateGate” in the way they do–in the way Theroux does–if they had any serious sense of the realities of trying to conduct science while under fire, in a politicized area like climate research.

Or, alternatively, perhaps conservatives do understand these realities, but are simply engaging in a deafening chorus of “shocked, shocked” behavior.

Either way, it is telling that, by way of spinning “ClimateGate” into the scandal of the century, they feel compelled to denounce the entire infrastructure of modern science in the process.

Comments (96)

  1. bilbo

    I think it has to do with the fact that conservatives are constantly under fire from science…albeit indirectly. If you’re a political group that sides with the interests of industry (as the Right does), you’re going to feel “under fire” when people find, using simple facts, that the activities of your industry do particularly nasty things to the environment. It’s been going on for decades, not just with climate change but with acid rain, tobacco, pesticides, mountaintop removal, CFCs, and even eating sugar – the Right aligns themselves with those at fault, time and time and time again. Why? Money, of course.

    There is one obvious reason for why the Right is “under fire” here: science is looking at the facts. But what choice do conservatives see as the most plausible? There’s a massive, worldwide conspiracy afoot where every scientist on the planet has aligned themselves with liberals in secret udnerground meetings in some far-away Communist bunker and decided to make up a bunch of environmental controversies to argue.

    It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic.

  2. bilbo

    …with climate science alone receiving $7 billion annually from the U.S. government — more than is spent on cancer and AIDS research.

    Of course, we can just ignore that the National Institutes of Health’s budget in 2008 was over $30 – more than FOUR TIMES that of climate research.

    I guess ‘spin’ has become synonymous with “bald-faced lie?”

  3. Harman Smith

    Well the American right isn’t just anti-science, they are just plain anti-reality. As Paul Krugman wrote recently, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/opinion/14krugman.html, the belief that regulation, not de-regulation, is what caused the current economic crisis is alive and well.

    It becomes awfully suspect if the left, and only the left, attacks the right for what it calls ‘anti-science’… you would think this whole thing is purely political, and doesn’t have much to do with science. But the fact of the matter is, a big chunk of people in the United States who subscribe to right-wing ideology are anti-science, or sympathetic to anti-scientific views. The 2008 presidential election is a perfect example of this. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin—especially Sarah Palin, most egregiously—sounded like they considered money for science projects as wasteful spending. See:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/15/john-mccain-literally-antiscience/
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/16/repost-mccains-planetariophobia/

    and

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/25/beyond-the-palin/

    It especially disturbed me how no one on the right seemed outraged by this.

  4. Gus Snarp

    “except, of course, when the research has been funded by business, which for some makes it necessarily suspect” – Well, yes, for some, but those are the people we call the extreme left. Does he have any idea how much scientific research is funded by business? How many college buildings, department chairs, labs, etc. have been funded by business? If all of that was “necessarily suspect” we would have to abandon an awful lot of science.

    Business funding is suspect when the business has a direct incentive toward a specific outcome, when the research is not replicated and disagrees with the overwhelming majority of other research, when the research is poorly designed or executed, and/or when the data do not support the conclusion.

    This raises two issues: One: the fact that so many people have no idea what actually goes on in academia or science. This is because they have no master’s degree or above in a research oriented field. If they did they would have worked closely with professors on research and learned about funding, experiment design, etc.

    Two: The tendency to claim that the entire Democratic Party, all of science and academia, and anyone on the left all share the views of whatever extremist you have chosen to generalize based on (in this case those who view ALL business funded research as “necessarily suspect”).

  5. peppanicky

    “It continually astounds me just how much some conservatives live in an upside-down world with respect to modern science”

    The progressive agenda, yawn, marginalize anyone that does not agree with your political agenda(pseudo-science)…almost sound desperate???

  6. Tony

    What a ridiculous article…should have read something more like… ‘The left hate being caught with their pants round their ankles’

  7. Walker

    You should really look at the comments section of a rrecent post by Matt Yglesias. The mentality of the denialists is astounding. The number one thing that they have seized on is CRU discarding their copy of the raw data. They believe that this means that they actually destroyed the data. Even when it is pointed out to them repeatedly that this data still exists at other institutions, they still claim because it is not CRU’s copy of the data, the CRU data is still destroyed.

    Sometimes I wonder how these people feed themselves.

  8. Ha, this author lies, even as he accuses others of lying. Global warming is the biggest lie in history, so i would expect these liars to not go away quietly. GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX. Deal with it people.

  9. Neuro-conservative

    Chris, your premise is weak, even for you. Jones, Mann, et al. are hardly shy about stepping out of the laboratory and involving themselves in the political arena. Your posts are getting increasingly desperate — I think it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee on Climategate.

  10. Dave McK

    It’s easy enough to get the emails and the other files. A firsthand look will give you the right to draw a conclusion. There are 1073 text

    files, so it will take a while. Interestingly, I was unable to cherry pick anything that wasn’t about fudging, faking, supressing dissent,

    ousting editors, etc.
    It didn’t take thousands of scientists to conspire- it only took a handful to fake the data everybody else relied on.

    The person who deserves the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism is Steve McIntyre at http://climateaudit.org/ where dissection of

    the details is being done. The trick was to HIDE.
    Is there a synonym for the word HIDE than means anything other than HIDE?

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html the apocalyptics were

    disgusting people for a long time over at IPCC. note Pielke in the old posts, too.

    If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn’t tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will

    die if you don’t believe the theory is right, does he?
    The UN served this to the children of the world:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9mjBUSDng
    This makes me very angry.

    CO2 is not a pollutant nor will the climate be affected by 40 trillion dollars worth of lightweight, highly reflective Precautionary

    Headgear guaranteed to keep you cool in any weather. What’s the benefit of a multi-trillion dollar carbon derivatives bubble?

    From an 11 year old:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04 home schooled, I’ll bet a dollar.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/#more-4660 best aggregation (with reference links)
    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/ individual plots of raw australian data. more fraud

    revealed.
    She deserves the Pulitzer too.

    Norman Davies on propaganda
    Five Rules of Propaganda:
    1) endless repetition, repeating the same messages over and over with different variations and combinations
    2. Disfiguration: discrediting the opposition with slander and crude parodies
    3. Unanimity: presenting your point of view as if every right headed person agrees with it while smearing those who doubt it using appeals

    of famous people, experts and so called consensus; hiding/ excluding others from the underlying basis / information of your position.
    4. Transfusion: manipulating the prevailing values of the public to your own advantage
    5. Simplification: reducing all facts into a comparison between ‘good and evil’ and ‘friends and enemies’

    What the fellows at East Anglia and elsewhere were doing was not science.
    When you actually put your own eyes on the raw data, you see what you see.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
    Scratch the surface and global warming is a fraud to the bone.
    It is Mann made.

    Jones ’stepped aside’, Mann ‘under investigation, Gore cancels Copenhagen speech, APA petition demands repudiation of the fraud, senators

    investigating on the hill…

    The emails and programmer’s notes reveal the vast context of ten years of intellectual corruption. They were not doing science- they were

    disgracing it.

    The globe has been getting warmer. That’s why you can plant corn in Iowa and wheat in Kansas and why Canadians frolic in the snow. The

    glaciers melted. I’ll have more of that, please.

    The IPCC will investigate itself.
    Already 1700 subjects (scientists) have been compelled to sign a loyalty oath affirming the outcome of it in advance of its completion, so you may be sure consensus will emerge in due course.

    Meanwhile, the world turns without their help or hindrance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

  11. some body

    Its all a government consperice (I Cant Spell) I belive that you are right about all this but why would a government do something like that

  12. BartonCreekBett

    Yeah no vicous attacks on conpiracy theorists on this blog. If you or your data/theories etc can’t stand the heat of someone inquiring then there are some flaws.

    When Al Gores response is, the science is settled, I will not debate anyone about it. I don’t recall EVER seeing or reading a discussion about cause effect of temp’s, naturally vs man made. All the crap I have seen for the last ten years is the “science is settled”. Who the hell settled it??

  13. BartonCreekBett

    STOP with the emails. What about stringing together different data sets to produce desired results? This is one great big circle jerk.

  14. When I first read Chris Mooney talking about the right wing being anti-science, I thought that was exaggeration. But after seeing my very conservative parents watching (and believing) Expelled by Ben Stein, I think he’s right. They won’t accept climate change but they wil accept pseudoscience like intelligent design. I should note it’s not ignorance: Both my parents have master’s degrees. Their ideology simply prevents them from accepting certain truths about the natural world.

  15. Gaythia

    In my opinion, Theroux is unlikely to leave scientists locked in their laboratory for long. If scientists were to do that, I believe that Theroux would immediately decide that their work lacks real world relevance and advocate slashing the science budget. I agree with Bilbo in comment #1. We’re talking about an article in “Investors Business Daily” here. Why would Theroux want science to get between him, his buddies, and a lucrative investment idea?

    I don’t think that they fear a thing that does not exist, or that they are demonizing the unknown, I think that they are launching a deliberate attack to create an aura in which, (when it suits them), scientific information can be discredited with the general public.

    Therefore, it is an attack on the entire mechanism of modern science. “Climategate” is just the tool of the day.

  16. JEM

    I second Gaythia’s point @15. The physical sciences have long been fighting a losing battle to maintain funding. The “culture wars” have arrived on the shores of science and scientists will be fighting them or dying whether they want to or not.

  17. JJ

    I think it’s obvious, by the behavior of those leading the charge on climate change, that there’s some shady dealings taking place behind closed doors. These e-mails for one, although not as menacing as the media portrays, is evidence of shady political dealings. Al Gore calling the debate settled is yet another. Clearly, the conflict of interest behind the scientific data and political agendas are at work. This proves to me that there’s not enough hard evidence to silence the opposition. It’s not as cut and dry as either side wants to believe. A good climatologist should have a skeptical mindset when evaluating climate change as well.

  18. BartonCreekBett

    Gaythia, you need an edit;

    “I think that they are launching a deliberate attack to create an aura in which, (when it suits them), scientific information can be discredited with the general public. Therefore, it is an attack on the entire mechanism of modern science. “Climategate” is just the tool of the day.”

    needs to read
    mid 1990’s:
    “I think that they are launching a deliberate ATTEMPT to create an aura in which, (when it suits them), scientific information can be MANIPULATED with the general public BY USING PRETTY GRAPHS. Therefore, it is an ATTEMPT on the entire mechanism of modern science TO CONTROL AN ARGUMENT BY DENYING SCEPTICISM. “GLOBAL WARMING” is just the TAGLINE of the day.”

  19. Chris,

    Would you recommend adopting a more accommodating stance toward the global warming deniers? After all, we don’t want to alienate them or put them off science, do we?

    Sorry for the snark, but this is one of the biggest reasons why the “new” atheists have objected to accommodationism: It doesn’t work, because the individuals and organizations arrayed against the science aren’t interested in being welcomed “into the fold.” They simply object to it on principle.

  20. JEM

    JJ – It appears to me that the principle misbehavior here is related to “status and control” that is not uncommon to folks at or near the top of the heap in any field, unfortunately including science in general, not just climate science. I would argue that similar “shady” behavior is often tacitly accepted because challenging it has significant cost (blackballing for lack of a better word), particularly if one can’t rely on others on the field to take a similar stand. I don’t know your background, but in my experience it is taken as a given that the rules are applied differently for different people. I would love to see it addressed in general. Aside from the obvious cost it has when exposed, it has the additional effect of concentrating resources within fewer research groups thereby stifling innovation, slowing progress, and locking out newcomers and new ideas. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that those at the top do bad work. It is much easier to challenge someone for doing bad work than for being unethical. Those at the top value their position and status and will sometimes engage in unethical behavior to preserve it (by limiting cometitors for example). For the same reason scientists are poor politicians they are poor at correcting this shortcoming.

  21. Gaythia

    @ 19 It isn’t the deniers or the creationist advocates that we want to approach, it is their target audience of average Americans who aren’t quite sure where they stand.

    For example, I spent a recent day largely grounded at the San Jose airport, because, as my airline representative chose to tell us, “silly environmental rules in California prevent them from purchasing and using the deicing equipment necessary” to get the planes off the ground that frosty morning. A pilot, seeing the science title on the book I was reading, launched into an attack of slimebag, lying scientists. He seemed to have some support among our fellow travelers since, as several people could tell by the weather that morning, the whole global warming thing was a farce. However, in response to my question: “Fly any polar routes lately?” there was a transformation. All the sudden climate change wasn’t something done by pointy head intellectual scientists in laboratories, he, himself, Mr. Airline Pilot, was an expert. It turns out he has quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that, as he put it, “something is up”.

    It is important that people realize that the process of understanding and even contributing to science does not (necessarily) exclude themselves.

  22. Blue Light

    Blame “scientists” who “trick” data to justify their continuing grant funding and agenda-ed “journalists” for the demise of scientific credibility and ethics.

  23. Dougetit

    If your headline implies “Anti-Science” synonymous with “Anti-Facts” then you are sorely mistaken. The fact is that global temperatures have trended down since January 1998. That’s when the global warming stopped, as discussed in Kevin Trenberth’s Oct 12 2009 email “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.” http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
    None of their computer models had predicted this.

    Science is a labor in search of truth thru proof. Paraphrasing Einstein “it doesn’t matter how may scientists prove me right, rather it only takes one to prove me wrong”

    This is where science and the CRU part ways and it is very easy to prove.

    The CRU temperature dataset uses surface based temperature thermometers which are easier to manipulate as well as being subject to area “noise” influenced by their specific placement. But there is another dataset which is not influenced by manipulation and interferences and that is the satellite record, which, at great cost, began in December of 1978, (ironically to investigate global cooling at the time).

    CRU uses ground based thermometers, but has removed their global temperature dataset, (I wonder why), at: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
    So to compare, we are left with their “sister” dataset at NASA, ala James Hansen at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    The untainted satellite dataset is available at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    If you were to graph these two datasets from January 1998, you would find that the NASA surface based dataset shows temperatures trending UP while the Satellite dataset shows a downtrend. In fact the difference projects out to be 1/3 C deg difference per decade. Doesn’t seem like much but over a 100 year period it would show a difference of over 3 deg C. These are the facts and anyone with a graph program can check for themselves.

    If this isn’t enough “proof” for further science scrutiny, take a look the paleo temperature history at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI&feature=player_embedded

    The conclusion would be that if science is fact seeking, then these (CRU) scientists are practicing “Anti-Science“ and NOT the “Right Wing“!

    “but hey, we all know authors don’t write their headlines.”

  24. JEM

    Blame feels good for a while, but it isn’t a solution.

  25. JEM

    follow up @23 – Not that I agree with your targets for blame. If at this point you don’t understand the terminology, albeit careless, you either aren’t a scientist familiar with handling real world data sets, or you are not fair minded. It’s not the trick thats the problem, it’s the threats against others.

  26. Erin K

    I think that there is a certain shrouded-in-a-cloak factor going on, though not the kind the article suggests. But the process of researching and publishing and establishing scientific work, even work that isn’t politicized like climate change is, is just not something that people necessarily know a lot about. I’m not sure having people take more science classes would help, as at least my science courses didn’t even begin to cover designing experiments until upper-undergrad.

    But I do think that people were actually shown, at some point in their school careers–preferably before even undergrad–what the research process is (and not just the one-day overview of the scientific method), then issues like these would, if not come up less, at least have the framework to explain what actually happened in place, rather than having to start from scratch.

  27. Craig Goodrich

    Anti-science. Ah, yes, of course, it’s the evil Right Wing skeptics slanting journals, getting editors fired, censoring blog comments, fudging the data, and refusing to release program code and data. All that stuff that is completely antithetical to the scientific ethos developed since the Enlightenment. Disgraceful.

  28. “There’s no evidence of a conspiracy, actually, in those emails. Nor is there evidence of anything at all surprising about academia or about science.”
    — Chris Mooney

    “p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…”
    — Michael Mann
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=345&filename=1059664704.txt

  29. bilbo

    When I first read Chris Mooney talking about the right wing being anti-science, I thought that was exaggeration. But after seeing my very conservative parents watching (and believing) Expelled by Ben Stein, I think he’s right. They won’t accept climate change but they wil accept pseudoscience like intelligent design. I should note it’s not ignorance: Both my parents have master’s degrees. Their ideology simply prevents them from accepting certain truths about the natural world.

    Jackpot. When you’re told every day by people you respect that “liberals = bad,” “scientists = liars,” and “government = conspiracy,” then of course you’re going to see a conspiracy lurking around every corner when topic involves science and/or politics.

    The same goes for the ability of political ideology to blind a person’s rational thinking. If you identify yourself as a conservative and you’re told every day that no “good” conservative accepts things like evolution and/or climate change, it doesn’t matter what the cold, hard facts say – you’re going to be a “good” conservative and deny them.

  30. bilbo

    The fact is that global temperatures have trended down since January 1998

    Ah, another cherry-picker in our midst! You’ve just gotta admire stupidity, don’t you?

  31. Phil

    “No evidence of conspiracy” – you say. Go drink the cool-aid FOOL!!!

  32. The claim that the “Right” is anti-science is ludicrous, and there is not a shred of evidence to support it. There are biased minds on both the Right and Left with closed minds. To claim that they pile up in one ideological camp is dishonest.
    In recent days a number of reasoned arguments have been made by those who are skeptical that global warming exists, or that it has been caused by man. For my own part I am unconvinced either way.
    I have spent many hours in recent days reading the papers of these guys, and second-hand accounts of their work, and I must say they have taken extraordinary liberties with the data. I will stop short of calling them frauds, but at a minimum they have been very, very sloppy. They have cherry-picked data to support a conclusion they had already made, and they used the data sets in a manner that their results came out the way they wanted. That borders on scientific misconduct.
    Forgetting the hysteria on both sides, the truth will come out, and if they have done what I suggest, they will be discredited and we will move on. If not, then they are vindicated. Either way, let us all maintain a reasoned, rational attitude, an open mind, and keep looking until we know what has happened.
    Science is about discussion, debate, disagreement, and challenges. The assignment of people in to ‘believer’ and ‘doubter’ categories almost sounds like a religious term. Let us remember that to be scientific, we must always be prepared to challenge ideas of both ourselves and others. The debate is never over.
    Science is about debate and disagreement.

  33. Brian Too

    Jolly Jumper issues a recall on a car seat. Therefore, car seats are a fraud, all consumer products are a rip-off, and child safety is a tool of the Socialists/Leftists/Elites!!!

    This is essentially the argument of most of the climate change denialists posting here.

    But hey, don’t let me stop you. You make winning easier every day and in every way.

  34. That $7b on climate science sounds fishy to me, at least as an annual figure. I clicked through to the original and saw no hot link. I think it’s a rightwing factoid, but would welcome proof.

    BTW, for any posters here who think global warming isn’t happening, I would love to bet you over it. Real money though.

  35. Dougetit

    “Ah, another cherry-picker in our midst! You’ve just gotta admire stupidity, don’t you?”

    You totally missed my point. Actual (UAH) satellite temperature measurements show a declining temperature trend since 1998 while CRU/NASA/NOAA and their other affiliates show a diametrically apposed increasing temperature trend. I’ll put my money on the un-manipulated satellite data. These are the facts? Got it? Or are you going to be a denier.

  36. Dougetit

    “BTW, for any posters here who think global warming isn’t happening, I would love to bet you over it. Real money though.”

    I would only bet on facts, not delusional hype.

  37. Dougetit

    Follow the money…

    …”$94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

    Let alone the research costs..

  38. Jon

    I would only bet on facts, not delusional hype.

    Assuming you have facts. (Factoids from some echo chamber somewhere don’t count.)

  39. Jon

    Dougetit: I would only bet on facts, not delusional hype.

    Aszuming you *have* facts. (*Factoids* from an echo chamber somewhere tend not to count.)

  40. Dougetit

    Jon..

    As with the CRU/NASA/NOAA.. I’ll be keeping the facts to myself, proprietary you know, lest you get to close then I will Delete/Destroy/Misplace them.

    But thanks for asking

    Lol.. just kidding Jon.. Check #23 above.

  41. Jon

    Lol.. just kidding Jon.. Check #23 above.

    I heard the raw data resides elsewhere than CRU.

    And by the way, CRU is just one institution. Unless you have a vague postmodern conspiracy theory about an unsatisfactory “reality based community”, even if there’s a problem at CRU, there are hundreds of other institutions, and they all do independent research and check each other’s work. One problem at one institution (and I’m not sure there’s much of a problem) doesn’t indict all institutions. That’s a conspiracy theory.

  42. Dougetit

    Jon, you are correct when you say that there are hundreds of other institutions who do independent research, but it wasn’t until the early 1980’s that temperature resolution achieved a better than 2 ½ degree “margin of error” It was at that time, with funding from the U.S. D.O.E that CRU was given the task for greater global temperature, (within 10ths deg C) accuracy. This enormously compressive temperature history reconstruction was known as the “Jones and Wigley” (CRU) record and is the major basis for all, (NASA, NOAH, IPPCC and others) datasets.

    No conspiracy here so far. Just the facts.

    Now the problem came in when the “raw data” used to assemble these high resolution temperatures disappeared/was deleted, it brings into question “ALL” land based datasets. Now doesn’t it seem a bit suspicious to you that the raw data is gone, forcing all climatologist to accept the CRU data just because they say it is correct? How are these “hundreds of other institutions” going to base/back up their data now? Is this good science? I think not. Unfortunately, a major blow to the climatology field.

    It would be wonderful if the original data could be found, but, alas, as far as CRU has stated, it is gone. Some may wish to call it human error, others may consider it a conspiracy. But that doesn’t change the fact that, at least for now, the least tainted “high resolution” global temperature dataset resides at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) Satellite dataset which began in December of 1979.

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    If you are aware of another non-ground/sea based dataset, pleas provide me with the link and I’ll be more than happy to plot it for you. OK?

  43. BartonCreekBett

    Perhaps, just perhaps, the science community spotted a warming trend, “massaged” a bit of data to highlight the warming, and had to find a scapegoat and the easiest place to look was something that is .038% of the atmosphere. All the other theories are not so much debunked as the easiest and quickest conclusion was co2. Seems like we need another two or three years to figure this thing out.

  44. Dougetit

    And I might add that even the the UAH Satellites dataset, especially the earlier years of record, may be tainted as they used CRU data with which to calibrate thier instruments.

  45. bad Jim

    There are two telling statements in that piece. The first is science has been shrouded in a cloak of unquestionable authority, which is hilarious, given that science has since its inception been grounded on the rejection of argument by authority. Nature speaks for itself.

    The denialists, being authoritarians, conceptually enslaved to authority, cannot comprehend that its absence is the key to the entire scientific enterprise. Their fevered fantasies of a world-wide non-profit conspiracy are the product of cognitive dissonance, reasoning that, since they can’t be wrong, their opponents must be evil.

    The second was put scientific inquiry back into the laboratory and keep it out of the political arena. Could anything be less anti-intellectual? I don’t think Washington, who took steps to immunize his troops against smallpox to give them a competitive advantage against the British, would have found that attitude congenial, much Franklin or Jefferson. It’s not just offensive, it’s positively anti-American.

  46. Theroux finishes:

    The Climate-gate revelations may finally dispel the myth that has surrounded the global warming movement and trigger a movement to put scientific inquiry back into the laboratory and keep it out of the political arena.

    You say” Which is weird….because anybody who knows anything about scientists knows that they tend to be really shy about venturing into the political arena. ”

    Theroux is spot on. Science traditionally squashed advocacy because it usually destroys objectivity. It is truly weird that you don’t see climate scientists as being advocates. James Hansen is out doing civil disobedience. The RealClimate blog is strictly an advocacy site that deletes opposing views, as mentioned in the emails and personally experienced. I have read a hundred of those emails , and several emails very explicitly show that the climate scientists were more concerned with a manipulating public perception than admitting shortcomings and advancing good science. When their own proxies that they used to construct a hockey stick interpretation of past temperatures showed a decline in temperatures since 1960, instead of throwing out those proxies as unreliable, they instead deleted and hid the decline, while publicly saying the proxies had been calibrated against recent instrumental data. That is simply fraud! I can’t believe you read too many of those emails!

  47. Manapatra

    Nice article.

    I agree that there is no evidence in the emails of a conspiracy. One of the papers the CRU crew wanted kept out of the IPCC report was partly funded by an oil company, and was riddled with errors. Half the editorial board of that “journal” resigned in disgust, because they believed the peer-review process had broken down! Viewed in that context, calls to “change the peer-review system” look a lot less nefarious.

    The CRU scientists weren’t trying to surpress contrary views, they were trying to surpress very poor “science” – and that’s exactly what peer-review is meant to do. In any case, the two papers in question were actually *included* in the IPCC report!

    As for Jone’s infamous “hide the decline”, this is a well-known issue with tree ring proxy data, which becomes wildly innaccurate (disagreeing with instrumental temperature records) after 1960. The “trick” is two use two different datasets so that the graph accurately represents known climate change. Again, there is nothing deceptive going on.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html

    Even if the emails were as damning as the fossil fuel industry-funded propaganda make out, the conclusions of the IPCC report (and the global scientific consensus on AGW) do not stand or fall on the work of those at the CRU.

    Yet right-wingers continue to trot out the same old delusional claim that tens of thousands of scientists, and hundreds of thousands of studies and papers, somehow all rely on the work of a handful of British scientists!

    A handful of independent temperature reconstructions, with references to the literature, should make it clear how stupid that idea is (although I’m sure even these won’t change the denier’s minds, because they have no interest whatsoever in any fair and balanced assessment of the facts):-

    NASA:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    The MET Office:

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    “This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 1000 years”

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471.
    (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.
    (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277.
    (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
    (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253.
    (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
    (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
    (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
    (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
    (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

    Regards,
    P.

  48. bad Jim

    The thing about climate warming “skeptics” is that they never seem to think very hard about who benefits from the debate. Here’s an easy clue for the intellectually challenged: follow the money. Who’s got skin in the game? A hint: it ain’t the folks drawing a salary or scrabbling for grants. Big oil and big coal however have a vested stake in the short term outlook. So which side are you on?

    I’m not accusing anyone of shilling for these giant corporations, but don’t you ever stop to think that you’re serving their interests? Do you never look around to see who’s on your side?

  49. Yvo De Boer and the leaders of Copenhagen Climate Change Conference are engaged in “the good fight” at the last, best opportunity for human civilization to save the planet for the children and coming generation as a fit place for human habitation. Years ago I was told that my generation had a duty to leave the world a better place than what is was when it was given to us by our forefathers and foremothers. It goes without saying that my not-so-great generation of greed-mongering elders will fall woefully short of discharging its responsibilities. Come what may for the children. Too many arrogant and selfish leaders in a single generation have recklessly chosen to fight wrongful wars for wrongheaded reasons, at a cost of blood and treasure that is as astounding in its stupidity as it is incalculable to measure.

  50. Dougetit

    Manapatra

    Do you have a link to CRU/MET dataset?

    Didn’t think so..

  51. To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day warming while also showing how record high greenhouse gas concentrations are not significant.

    NOT ONE.

    Do people really believe that the scientists at CRU are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish this landmark anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

    If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.

    Do the rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    Do the various climate models that show GHGs as the dominant forcing mechanism have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    Do the GISS, UAH, RSS data that show global warming of approximately 0.2C per decade over the past 30 years have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy? Certainly Spencer and Christy who run UAH and are well-known skeptics of AGW would not align themselves with AGW and yet their satellite-derived measurements track reasonably with GISS, RSS, and HadCRU. (BTW, 2009 will likely end up being a Top 10 or Top 5 warmest year since 1850)

    Does the ocean read these emails and magically increase its heat content?

    Does the cooling stratosphere (even accounting for ozone loss) read the emails and join in on the hoax?

    Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits so that they can support the conspiracy?

    I could go on ad infinitum.

    For quite a long time, we have known that a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate at least 1C and there is fairly good certainty that the resulting feedbacks will produce at least 2C additional warming with 3C more likely. We are also measuring CO2 increases of 2 ppm and climbing (except last year where there was a slight decrease due to the global recession) and we have levels that have not been seen in the past 15 million years.

    Are we to conclude that these emails deny all of this evidence?

    There are many scientists from many fields that have published data that show the effects of global warming and why humans are the primary drivers of this warming. These scientists include some of the obvious: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, modelers, and oceanographers. Some less obvious include: biologists, marine biologists, zoologists, chemists, astrophysicists, economists, environmental politics reasearchers, and others. I am quite confident that MANY of these folks have NEVER spoken to the CRU folks nor emailed them.

    It is obvious that pre-Copenhagen, the tried and true method of “if one does not like the message then attack the messenger or redirect the conversation” practiced by Big Tobacco and now ExxonMobil and their front groups (Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.) is alive and well.

    Scott A. Mandia – Professor, Meteorologist, Concerned Citizen
    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

    P.S. Some good links on this:

    http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-09-09.pdf (Pew Center on Global Climate Change rebuttal)

    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/0/P70SlEqX7oY (Climate Crock of the Week #1)

    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/0/eJFZ88EH6i4 (Climate Crock of the Week #2)

  52. Graduate Student

    The very fact that this is written bashing right-wing conservatives attests to the fact that climate change is little more than a political issue. I dare anyone, on either side of the debate, to separate the ‘data’ from the ‘politics.’ It can’t be done. I know many conservatives for AGW, as well as liberals against AGW. Stop generalizing. It shows your ignorance. Climate change has always been about the politics and not the science.

  53. I sure wish I knew where to find all that ExxonMobil largesse we reportedly have received! We could use some about now. According to the Wall Street Journal, last year ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It donated $0 to The Independent Institute. Even had we been a recipient of this mythical “largesse,” however, the question would remain: is it the truth?

    And though we may have liked to have held “government-funded researchers … under constant fire,” we’ve been distracted for the past 8 ¼ years targeting our research and education focus against preemptive war and invasions (which, you may recall, were justified by bad government-funded research)—from probably the first major, national anti-war forum, that we held with Lewis Lapham and Gore Vidal in San Francisco in April 2002, up to and including a forum we held in our Washington, DC office last week on exiting Afghanistan and Iraq. The past year we’ve also been a little distracted fighting corporate welfare, bailouts, and targeted “stimulus” boondoggles (fighting further bad government-funded research and projections that have widely missed their mark). Pretty right-wing, all right!

    But, nevertheless, our record on global warming research is long and consistent, and we invite everyone to come to our website, http://www.independent.org, Search on “global warming,” and/or “climate” and read, watch videos, and think for yourselves. We’re pro-people, and we think it’s a nice idea to make sure of your facts, and consider the actual ethics and cost/benefit of your proposals, before undertaking reckless initiatives that will impact thousands, millions, or billions—even when they’re faceless strangers.

  54. Well Manapatra #49, If we are to throw out anything simply because it is supported by oil company money, then by your own logic throw out CRU completely as they have been getting funds from Shell Oil. They discuss getting Shell Oil money in the emails.

    And your “proof” of all the many scientists who have reconstructed past temperatures validates the skeptics the contention that it is not independently verified. If you bother to read the emails ,or the source articles, you will see that the conspirators who were trying to manipulate public perception are the very authors you listed for that graph: Phil .D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, M.E (Nature trick) Mann, M.K. Hughes, J. Esper. .. or the other papers like Moberg and Huang used Jones and Mann’s graphs. Check out the papers below that you listed, but you and them have been hoisted by their own petard.

    “This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 1000 years”
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
    (dark blue 1000-1991): P .D. Jones, K.R. Briffa,T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471.
    (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.
    (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277.
    (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
    (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253.
    (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
    (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
    (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
    (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
    (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

  55. 54. Graduate Student Says: “Climate change has always been about the politics and not the science.”

    You are so right. The politicizng of science is corrupting it, and when I was in grad school any hints of advocacy were strnngly criticized and removed from dissertations and articles.

  56. Here is a link to a copy of CRU seeking oil money for those of you who prefer political slander over critical analysis.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/cru_kelly_shell.png

  57. One last thing on your “proof”Manapatra #49 “This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 1000 years”
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png.

    If you look at that graph you linked to, the final upswing is not a reconstruction from the proxie but spliced in instrumental values provided by CRU and Phil Jones. If the proxies had continued to be used throughout, the reconstructions would plummet. The exact opposite of what the added black line does. That is why the emails talk about “hiding the decline” and “Mike’s Nature trick”. If it was good science, the divergence of the proxies from the instrumental temperatures would violate the rules for calibrating the proxies. The proxies should have thus been removed altogether, not just the decline. Looks and walks like fraud. And also under investigation is the validity of the adjustments that Jones et al created at CRU to make the steep upswing in instrumental data. Seems several stations have the raw data unjustly adjusted. So is there any wonder why CRU threw out their raw data and just kept the adjusted data?? See http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg

  58. 53. Scott A. Mandia Says:
    December 15th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
    To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day warming while also showing how record high greenhouse gas concentrations are not significant…….

    Wow Scott you totally miss the point. That the climate is changing is not disputed. The dispute is how responsible is CO2 and how unusual our current temperatures are. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles that show connections to solar, land use, soot, etc. Each one of those studies implies that CO2 is less significant. Also the claims of CO2′ s importance depends on models of feedback mechanisms and those mechanisms are debated in several articles.

    And the whole problem of the emails is not disputing that climate has changed but how the reconstructions of past climates are represented . Below is a link to a series of graphs that fade in and out. It is from NOAA’s ice core data and acknowledges the hockey stick but puts the hockey stick into the perspective of other natural changes.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

    And regards oceans, the ocean heat content has not risen and has slightly declined over the past several years. I suggest updating your knowledge.

  59. Manapatra

    Jim wrote: “If we are to throw out anything simply because it is supported by oil company money, then by your own logic throw out CRU completely as they have been getting funds from Shell Oil. They discuss getting Shell Oil money in the emails.”

    I’m not suggesting we throw anything out simply because it is supported by oil company money! But there is a growing body of pseudo-literature – some of it published in pseudo-journals like Climate Research (the journal which had half its own board of directors resign when it published shoddy papers) – which deliberately misrepresents the science. This literature has not been rigorously peer-reviewed by genuine experts, and would not pass any such process if it were.

    I have no problem with research grants coming from Shell Oil or anywhere else, so long as that money is used for honest studies and research that has withstood expert scrutiny, in legitimate scientific journals.

    Jim: “If you look at that graph you linked to, the final upswing is not a reconstruction from the proxie but spliced in instrumental values provided by CRU and Phil Jones. If the proxies had continued to be used throughout, the reconstructions would plummet.”

    Yes, because tree ring proxy data is inaccurate after 1960, and diverges significanly from instrumental temperature records. In most reconstructions (including the one I posted a link to) the fact that instrumental record is added afterwards for the periods for which we have that data, is made clear.

    Different proxies give differing results, but comparing them makes it clear that there is enough agreement to treat them as reliable, provided the margin of error is acknowledged.

    Jim: “The exact opposite of what the added black line does. That is why the emails talk about “hiding the decline” and “Mike’s Nature trick”. If it was good science, the divergence of the proxies from the instrumental temperatures would violate the rules for calibrating the proxies.”

    So far as I can make out, what you say here is gibberish.

    Jim: “The proxies should have thus been removed altogether, not just the decline. Looks and walks like fraud”

    Why? Again, you’re stringing words together but they make no sense. The point of “Mike’s Nature Trick” is to use the best data we have for any period to give the best representation of temperature changes over time. Why would we want to exclude the proxies up to 1960? Or the instrumental temperature record for the period we have it? To claim that combining datasets or omitting data known to be inaccurate is “fraud” is just whacky.

    I do agree that reconstructions which merge sources without making it obvious (which is not the case with the link I provided, where instrumental records are shown in black) may potentially be misleading. However, if they still represent the best picture we have of climate change, they hardly qualify as “fraud”!

    Jim: “And also under investigation is the validity of the adjustments that Jones et al created at CRU to make the steep upswing in instrumental data. Seems several stations have the raw data unjustly adjusted.”

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

    Regards,
    P.

  60. Manapatra

    “Manapatra Do you have a link to CRU/MET dataset? Didn’t think so..”

    Erm, yes, I do.

    I see you’ve been duped by the claim that CRU have “destroyed” raw data. This is quite simply a lie. Their copy of a small amount of raw, unadjusted data was discarded some 30 years ago, before climate change had become such a pressing issue (and before Phil Jones was head). The adjusted data is homogenized to remove local variations – again, nothing sinister going on there.

    As I understand it, other institutions do have copies of some of the data the CRU has been unable to release (because it would be illegal for them to do so) and this will be made public as soon as permission is granted for them to do so. Meanwhile, freely available on their website:

    http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/cru/

    So much for the claim that climate scientists keep their data secret!

  61. Manapatra Says: “Yes, because tree ring proxy data is inaccurate after 1960, and diverges significanly from instrumental temperature records. In most reconstructions (including the one I posted a link to) the fact that instrumental record is added afterwards for the periods for which we have that data, is made clear.”

    At least you admit the proxies and instrumental temps clearly diverge, but clearly you do not understand the concept of calibration. If it diverges from the instrumental record then the proxies are not working. But the good honest research you pretend to support , does not then pretend that the proxies are good for everything else and hide that very divergence. And if you call phrases like “hide the decline” and Mike’s Nature trick” gibberish regards this issue either you have not read the emails, or you are here doing dishonest damage control. But perhaps I misunderstand you. So if you can explain when it is clear the proxies were bad after 1960 when we can calibrate them, on what grounds do we believe they are a reliable representation of the past thousand years when we can’t check them against reliably measured temperatures? Please explain how that works if you can?

  62. 62. Manapatra Says: The adjusted data is homogenized to remove local variations – again, nothing sinister going on there.

    When they openly explain the temperature adjustments and release the codes and programs that show how they were done, then when can judge their validity. But there are several stations reporting odd adjustments and Anthony Watts has done a a tremendous job analyzing the quality of those stations.

    You are spin doctor Manapatra. If you have any statistical knowledge you know that phrases like “data homogenization” can hide many sinister things just as readily as phrase like “ethnic cleansuing” . If there was nothing sinister then why do Jones, Mann et a talk about deleting emails, and resisting all Freedom of Information Requests. They explicitly talked about illegal hiding. They way you try to spin this makes me wonder if you you are really a member of CRU, or pad by them, trying to cover divert attention. Or if not then you really need to read the emails.

  63. Manapatra

    Jim,

    “They way you try to spin this makes me wonder if you you are really a member of CRU, or pad by them, trying to cover divert attention. Or if not then you really need to read the emails.”

    I’ve read them, thanks. Unlike you apparently, I’ve read them context, alongside the explanations offered for them by those involved and other scientists.

    Now you’re trying to sow seeds of doubt about my intentions by implying I may have financial connections to CRU? Nice tactic, but sadly your own sources make Phil Jones look like a saint!

    Since you stoop so low in tying to discredit me, let’s look at your honest and objective source, Anthony Watts, retired meteorologist who has been paid handsomely by the Heartland Institute, a right-leaning propaganda mill which has received hundreds of thousands in funding from Exxonmobil.

    This is the lobby which published a list of “500 scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares”.

    Sounds impressive, right? But Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog.com contacted the people listed, and asked them whether they endorsed these views. Within 48 hours, 45 people responded, all outraged that their work was being misrepresented. One of them, Dennis Avery, wrote:

    “I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”

    The list was a sham. Watts himself actually does not have credentials ascribed to him, such as being “AMS Certified”. The AMS reserves this designation for Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists, and Watts has neither certification.

    This impartial (!) commentator was also a signatory of the Leipzig Declaration, which said, “there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever.”

    Clearly, this statement is balderdash, a deliberate and calculated deception designed to confuse the public, and misinform them about an important issue. A recent poll of several thousand scientists found that 97.4% of active climatologists support the AGW consensus. Read about it here:-

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    You can read more about the overwhelming consensus here:-

    http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

    Jim, aligning yourself with these liars and charlatans does nothing to bolster your own credibility :-)

    Regards,
    P.

  64. 65. Manapatra Says:

    Everyone can see that you stooped to discrediting skeptics first by implying it was lies paid by the oil companies. I have asked a questions the require critical thinking that you “cleverly avoid” as you continue to attempt diversions name calling and setting up sraw men. You heighten my suspicions. But you could regain some credibility by not ducking a pivotal question which I will repeat. . “So if you can explain when it is clear the proxies were bad after 1960 when we can calibrate them, on what grounds do we believe they are a reliable representation of the past thousand years when we can’t check them against reliably measured temperatures? Please explain how that works if you can?”

    You also appear to be behind the times when you argue against “In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever.” by stating
    Clearly, this statement is balderdash, a deliberate and calculated deception designed to confuse the public.

    There are several published articles regards the recent cooling that to explain this contradiction to AGW theory, and I provided links to help you raise your level of understanding regards the complexities of climate science. You might want to change your statement or some people will think you are deliberately obscuring the truth.

    And I list a few of the many highly qualified skeptics who disagree with the consensus as I do I. I concludde from my work, that man-kind has hurt our wetlands and watershed and that is the major environmental issue, not CO2. And I have had legitimate questions deleted or manipulated by your climate scientists at RealClimate, so I know first hand how they have manipulated public perceptions. That’s in their emails to. Do you work for RealClimate?

    1. Perlwitz, J., M. Hoerling, J. Eischeid, T. Xu, and A. Kumar (2009), A strong bout of natural cooling in 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L23706, doi:10.1029/2009GL041188 The abstract reads
    “A precipitous drop in North American temperature in 2008, commingled with a decade-long fall in global mean temperatures, are generating opinions contrary to the inferences drawn from the science of climate change.

    2.Prof. Mojib Latif , Professor for Climate Physics, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at
    Kiel University, Head of the Research, Division “Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics”IPCC author.

    Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). He said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. “But how much? The jury is still out,” he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

    3. “Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts,” said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

    4. Huss, M., M. Funk, and A. Ohmura (2009), Strong Alpine glacier melt in the 1940s due to enhanced solar radiation, Geophys. Res. Lett

    5. “Over areas of the Himalayas, the rate of warming is more than five times faster than warming globally,” said William Lau, head of atmospheric sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “Based on the differences it’s not difficult to conclude that greenhouse gases are not the sole agents of change in this region. There’s a localized phenomenon at play.” http://www.physorg.com/news180035832.html

    6. Roger Pielke Sr. Ph.D. in meteorology,Pennsylvania State University,1969 and 1973 is a strong advocate of the need to account for land use effects on climate, publishing numerous peer reviewed articles.
    He has concuded:The climate science community needs to recognize that the assessment of global warming using the magnitude of the long term trends in surface air temperatures from the CRU, NCDC and GISS analyses, and from ERA-40, overstate the magnitude of this warming. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

    A small list of Highly qualified Skeptics

    Sallie Louise Baliunas Ph.D. (1980) Astrophysics, Harvard University
    Dr Robert C. Balling, Jr director Office of Climatology, Arizona State University
    Dr. Robert (Bob) Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory , James Cook University
    Dr. John Christy Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville
Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.
    Joseph (Joe) D’Aleo, is a retired meteorologist
    Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University in Bellingham
    Bill Gray professor emeritus, atmospheric science department, Colorado State University.
    Dr. David Legates Professor of Geography and the Director, Center for Climate Climactic Research, University of Delaware
    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Dr. Patrick J. Michaels Professor of Environmental Science ret.2007, University of Virginia
    Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge, Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania
    Dr. R. Tim Patterson Professor of Geology, Carleton University
    Ian Plimer, Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne
    Dr. Frederick Seitz died 2008.[1][2]Seitz, head of Rockefeller University, a former head of the National Academy of Sciences
    Dr. S. Fred Singer, 1994- Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University
    Dr. Willie Wei-Hock Soon, Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    Dr. Roy Spencer University of Alabama in Huntsville, the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
    Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
    Jan Veizer emeritus professor of geology, University of Ottawa in Canada
    Bjorn Lomborg professor of statistics,Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

    And there are a lot more of us who are skeptics.

  65. Dougetit

    62. Manapatra Says:
    December 16th, 2009 at 10:27 am
    ““Manapatra Do you have a link to CRU/MET dataset? Didn’t think so..”

    Erm, yes, I do.

    I see you’ve been duped by the claim that CRU have “destroyed” raw data. This is quite simply a lie. Their copy of a small amount of raw, unadjusted data was discarded some 30 years ago, before climate change had become such a pressing issue (and before Phil Jones was head). The adjusted data is homogenized to remove local variations – again, nothing sinister going on there.”

    Erm, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN!!!!

    Hummm… Now why would they censor thier data?? Could it be that…… NAH!!!!

  66. Dougetit

    Response @ 53. Scott A. Mandia

    To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day cooling for more than a decade while also showing how record high greenhouse gas concentrations are significant.

    NOT ONE.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    Do people really believe that 31,486 skeptical scientists are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who has already publish a landmark pro-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still the unmanipulated UAH satellite data which shows a cooling trend for over a decade now.

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    Do the rapidly increasing ice sheets and glaciers have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-5XwlcBqF0
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    Do the various climate models that show GHGs as the un-proven forcing mechanism have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    Do the GISS, UAH, RSS data that show global warming of approximately 0.2C per decade over the past 30 years while only the UAH shows a downtrend since 1998 have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

    Certainly Spencer and Christy who run UAH and are well-known skeptics of AGW would not align themselves with AGW, but yet their satellite-derived measurements show a 1/3rd Degree C difference per decade cooling trend when compared with GISS, RSS, and HadCRU. (BTW, Spencer and Christy believe that 2009 will not likely end up being a Top 10 or Top 5 warmest year since 1850)

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    Does the ocean read these emails and magically increase its heat by 10 hundredths of a degree in over 30 years as the UAH Satellite dataset shows?

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    Does the cooling stratosphere (even accounting for ozone loss) prove that AGW is happening by reading the emails and join in on the hoax?

    Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits for something unproven so that they can support the conspiracy?

    I could go on ad infinitum. http://www.petitionproject.org/

    For quite a long time, we have not proven that a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate at least 1C and there is fairly uncertain that the resulting feedbacks will produce at least 2C additional warming with 3C more unlikely. We are also measuring CO2 increases of 2 ppm and climbing (including last year where there was a slight decrease due to the global recession) and we have levels that have not been seen in the past 15 million years when dinosaurs were releasing greater CO2 into the atmosphere.

    We are to conclude that these emails support all of this evidence?

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3840/American-Meteorological-Society-Members-Reject-Manmade-Climate-Claims-75-Do-Not-Agree-With-UN-IPCC-Claims–29-Agree-Global-Warming-is-a-Scam

    There are 31,486 scientists from many fields who have signed a petition saying that they don’t believe the effects of global warming and why humans are not the primary drivers of this warming. These scientists include some of the obvious: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, modelers, and oceanographers. Some less obvious include: biologists, marine biologists, zoologists, chemists, astrophysicists, economists, environmental politics reasearchers, and others. I am quite confident that noe of the skeptic scientists have NEVER spoken to the CRU folks nor emailed them.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3840/American-Meteorological-Society-Members-Reject-Manmade-Climate-Claims-75-Do-Not-Agree-With-UN-IPCC-Claims–29-Agree-Global-Warming-is-a-Scam

    It is obvious that pre-Copenhagen, CRU supporters are using the tried and true method of “if one does not like the message then attack the messenger or redirect the conversation” practiced by Greenpeace and now the EPA and their front groups (Huffington Post, Daily KOS, Acorn, etc.) is alive and well.

    Dougetit-Not funded by big oil, the Government, and their front groups (Acorn, EPA, NASAA, NOAA, etc.)

    P.S. Some good links on this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI&feature=player_embedded

    http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Picture-91.jpg

    Only the facts please.

  67. Dougetit

    “The adjusted data is homogenized to remove local variations – again, nothing sinister going on there.”

    Move along, nothing to see here.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

  68. Dougetit

    @ 53. Scott A. Mandia

    To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for more than a decade of cooling while also showing how record high greenhouse gas concentrations are significant.

    NOT ONE.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    Do people really believe that 31,486 skeptical scientists are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who has already publish a landmark pro-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still the un-manipulated UAH satellite data which shows a cooling trend for over a decade now.

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    Do the rapidly increasing ice sheets and glaciers have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-5XwlcBqF0
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

  69. Manapatra

    Jim: “So if you can explain when it is clear the proxies were bad after 1960 when we can calibrate them, on what grounds do we believe they are a reliable representation of the past thousand years when we can’t check them against reliably measured temperatures? Please explain how that works if you can?”

    I apologize for dodging this question, but it’s too big a question to answer in any simple and direct way, and it seemed a more pressing matter to point out that your supposed “expert” was not only retired, but a known shill for an industry-funded think tank.

    Anyone on the lecture circuit for these people is getting paid, and if that person is not even a working climatologist (and is sporting fake credentials, to boot) then it is valid to point this out, especially given that casting doubt on the motivations and credibility of scientists is one of the chief, dirty tactics of AGW deniers – of which the current, criminal attack on the CRU is just the latest example. When the pot is calling the kettle black, people need to know.

    But since you press me, it is worth pointing out that study of the relationships between annual tree growth and climate – the field known as dendroclimatology – is only one among a whole plethora of sources of proxy data for palaeoclimatic reconstructions. Other sources include ice cores, marine sediments, mineralogical composition and surface texture, glacial deposits and erosional features, sedimentary rocks, fossil/microfossil analysis, isotope geochemistry, meteorological and parameteorological records…the list goes on and on.

    It is partly a consilience of observations from across these many, many different fields and sources that underpins our strong confidence in current assumptions about past climate. The wealth of other sources available for proxy reconstruction also enables scientists to compare reconstructions with other, independent sources. This is the crucial point obscured by your faux “critique”.

    Scientists who use tree ring width not only collect data from a set of trees carefully selected on the basis that climate should be a limiting factor, they assemble that data into a composite site chronology, cross-dating the individual series. They do so because a master chronology increases the climate signal to non-climate signal noise ratio (Fritts 1971).

    Next they build up a network of site chronologies for a region, and identify statistical relationships between the chronology time series and recent, instrumental records. This is the “calibration” period you mentioned…but it doesn’t stop there.

    What you fail to mention, is that having used the calibration to reconstruct climatic information for the earlier period covered by the tree-ring data, scientists are then in a position to TEST and VERIFY the resulting reconstruction against independent sources – and there is no shortage of those to choose from.

    If you are genuinely interested in learning more, Bradley (1985) gives a full account of these methods of palaeoclimate reconstruction from tree-ring analysis. There is nothing hidden, or deceptive about these methods: it’s all there in the literature, for anyone to read if they want to.

    Regards,

    P.

    P.S. No, I don’t work for the CRU, nor is anyone paying me.

  70. Manapatra

    Dougetit : “Do people really believe that 31,486 skeptical scientists are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who has already publish a landmark pro-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true? http://www.petitionproject.org/”

    Another fake petition, another bit of misleading denialist propaganda, widely debunked on-line. Almost none (.1%, to be more precise) of the respondants were active climatologists! They have degrees in medicine or mathematics, or other unrelated fields, and some of them are not even scientists!

    http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda

    I refer you to my above post:

    A recent poll of several thousand scientists found that 97.4% of active climatologists support the AGW consensus. Read about it here:-

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    You can read more about the overwhelming consensus here:-

    http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

    Regards,
    P.

  71. Manapatra

    Jim offers the following mendacious list of “highly qualified Skeptics”, most of whom are not even remotely qualified in any relevant field. Those that are have lucrative business interests to protect. Let’s go through them one by one:-

    * Sallie Louise Baliunas Ph.D. (1980) Astrophysics, Harvard University

    Not a climatologist. Bad start.

    * Dr Robert C. Balling, Jr director Office of Climatology, Arizona State University

    Received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade of which his University takes a 50% overhead. Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. He is paid to write for the Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tanks.

    * Dr. Robert (Bob) Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory , James Cook University

    Marine geologist with “little or no standing in the Australian climate science community” (see link). On the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector. This list isn’t going well, is it?

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html

    *Dr. John Christy Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.

    It gets worse. Did Jim even check is list, or just paste it from a denialist Website? Dr Christy was co-drafter of the American Geophysical Union’s December 2003 position statement on climate change, which concludes that:

    “Human activities are increasingly altering Earth’s climate, and that natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.”

    * Joseph (Joe) D’Aleo, is a retired meteorologist

    Retired being the operative word.

    * Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University in Bellingham

    Not a climatologist.

    * Bill Gray professor emeritus, atmospheric science department, Colorado State University.

    Bill Gray shouts loudly in the media, but has never published any research to back up his claim that global warming is a hoax.

    * Dr. David Legates Professor of Geography and the Director, Center for Climate Climactic Research, University of Delaware

    Not a climatologist. This is getting depressing…

    * Dr. Richard S. Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Member of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil. How come these financial connections keep cropping up? Coincidence?

    Robert Gelbspan reported that Lindzen charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services…[and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.”

    http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

    * Dr. Patrick J. Michaels Professor of Environmental Science ret.2007, University of Virginia

    Runs what is effectively a PR firm for the oil industry and is a regular speaker for industry-funded think tanks such as the George C Marshall Institute, which has received funding from Exxonmobil.

    Where are all the scientists with published, recent work and relevant qualifications, and no conflicting business interests in the denialist camp?

    I’m bored now. More to follow…some of the later entries in Jim’s list are even more hilarious…

    Regards,
    P.

  72. Dougetit

    @ 72. Manapatra
    December 17th, 2009 at 8:40 am

    “Another fake petition, another bit of misleading denialist propaganda, widely debunked on-line. Almost none (.1%, to be more precise) of the respondants were active climatologists! They have degrees in medicine or mathematics, or other unrelated fields, and some of them are not even scientists!”

    “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein »

    Historical Temperature data manipulated

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgbo1JJHbeo
    http://climategate.tv/?tag=temperature-record
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3720

    China Temperature Data Manipulated

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/ghcn-china-the-dragon-ate-my-thermometers/

    New Zealand Temperature Data Manipulated

    http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

    Russian Temperature Data Manipulated

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283971

    Australian Temperature Data Manipulated

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero.html

    Tree ring Temperature Data Manipulated

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2398684/posts

    NASA Temperature Data Manipulated

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

    NOAA/NCDC Temperature Data Manipulated

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html

    Programmers say “CRU Programmers MAKE UP DATA”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8X2P3072Tg&feature=player_embedded#
    http://www.youtube.com/user/SuzieF2

    IPCC Misleads Public

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/07/scientific-consensus-vast-majority-of-studies-find-ipcc-climate-alarmist-scientists-absolutely-misle.html

    Misleading Sea Temperature warming claims

    http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/10/22/no-global-warming-signal-in-sea-surface-temperature-data/

    AGW claims of hurricane activity false

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091130/D9CA2G4O2.html
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/global-hurricane-activity-has-decreased-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/

    Misleading Sea Ice and Glacial melting claims

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-5XwlcBqF0
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    Why are CRU/NASA/NOAA/NCDC hiding the raw data?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

    Why did the EPA censor its own diverse opinion?

    http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

    Co2 rises despite the fact that ten of the hottest days in world history were recorded before 1975? Might someone question Co2 as the cause?

    http://www.co2science.org/
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

    Follow the money

    http://online.wsj.com/public/page/0_0_WP_2600_NewsReel.html?baseDocId=SB40001424052748703939404574566124250205490
    http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/79-billion-spent-and-counting-still-no-proof-of-agw/

    So you think the science is settled? Environmentalism and science has been hijacked in the name of AGW. There will be a backlash once realized how they’ve been duped.

    If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts. Albert Einstein »

    Manapatra: AGW is NOT a PROVEN theory. Consensus is not a Scientific term

    “In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.” Albert Einstein»

  73. Manapatra

    I am very pleased with your reply because you have clearly shown your 2 faces and your true intent to everyone. So I need to add little to discredit you further. You support CRU getting oil money, but as you say “stoop so low” to smear skeptics who also use oil money. Of course when people like Mann and Jones trying to control who gets published , and therefore funded, a few skeptics must take their money from wherever.

    You also smear or dismiss respected scientists who are astrophysicists, geologists, statisticians , etc saying they are not “true” climate scientists. But you betray your own ignorance of science. To understand climate it is absolutely necessary to incorporate the work from a diverse array of disciplines. I have researched wet meadows and wildlife in the Sierra Nevada of California for 25 years. I must understand hydrology, climate, statistics, etc before I begin to understand population fluctuations. We have restored watersheds and in so doing we study geology. From sediments it is clear that our California climate has fluctuated greatly over the past 1000 years. Even us biologists have great insight into climate.

    Then your reply regards why we should trust Mann’s proxies even though they so greatly contradict from our recent instrumental measures ,really suggests that we should distrust how the other proxies ere pieced together. You accurately described that scientists must piece together a diverse array of data and look for agreement. But it is exactly that process and they way that data has been pieced together that has been challenged. And as the emails support, it has been done more like a Hollywood horror movie in which they insert segments of real life action with manufactured illusions, and done with super computers. Mann, Briffa et al are more like Hollywood directors than researchers, piecing together the work of others. Their work can be seen in the battle of the graphs http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uDvGXGS4O0Q/SN-8cOvey5I/AAAAAAAAAKU/UZHUk_UhqHQ/S1600-R/climate+graphs.gif in which the bottom graph had been past consensus view of historic temperatures, but with a few of “Mike’s tricks”, it was metamorphosed into the scary “hockey stick” seen above.

    One trick is to simply manipulate the statistics. That’s why they avoid providing their computer programs and defied FOI requests. Right now in medicine some skeptic scientists argued that diagnoses using fMRI’ s have been inaccurate because of the many statistical assumptions that go into their super computer models. Finally when an fMRI skeptics showed that a salmon’s brain could give fMRI results that showed they were responding to pictures of human emotion, even when the fish was dead, the scientists decided they needed to check they assumptions. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/50295/title/Trawling_the_brain
    Thank goodness for skeptics.

    Likewise McIntyre, a statistician, as well as others, have demonstrated that climate computer models would reproduce hockey sticks graphs of past global temperatures 9 out of 10 times even when random number were inserted. Unfortunately unlike the good scientists in medicine, instead of checking their assumptions, Jones, Mann et al chose to deceive the public by deleting files, and denying Freedom of information requests that would allow skeptics to replicate their data. And then when their corruption is uncovered they have people like you, trying spread the meme “that there is nothing to see, move along”. They do not discuss the science, but smear the skeptics. Let’s hope the medical science people have more integrity.

    And what you yourself failed to say, is that in order for those corrupted scientists to make the many proxies agree, they had to cherry-pick the data that would give the desired scary hockey stick. A few major problems have been discussed regards how Mann, Jones, Briffa et al used 1) flawed bristlecone data that the even National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used 2) used only the hockey-stick yielding samples from tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal when the majority of the trees sampled showed no such thing. 3) Or inverted varve data to make a hockey stick, (annual lake sediments) that the original researcher Tiljander said “Their non-dendro network uses some data with the axes upside down, e.g. Korttajarvi sediments, which are also compromised by agricultural impact.

    Is it any wonder that you and the supporters of this corruption are involved in an orchestrated attempt to divert attention from the emails, and attempt to smear the skeptics, not with science, but with lies and innuendo. I personally hate the dark cloud of suspicion that you and your ilk have created that extends to the rest of us who are trying to improve the environment. But also like the horror movies, the evil is destroyed when exposed to the light.

  74. Dougetit

    75. Jim Steele Says:

    Wow.. some great insight Jim! You are spot on!

    I’m all for protecting our environment, clean air, water, and preserving our planet, but after reading 100’s of the emails and poking around in the programers code, HARRY_READ_ME.txt, which is not readily available on-line, I have realized how sloppy, unprofessional, manipulating, and disgust that these “So Called” scientists have created a bad name for science. Unfortunatly, I feel, that until the environmental community realize that they have been hoaxed, we will be subject to this delusional thinking for some time… Maybe a year before the evidence tips the balance and our nation can resume sanity. If they figure it out too fast, though, things could get very ugly.

  75. Here is a computer programmer’s, who you can dismiss because he is not a corrupt climate scientist, here’s his take on the programming used by these Climate “Scientists”. As has often been suspected we are not seeing raw data but data manipulated by “fudge factors”

    http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdaGkUIrDk

  76. Manapatra

    Jim: “I am very pleased with your reply because you have clearly shown your 2 faces and your true intent to everyone. So I need to add little to discredit you further. You support CRU getting oil money, but as you say “stoop so low” to smear skeptics who also use oil money.”

    Anyone can scroll up and see for themselves that I said no such thing, and that you’re wilfully twisting my words. In fact, I said almost the opposite: that where funding comes from is irrelevant, provided that money is used for honest research in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to media-driven smear campaigns by pseudo-experts based on distortions, misreporting of the facts and attacks on the credibility of scientists).

    Jim: “Of course when people like Mann and Jones trying to control who gets published , and therefore funded, a few skeptics must take their money from wherever.”

    There is no evidence whatsoever that Mann and Jones tried to “control” who gets published, except in the vacuous and wholly uncontroversial sense that peer-review is always an attempt to “control” the literature by filtering out bad science. On the contrary, the two papers mentioned in the hacked CRU emails were actually published in the IPCC report – and subsequently shown to be flawed by other scientists. In addition, the journal in which they first appeared, Climate Research, had half its own board of directors resign believing their peer-review process had been compramised by political activism!

    Jim: “You also smear or dismiss respected scientists who are astrophysicists, geologists, statisticians , etc saying they are not “true” climate scientists. But you betray your own ignorance of science. To understand climate it is absolutely necessary to incorporate the work from a diverse array of disciplines.”

    Yes, but you were claiming to list “highly qualified” experts, yet many on your list had no qualification in climate science, or else have a degree they obtained decades ago and have published nothing to support their position since! How is that anything but an attempt to decieve? It is you who are being disingenuous here. Whilst I take your point that, say, a geologist may have to know more about climate science than, say, an architect or estate agent, to be “highly qualified” in climatology must surely require – as a bare minimum! – an extensive portfolio of recent, published scientific work that is relevant to and supports the public case they are making elsewhere.

    Jim: “I have researched wet meadows and wildlife in the Sierra Nevada of California for 25 years. I must understand hydrology, climate, statistics, etc before I begin to understand population fluctuations. We have restored watersheds and in so doing we study geology. From sediments it is clear that our California climate has fluctuated greatly over the past 1000 years.”

    A point which is not in dispute. Nor is it in dispute among real, active researchers within the climate community that these fluctuations hardly undermine the conclusion that the last decade is the hottest on record, and quite possibly the hottest in 2000 years.

    Jim: “Then your reply regards why we should trust Mann’s proxies even though they so greatly contradict from our recent instrumental measures…”

    …yet substantially agree with other proxy reconstructions up to 1960. Interesting how you leave that fact out, despite my making it clear in my response to your “calibration” question, above.

    Jim: “And as the emails support, it has been done more like a Hollywood horror movie in which they insert segments of real life action with manufactured illusions, and done with super computers… the bottom graph had been past consensus view of historic temperatures, but with a few of “Mike’s tricks”, it was metamorphosed into the scary “hockey stick””

    This nasty deception – which has seriously damaged the reputations of an honest scientist – was introduced by McKitrick and McIntyre, the former of whom is an economist and the latter works in the mining industry. It has been comprehensively debunked by many leading scientists (the hockey stick has been reproduced by multiple independent researchers, and Mann’s supposedly “faked” or “hidden” data is available via the journal Nature as well as the University of Virginia) and persists nowhere but in the pernicious pseudoliterature of the denial-o-sphere. Wahl and Amman published a detailed study of the hockey stick and concluded:

    “[Wahl & Ammann] found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method.

    ”Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH [hockey stick] climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH [hockey stick] graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year”

    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html

    Jim: “One trick is to simply manipulate the statistics. That’s why they avoid providing their computer programs and defied FOI requests.”

    Really? Then how come the CRU adjusted data is freely available (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature. ) and the methods used to process the raw data are also published – along with the corresponding station data? How come the raw data CRU have discarded is also available from other institutions, making it easy to check their methods?

    Kevin Wood and Eric Steig recently extracted 65 samples of raw land-surface station data and compared them with the CRU adjusted data. They concluded:

    “There is no indication whatsoever of any problem with the CRU data. An independent study…came to the same conclusion using a somewhat different analysis. None of this should come as any surprise of course, since any serious errors would have been found and published already”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

    Jim: “Is it any wonder that you and the supporters of this corruption are involved in an orchestrated attempt to divert attention from the emails, and attempt to smear the skeptics, not with science, but with lies and innuendo”

    Isn’t it interesting that sceptics hold scientists to such high moral standards, yet excuse themselves from those same standards? All your posts here are attempts to smear scientists with “lies and innuendo”, and nobody in the denialist camp seems to see anything wrong with the criminal hacking and publishing of private email messages.

    Jim: “I personally hate the dark cloud of suspicion that you and your ilk have created that extends to the rest of us who are trying to improve the environment. But also like the horror movies, the evil is destroyed when exposed to the light.”

    IMPROVE the environment? What, by spreading lies broadcast by the very industries that are polluting it? Riiiiight. Those “sceptics” are honest and pure crusaders, spreading truth and light in a world of corruption! Remember that bogus Heartland Institute list I mentioned earlier? The one which claimed to list researchers who rejected the AGW consensus? Here’s a few more responses from the scientists misrepresented by this mendacious piece of propaganda:-

    “I have NO doubts … the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”

    Dr Gregory Cutter, professor, department of ocean, earth and atmospheric sciences, Old Dominion University

    “Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!”

    Dr Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

    “Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist.”

    Dr Ming Cai, associate professor, department of meteorology, Florida State University

    “They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science.”

    Dr Paul F Schuster, hydrologist, US Geological Survey

    “Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research.”

    Dr Mary Alice Coffroth, department of geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

    Regards,
    P.

  77. Manapatra

    Dougetit,

    You array an impressive list of supposedly “manipulated” data, but all these cases can be answered simply by pointing out that all raw data has to be “manipulated” (or rather, adjusted) to remove statistical anomalies caused by inhomogenies, equipment and other conditions. There are no cases of which I’m aware in which the procedures used in the adjustment have been kept secret or hidden, nor are there any cases of which I’m aware in which the adjusted data differs significantly enough from the raw data to undermine the case for dramatic recent warming.

    On the contrary, the RAW, UNMANIPULATED station data itself shows this trend very clearly!

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

  78. Manapatra

    Jim: “I am very pleased with your reply because you have clearly shown your 2 faces and your true intent to everyone. So I need to add little to discredit you further. You support CRU getting oil money, but as you say “stoop so low” to smear skeptics who also use oil money.”

    Anyone can scroll up and see for themselves that I said no such thing, and that you’re wilfully twisting my words. In fact, I said almost the opposite: that where funding comes from is irrelevant, provided that money is used for impartial research in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to media-driven smear campaigns by pseudo-experts based on distortions, misreporting of the facts and attacks on the credibility of scientists).

    Jim: “Of course when people like Mann and Jones trying to control who gets published , and therefore funded, a few skeptics must take their money from wherever.”

    There is no evidence whatsoever that Mann and Jones tried to “control” who gets published, except in the vacuous and uncontroversial sense that peer-review is always an attempt to “control” the literature by filtering out bad science. On the contrary, the two papers mentioned in the hacked CRU emails were actually published in the IPCC report – and subsequently shown to be flawed by other scientists.

    Jim: “You also smear or dismiss respected scientists who are astrophysicists, geologists, statisticians , etc saying they are not “true” climate scientists. But you betray your own ignorance of science. To understand climate it is absolutely necessary to incorporate the work from a diverse array of disciplines.”

    But you were claiming to list “highly qualified” experts, when many on your list had no qualification in climate science, or else have a degree they obtained decades ago and have published nothing to support their position since! It is you who are being disingenuous here. Whilst I take your point that, say, a geologist may have to know more about climate science than, say, an architect or estate agent, to be “highly qualified” in climate science requires – as a bare minimum! – an extensive portfolio of recent, published work that is relevant to and supports the public case they are making elsewhere.

    Jim: “I have researched wet meadows and wildlife in the Sierra Nevada of California for 25 years. I must understand hydrology, climate, statistics, etc before I begin to understand population fluctuations. We have restored watersheds and in so doing we study geology. From sediments it is clear that our California climate has fluctuated greatly over the past 1000 years.”

    A point which is not in dispute. Neither is it in dispute among active climatologists that the last decade has been the hottest on record, and possibly the hottest in 2000 years.

    Jim: “Then your reply regards why we should trust Mann’s proxies even though they so greatly contradict from our recent instrumental measures…”

    …yet substantially agree with other proxy reconstructions up to 1960. Interesting how you leave that fact out, despite my making it clear in my response to your “calibration” question, above.

    Jim: “And as the emails support, it has been done more like a Hollywood horror movie in which they insert segments of real life action with manufactured illusions, and done with super computers… the bottom graph had been past consensus view of historic temperatures, but with a few of “Mike’s tricks”, it was metamorphosed into the scary “hockey stick””

    This nasty deception – which has seriously damaged the reputation of an honest scientist – was introduced by McKitrick and McIntyre, the former of whom is an economist and the latter works in the mining industry. It has been comprehensively debunked by many leading scientists (the hockey stick has been reproduced by multiple independent researchers, and Mann’s supposedly “faked” or “hidden” data is available via the journal Nature as well as the University of Virginia) and persists nowhere but in the pernicious pseudoliterature of the denial-o-sphere. Wahl and Amman published a detailed study of the hockey stick and concluded:

    “[Wahl & Ammann] found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method.

    ”Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH [hockey stick] climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH [hockey stick] graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year”

    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html

    Jim: “One trick is to simply manipulate the statistics. That’s why they avoid providing their computer programs and defied FOI requests.”

    Really? Then how come the CRU adjusted data is freely available (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature. ), and the methods used to process the raw data have also been published – as well as the corresponding, unadjusted station data? How come the raw data CRU does not have is still available from other institutions, making it easy to check their working?

    Kevin Wood and Eric Steig recently extracted 65 samples of raw land-surface station data and compared them with the CRU adjusted data. They concluded:

    “There is no indication whatsoever of any problem with the CRU data. An independent study…came to the same conclusion using a somewhat different analysis. None of this should come as any surprise of course, since any serious errors would have been found and published already”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

    Jim: “Is it any wonder that you and the supporters of this corruption are involved in an orchestrated attempt to divert attention from the emails, and attempt to smear the skeptics, not with science, but with lies and innuendo”

    Isn’t it interesting that sceptics hold scientists to such high moral standards, yet excuse themselves from those same standards? All your posts here are attempts to smear scientists with “lies and innuendo”, and nobody in the denialist camp seems to see anything wrong with the criminal hacking and publishing of private email messages.

    Jim: “I personally hate the dark cloud of suspicion that you and your ilk have created that extends to the rest of us who are trying to improve the environment. But also like the horror movies, the evil is destroyed when exposed to the light.”

    IMPROVE the environment? What, by spreading calculated lies broadcast by the very industries that are polluting it? Riiiiight. The “sceptics” are honest and pure crusaders, spreading truth and light in a world of corruption! Remember that bogus Heartland Institute list I mentioned earlier? The one which claimed to list researchers who disagreed with the AGW consensus? Here’s a few more responses from real scientists:-

    “I have NO doubts … the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”

    Dr Gregory Cutter, professor, department of ocean, earth and atmospheric sciences, Old Dominion University

    “Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!”

    Dr Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

    “Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist.”

    Dr Ming Cai, associate professor, department of meteorology, Florida State University

    “They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science.”

    Dr Paul F Schuster, hydrologist, US Geological Survey

    “Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research.”

    Dr Mary Alice Coffroth, department of geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

    Regards,
    P.

  79. Manapatra , All people need to do is read the emails and decide for themselves.

    You remind me of an evil defense attorney in a rape case, in which the tactic is to discredit the victims. It is the corruption of the climate scientists and the evidence in the emails that are on trial. But you, like the evil lawyer, divert attention from the crime, trying to make it the victims fault by smearing the victim, as if that makes the corruption OK. But even more outrageous, is that the witnesses you use to bolster you claims of innocence of these corrupt scientists, are the very same people and their close associates like RealClimate, Amman, ,etc a who were manipulating data and public perception. Either you have no conscience or you are a paid shill.

    I urge people to read the emails themselves, and then decide!

  80. Walter McIntosh

    Mary Theroux(#55) denies that the Independent Institute has received funding from Exxonmobil yet http://www.sourcewatch.com says both in their fact sheet on Exxonmobil and on the Independent Institute that they have long been the receipent of funding from Exxonmobil . Mary Theroux also denies that her Institute received covert funding from Microsoft to act on their behalf against Oracle some years ago as was published in a number of places including the New York Times. Mary Theroux , in fact, also claims that Oracle was founded by the CIA . I personally find her claims lack credibility.

  81. Dougetit

    79. Manapatra

    You didn’t check my links.. did you..

    For you benefit I will limit to one at a time.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283971

    I never stated “adjusted” as you did… I stated MANIPULATED which may mean adjusted as you state, but could also mean just NOT COUNTED as the below link shows.
    Cherry picking reporting stations seems to be the “manipulation of choice”

    Here is what it says if you refuse to click on it..

    “up to 40% of the data from all temperature monitoring stations across Russia was deliberately left out of the final reports provided by the UK Met Office”

    And surprise… if you look at Siberia shown by NOAA/NASA, the map shows Russia to be the hottest region!

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif

    Ironically the USA shows the least amount of warming.. (where those pesky skeptics live who might esier verify the accuracy)

    This is the second time you have posted links for CRU data that have BLOCKED access to their data. Check for yourself. The links posted for data are censored.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

    Haven’t you heard of the scandal going on? CRU/Met has taken down ALL of their data.
    It’s all BOGUS! All that remain are yearly numbers which show a “Flat Line” temperature” trend since 1998. I suspect NASA/NOAA/NCDC will follow suit when the lawsuits start flying in January. Alas… then, all we will be left with would be the UAH Satellite data which doesn’t show such nonsense you have been duped by.

  82. Here is a one sample of emails where data was requested and then denied because Phil didn’t want the researcher to “find something wrong with it” Suck it up Phil that is the foundation of true science. Allowing others to verify or falsify you work. You decide if Phil is hiding.

    Warwick Hughes to Phil Jones, September ‘04:

    Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),
Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file map showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this was due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures described in a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up a page detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north Siberian region, everything is specified there with diagrams and numbered grid points.
    [1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????
This must be explained.
    [2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid cells with no stations, like cancer.
    [3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into its western neighbour.
    I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening.
Best regards,
Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)

    Phil to Warwick, same email:

    Warwick,
I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. Trends say in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at least 10 months in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24 years in this period that missing values in some boxes influence trend calculation. I would expect this to be random across the globe.

    Warwick,
Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me the cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and (3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two stations did not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of stations that you’ve compared Olenek and Verhojansk with I would appreciate that.

    Cheers
Phil

    Then later Phil Jones famously replied:

    Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …

    
Cheers Phil

    This is when others asked via FOI and there are several emails about how Phil wanted to evade FOI requests. I can post those if anyone wants to read them. Enlightening.

  83. Dougetit

    84. Jim Steele

    Your wasting your time with the memos.. It’s been gone over extensively and is pretty damnig but the juicy stuff is hidden in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file written by the programer. It was in the original (61mb) FOIA2009.zip file. It’s appauling to find out how they “Made Up” Fudged, admitted that the data they were programing was known to be false etc. Google it.

    Here is an example of one paragraph I found there:

    “You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false
    WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

    False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 digits) by 100, then adding 1 at a time until a number is found with no matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as there is no central repository for WMO codes – especially made-up ones – we’ll have to chance duplicating one that’s present in one of the other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO codes between databases – something I’ve studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I had to – will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully.

    Of course, option 3 cannot be offered for CLIMAT bulletins, there being no metadata with which to form a new station.

    This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late.”

    Can you believe that trillions of dollars rested on such pitifull programing?

    Here is a bit of video where a programer goes over some of it.. but believe me.. there is much more that I haven’t seen widely posted elswhere. Everybody is captivated by the emails. Wait till they find out about the actual programing code. It will make people sick when they find out.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/SuzieF2 (caution, bad programmer language) Litteraly!

  84. Dougetit I agree that the computer codes are the real smoking guns and most damning. That’s why they refused to release those codes before and avoid FOI requests.

  85. Manapatra

    Jim: “Manapatra , All people need to do is read the emails and decide for themselves.”

    The emails were carefully selected from 15 years’ worth of material, cherry-picked and strung together to make them appear ominous, and seized on by an army of industry shills in a well-financed media campaign. They are a deceptive tapestry of out-of-context fragments, so open to interpretation they would never stand up in court as “evidence” of anything (aside from the underwhelming conclusion that scientists are human, after all).

    Jim: “You remind me of an evil defense attorney in a rape case, in which the tactic is to discredit the victims. It is the corruption of the climate scientists and the evidence in the emails that are on trial. But you, like the evil lawyer, divert attention from the crime, trying to make it the victims fault by smearing the victim, as if that makes the corruption OK.”

    Anyone can scroll up and see for themselves and that I have done no such thing. I have simply highlighted the fact that your list of supposed “experts” were either not as qualified as you claimed (and as they dishonestly present themselves) or else have financial conflicts of interest – a matter of public record. I have also presented unequivocal evidence of skeptics telling lies about the work of real scientists.

    Accusing me of “smears” on the one hand, whilst likening me to the defense attorney in a rape case (!) on the other, is glaringly hypocritical. I have presented unambiguous proof that your claims are deceptive. The crime was fictitious, the alleged perpetrator framed, and the supposed “victims” paid handsomely to lie to the jury. The case for the prosecution is all smoke and mirrors, a tissue of half-truths perched on the thinnest of proof.

    Jim: “But even more outrageous, is that the witnesses you use to bolster you claims of innocence of these corrupt scientists, are the very same people and their close associates like RealClimate, Amman, ,etc a who were manipulating data and public perception. Either you have no conscience or you are a paid shill.”

    Another smear…and another lie. Again, anyone can follow the links I posted above, and see for themselves that I have actually presented independent evidence. You dismiss this with innuendo, and guilt-by-association rather than honest appraisal. Why? Though it was posted on RealClimate, the link I provided was an independent investigation of the CRU data [complete with a graph of raw station data, which is publicly available and clearly shows a recent warming trend…or did Gary Schmidt rig the instruments (perhaps after burying the aliens from Area 51…?)]. If this is not enough to convince, the same article contains a link to another, independent assessment by researchers in Spain. Are you blind, or just unwilling to see the obvious?

    Up above I presented several independent proxy reconstructions. Granted, this did include work by the CRU however, the reason I p it was because it *also* shows the close correlation with other reconstructions, which you completely ignored (again, why?) though they are clearly visible for all to see – and clearly referenced, for those wishing to check the primary literature. Your noise and arm-waving may confuse less well-informed readers of this thread…but it will not fool me.

    Regards,
    P.

  86. Manapatra

    Jim,

    The link below contains a vast array of irrefutable evidence from raw station data (together with links to that data for you to follow, if you wish) and a bewildering range of proxy reconstructions demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt the dramatic recent warming.

    Below the link I have posted the many, many references to the primary literature. As you can see, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming – and only the tip of the iceberg so far as the case for AGW goes:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsa.html

    • Barnett, T.P., Santer, B., Jones, P.D., and Bradley, R.S., Estimates of low frequency natural variability in near-surface air temperature, Holocene,6, 255-263, 1996.
    • Bradley, R.S., and Jones, P.D., `Little Ice Age’ summer temperature variations: their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends, Holocene , 3, 367-376, 1993.
    • Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., and T.J. Osborn, Influence of volcanic eruptions on Northern Hemisphere summer temperature over the past 600 years, Nature, 393, 350-354, 1998.
    • Crowley, T.J., and K.Y. Kim, Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 359-362, 1996.
    • Crowley, T.J., and K.-Y. Kim, Modeling the temperature response to forced climate change over the last six centuries, Geophysical Research Letters, 26 (13), 1901-1904, 1999.
    • Crowley, T.J., and T. Lowery, How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period? A Comment on “Man-made versus Natural Climate Change”, Ambio, 29, 51-54, 2000.
    • Cullen, H., D’Arrigo, R., Cook, E., and Mann, M.E., Multiproxy-based reconstructions of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the past three centuries, Paleoceanography, in press, 2000.
    • Delworth, T.D., and Mann, M.E., Observed and Simulated Multidecadal Variability in the Northern Hemisphere, Climate Dynamics, 16, 661-676, 2000.
    • Grove, J.M. and R. Switsur, Glacial geological evidence for the Medieval Warm Period, Climatic Change, 26, 143-169, 1994.
    • Hughes, M.K., and H.F. Diaz, Was there a `Medieval Warm Period” and if so, where and when?, Climatic Change, 26, 109-142, 1994.
    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1995: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change , J.T. Houghton et al, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge).
    • Jones, P.D., 1994: Hemispheric surface air temperature variations: a reanalysis and an update to 1993. J. Climate, 7, 1794-1802.
    • Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Barnett, T.P., and S.F.B. Tett, High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control run temperatures, Holocene,8, 477-483, 1998.
    • Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199.
    • Lean, J., Beer, J., and R.S. Bradley, Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climatic change, Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 3195-3198, 1995.
    • Luterbacher, J., C. Schmutz, D. Gyalistras, E. Xoplaki, and H. Wanner, 1999: Reconstruction of monthly NAO and EU indices back to AD 1675, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2745-2749.
    • Mann, M.E., Large-scale climate variability and connections with the Middle East in past centuries, Climatic Change, accepted, 2000.
    • Mann, M.E., Park, J., Bradley, R.S., Global Interdecadal and Century-Scale Climate Oscillations During the Past Five Centuries, Nature, 378, 266-270, 1995.
    • Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K., Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998.
    • Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K., Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 759-762, 1999.
    • Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K., Long-term variability in the El Nino Southern Oscillation and associated teleconnections, Diaz, H.F. & Markgraf, V. (eds) El Nino and the Southern Oscillation: Multiscale Variability and its Impacts on Natural Ecosystems and Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 357-412, 2000.
    • Ortlieb, L., The documentary historical record of El Nino events in Peru: An update of the Quinn record (sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, Diaz, H.F. & Markgraf, V. (eds) El Nino and the Southern Oscillation: Multiscale Variability and its Impacts on Natural Ecosystems and Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 207-295, 2000.
    • Overpeck, J., Hughen, K., Hardy, D., Bradley, R., Case, R., Douglas, M., Finney, B., Gajewski, K., Jacoby, G., Jennings, A., Lamoureux, S., Lasca, A., Macdonald, G., Moore, J., Retelle, M., Smith, S., Wolfe, A., Zielinski, G., 1997: Arctic environmental changes of the last four centuries, Science, 278, 1251-1256.
    • Overpeck, J. T., 1998: How unprecedented is recent Arctic warming: A look back to the Medieval Warm Period (abstract), Supplement to Eos, Transactions, 79 (45), 833-834.
    • Pollack, H., Huang, S., and P.Y. Shen, Climate change revealed by subsurface temperatures: A global perspective, Science , 282, 279-281, 1998.
    • Quinn, W.H. & Neal, V.T., The historical record of El Nino events, in Climate Since A.D. 1500 (eds Bradley, R.S. & Jones, P.D., 623-648, Routledge, 1992).
    • Robertson, A. D., J. T. Overpeck, E. Mosley-Thompson, G. A. Zielinski, J. L. Lean, D. Koch, J. E. Penner, I. Tegen, D. Rind, and R. Healy, 1998: Hypothesized Climate Forcing Time Series for the Last 500 Years (abstract), Supplement to Eos, Transactions, 79 (45), 833-834.
    • Stahle, D.W., Cleaveland, M.K., Therrell, M.D., Gay, D.A., D’Arrigo, R.D., Krusic, P. J., Cook, E.R., Allan, R.J., Cole, J.E., Dunbar, R.B., Moore, M.D., Stokes, M.A., Burns, B.T., Villanueva-Diaz, J., Thompson, L.G. 1998:. Experimental Dendroclimatic Reconstruction of the Southern Oscillation. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79(10):2137?2152.
    • Waple, A., Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Long-term Patterns of Solar Irradiance Forcing in Model Experiments and Proxy-based Surface Temperature Reconstructions, Climate Dynamics, accepted, 2000.

    As to your delusional claim that skeptics are purveyors of truth and light in a world of corruption, the following study demonstrates otherwise (link below):

    “Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

    “Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement coordinated by CTTs, designed specifically to undermine the environmental movement’s efforts to legitimise its claims via science. Thus, the notion that environmental sceptics are unbiased analysts exposing the myths and scare tactics employed by those they label as practitioners of ‘junk science’ lacks credibility. Similarly, the self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised ‘Davids’ battling the powerful ‘Goliath’ of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade, as sceptics are supported by politically powerful CTTs funded by wealthy foundations and corporations”

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/organizing_denial/

    Case closed.

    Regards,
    P.

  87. Manapatra

    Jim,

    More hard, irrefutable evidence – instrumental records, proxy reconstructions, adjusted and raw data, you name it – is available through the CEOS Internaltional Directory Network:-

    http://idn.ceos.org/portals/Keywords.do?Portal=ceos&KeywordPath=Parameters%7CPALEOCLIMATE%7CLAND+RECORDS%7CTREE+RINGS&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb2

    Here’s just a sample:-

    1. AFI 01/01_01 – Biodiversity response to climate change: biodiversity and climate significance of Tertiary forest communities of Antarctica – Fossil wood and leaves of Tertiary age, Seymour Island and adjacent, 2001 [GB-NERC-BAS-AEDC-00311]
    During field work in 2001 over 1600 specimens were collected from four main fossil plant assemblages: the ”Nordenksjold flora” from the Cross Valley Formation of Late Palaeocene age; and …
    2. AFI 01/01_02 – Biodiversity response to climate change: biodiversity and climate significance of Tertiary forest communities of Antarctica – Analysis of fossil wood & leaves of Tertiary age, Seymour Island&adjacent, 2001 [GB-NERC-BAS-AEDC-00312]
    Fossils from Palaeogene strata on Seymour Island, Antarctic Peninsula, were studied to determine the nature of vegetation response to the fundamental change from greenhouse to icehouse climates …
    3. Fluvial and paleobotanical studies at Allan Hills [K042_1990_1991_NZ_1]
    Paleobotanical studies revealed evidence for the in situ formation of Gondwana coals, a previous unrecognised feature. The evidence included the presence of Vertebraria roots in …
    4. Investigation of petrified logs, palaeobotanical materical and tree growth rings from Allan Hills for intrepretation of the palaeoclimate of the area [K042_1997_1998_NZ_1]
    Allan Hills is known for its record of climate preserved in petrified logs 260 million years old in the Wellar coal measure. A study of the logs is part of a wider study on …
    5. Climate Since AD 1500 Database, WDC Paleoclimatology [EARTH_LAND_NGDC_PALEOCLIM1500AD] CHILD DIFs
    This data set contains the data described in various chapters of the book: CLIMATE SINCE A.D. 1500 Edited by Raymond S. Bradley …
    6. Global and Regional Atmospheric, Hydrologic, and Oceanic Data from the INFOCLIMA Catalog of Climate System Data Sets [INFOCLIMA]
    The INFOCLIMA Data Base of Climate System Data Sets is a collection of worldwide data center (280) and data set descriptions of Climate-related data …
    7. Eastern Colorado Palmer Drought Severity Index Reconstruction, NOAA/NGDC/WDC Paleoclimatology [NOAA_NGDC_PALEO_WOODHOUSE]
    This data set consists of Eastern Colorado May/June/July Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) Reconstruction based on tree ring chronologies in the western Great …
    8. Upper Colorado River Flow Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2007-052]
    This data set consists of reconstructed annual flows of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry based on new tree-ring records of ring-width from remnant preserved wood. …
    9. The International Multiproxy Paleofire Database (IMPD) at WDC for Paleoclimatology [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_IMPD]
    From: A Brief Introduction to Fire History Reconstruction “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/impd/impd_data_intro.html” Fire history information is provided through two types …
    10. North Atlantic Oscillation Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2006-055]
    The data are those shown in figure 4 of Timm et al. (2004). They show the decadal-scale variability in the period range of 8-16 years. The correlation statistics (with the wintertime …
    11. Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstruction Sensitivity Comparisons [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2005-057]
    Comparison of the sensitivity of Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions, using 2 individual proxy networks and the 2 networks combined. MXD is the Briffa tree ring …
    12. Tree-ring Carbon Isotope Data and Drought Maps for the U.S. Southwest [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2007-010]
    Analysis of short-term fluctuations in d13C in tree rings indicates they are related to climate, notably the moisture status of the plant. The mechanism for this relationship …
    13. Arctic Environmental Change of the Last Four Centuries [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_ARCTIC]
    Abstract (from the online documentation): A compilation of paleoclimate records from lake sediments, trees, glaciers, and marine sediments provides a view of circum-Arctic environmental …
    14. CLIMAP 18k bp Surface Configuration Data [FE01020]
    The CLIMAP (Climate: Long-Range Investigation, Mapping, and Prediction) Project was funded by the National Science Foundation as part of the International Decade of Ocean Exploration …
    15. Proxy-Based Pacific SST Reconstructions [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2001-068]
    This data set consists of Proxy-Based Pacific SST Reconstructions. Latitudes of grid points : 57.5S to 62.5N by 5. N= 25 points Longitudes of grid points : 112.5E to 67.5W …
    16. Northern Hemisphere Tree-Ring-Based STD and RCS Temperature Reconstructions [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2006-092]
    This data set consists of two new tree-ring-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere annual temperatures, computed by (1) Standard (STD) negative-exponential or straightline …
    17. Lake Athabasca Water Level Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2006-059]
    Tree-ring reconstructed water level of Lake Athabasca at Ft. Chipewyan, Alberta Province, Canada. Reconstructed variable is the 10-day-average water level for the period July …
    18. 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2005-019]
    ABSTRACT: A number of reconstructions of millennial-scale climate variability have been carried out in order to understand patterns of natural climate variability, on decade …
    19. Selenge River, Mongolia Streamflow Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2006-033]
    This data set consists of tree-ring-based, principal component regression reconstruction of Selenge River, Mongolia streamflow. Reconstructed parameter is the average streamflow …
    20. Updated Streamflow Reconstructions for the Upper Colorado River Basin [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2006-50]
    This data set consists of updated Streamflow Reconstructions for the Upper Colorado River Basin, based on a network of moisture-sensitive tree-ring chronologies in Colorado, southwestern …
    21. Tree Ring Data from the International Tree-Ring Data Bank (ITRDB), NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program [EARTH_LAND_NGDC_PALEO_TREERINGS] CHILD DIFs
    The International Tree-Ring Data Bank is maintained by the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. The Data Bank includes raw ring width or wood …
    22. Glacier National Park Summer Drought Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2006-008]
    This data set consists of a reconstruction of summer drought based on tree-ring chronologies in Glacier National Park. Reconstructed parameter is Mean Summer Deficit (precipitation …
    23. Spatial Extent of Warm and Cold Conditions over the Northern Hemisphere Since 800 AD [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2006-009]
    Abstracts: Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records …
    24. Collections data on fossil plants from Antarctica [Antarctic_Paleobotanical_Collections] CHILD DIFs
    This database contains collections information for the Paleobotany Collections of the Division of Paleobotany, Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, University …
    25. Tree Ring Slide Set [G01258]
    ABSTRACT: Travel with scientists to the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California, the Navajo National Monument in New Mexico, and the forests of Tasmania to study ancient chronicles …
    26. Values of Tree Ring Width and/or Wood Density Measurements Taken by Field Sampling and by LaboratoryAnalysis, Site Chronologies and Climate Reconstructs [G01002]
    ABSTRACT: Tree ring width and/or wood density measurements are taken by field sampling and laboratory analysis. These tree growth measurements are used as a proxy for climate …
    27. South American Dendroclimatological Records, Climate Since A.D. 1500 Database, WDC Paleoclimatology [NOAA_WDCPALEO_CLIM1500_CH23] PARENT DIF
    Data from Boninsegna. Data on the following reconstructions: winter precipitation at Santiago de Chile; summer and winter anticyclone positions and summer precipitation …
    28. Southern Colorado Plateau Temperature and Precipitation Reconstructions [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2005-066]
    Southern Colorado Plateau multi-millennial tree-ring temperature and precipitation reconstructions. Three lower forest border tree-ring chronologies were used in the precipitation …
    29. 11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2005-015]
    Abstract: From http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries, but …
    30. Quaternary Climate Database of the Australian Region; BMR, Australia [EARTH_LAND_AUS_BMR_QUATERN_CLIM]
    The Quaternary Climate Database provides data on Quaternary Climates of the Australian Region. Climate indicators are collected from literature centered on the Australian and some …
    31. Ring width chronologies for several sites around Lake Inari (northern Finland) and Tornetrask region (northern Sweden), Climate Since A.D. 1500 Database [NOAA_WDCPALEO_CLIM1500_CH19] PARENT DIF
    Data from Briffa and Schweingruber. Ring width chronologies for several sites around Lake Inari (northern Finland) and the Tornetrask region of northern Sweden (shown in …
    32. Northern Hemisphere and Regional Temperature Reconstructions [NOAA_NGDC_PALEO_TREERINGDENSITY]
    This data set consists of new reconstructions of northern extratropical summer temperatures for nine subcontinental-scale regions and a composite series representing quasi “Northern …
    33. Clear Creek Colorado Annual Flow Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2001-007]
    Clear Creek Colorado Annual Flow Reconstruction. Data consists of reconstruction of total annual flow, in acre/feet, of Clear Creek near Golden, Colorado, USA, 39 50’N, 105W, …
    34. Global Six Century Temperature Patterns, WDC Paleoclimatology [NOAA_NGDC_PALEO_6CENTURY]
    This data set consists of reconstructed global annual surface temperatures for each year from 1400 to 1995, including statistical uncertainties and reconstructed principal component …
    35. Northeastern Utah Palmer Drought Severity Index Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2003-043]
    Northeastern Utah June Palmer Drought Severity Index reconstruction based on tree ring chronologies in and around the Uinta Basin. ABSTRACT (from the online documentation: …
    36. Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstructions from Tree-Ring Chronologies and Major Volcanic Eruptions, WDC Paleoclimatology [NOAA_NGDC_PALEO_BRIFFA]
    This data set consists of two time series representative of Northern Hemisphere growing season (April-September) temperatures for the period 1400-1994. The data were derived from …
    37. Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Reconstruction, NOAA/NCDC/WDC Paleoclimatology [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2001-001]
    This data consists of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) reconstruction based on tree ring chronologies. Climate in the North Pacific and North American sectors has …
    38. Southwestern USA Linear Regression and Neural Network Precipitation Reconstructions, NOAA/NCDC/WDC Paleoclimatology [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2002-080]
    This data set consists of a comparison of the linear regression and neural network models for precipitation reconstruction from a network of tree ring chronologies. Data …
    39. Reconstructed Temperature and Precipitation from Tree Rings in North America; Paleoclimate Data [EARTH_LAND_NGDC_PALEO_RECONSTRC]
    This data set contains files of reconstructed temperature and precipitation data, derived from tree ring data by Dr. Harold Fritts of the University of Arizona. The reconstructions …
    40. Southwestern USA Drought Index Reconstruction, 1200-1978 AD [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2000-053]
    Tree Ring reconstruction of Southwestern USA drought scores, based on optimal interpolation. The reconstruction uses factor scores from a Principal Components Analysis …
    41. U.S. Drought Area Index Reconstruction, 1700-1978 AD [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_1998-036]
    U.S. Drought Area Index Reconstruction data set provides Drought(-) or Wetness(+) Area Index, defined as the the number of gridpoints (out of 154) that exceed PDSI thresholds, as …
    42. White River Flow Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_1994-024]
    This data set contains river flow from the White River at Clarendon, Arkansas in Cubic Km/Yr), derived from tree-ring data.
    43. European Gridded and Regional Summer Temperature Reconstructions [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2002-069]
    ABSTRACT (from the online documentation): Temperature variations over Europe are reconstructed for a 6-month “summer” season from April to September for the period 1750-1850 …
    44. Kathmandu, Nepal Temperature Reconstructions [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2003-038]
    Kathmandu tree-ring based temperature reconstructions and instrumental weather data. Reconstructions for pre-monsoon (February-June) and post-monsoon (October-February) seasons, …
    45. New Zealand February-March Temperature Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2000-018]
    The data consists of average February-March temperature and its’ upper and lower 90% confidence interval. These data are given in degrees centigrade which derived from 11 New Zealand …
    46. Sacramento River Annual Flow Reconstruction [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2001-081]
    This data set consists of reconstruction of total annual flow, in millions of acre/feet, of the Sacramento River, based on tree ring chronologies from 869-1977 AD.
    47. Chihuahua Winter-Spring Precipitation Reconstruction 1647-1992 [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2003-058]
    The state of Chihuahua lies in an arid to semiarid zone in the NW central plain of Mexico. Its agricultural economy is highly vulnerable to frequent droughts. In this study, we …
    48. Climate Over Past Millennia [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2004-085]
    ABSTRACT: We review evidence for climate change over the past several millennia from instrumental and high-resolution climate “proxy” data sources and climate modeling studies. …
    49. Colorado River Basin Streamflow Reconstructions [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2004-017]
    This data set consists of tree-ring based reconstructions of annual streamflow in the upper Colorado River and tributaries. Contains annual reconstructed streamflow data …
    50. Dendroclimatic Reconstruction of June-July Temperatures in Northwestern Canada [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_95-024]
    These data are reconstructed June-July temperatures in northwestern Canada derived from tree-ring data.

    Regards,
    P.

  88. Manapatra

    Another long list of data sets here:-

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/climate/temp/temp_table.html

    ****

    Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.

    “It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

    The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.

    The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).

    “We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.

    The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.

    “CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/cru-climate-data-already-%E2%80%98over-95%E2%80%99-available-28-november/

  89. Manapatra

    Dougetit wrote: “Haven’t you heard of the scandal going on? CRU/Met has taken down ALL of their data. It’s all BOGUS!” All that remain are yearly numbers which show a “Flat Line” temperature” trend since 1998.”

    Yet strangely, I’m easily able to access the CRU data, as were the two sets of independent experts who assessed it and compared it to the raw, instrumental data (see my links, above) and found no problems with it.

    If the site is up and down, this is probably due to the exceedingly high traffic in the wake of this wholly manufactured “scandal”, and is not evidence of any conspiracy to hide data that has been freely available for years (see above). To prove I’m having no trouble accessing the site, I cut n’ pasted the following text:-

    “These pages describe the gridded datasets produced by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The datasets consist of CRU TS3.0, CRUTEM3 and HadCRUT3.

    “At present, the BADC only holds the preliminary CRU TS3.0 datasets for the period 1901-2006. TS (time-series) datasets are month-by-month variation in climate over the last century or so. These are on high-resolution grids. They allow the comparison of variations in climate with variations in other phenomea (see list of variables available below).

    “Preliminary data are not being routinely updated as yet, but are copies of the data currently available from CRU…”

    Now, how did I manage that, if the site is down? Or are you simply lying about the availability of this data, because you know most of your readers won’t bother to try the link for themselves?

    http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/cru/

    Dougetit: “I suspect NASA/NOAA/NCDC will follow suit when the lawsuits start flying in January…”

    That is not going to happen. The people lying to you about climate change know very well they are lying, as is proved by 20 years of revelations about their tactics. They would not dare take their bumbling pseudo-experts into a court of law!

    Regards,
    P.

  90. Dougetit

    91. @ Manapatra

    You missunderstood me.. I’m looking for the data.. not a graph. Datasets look like this:

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    Your links have links, (like the one below) in which thier websites don’t work.. they have been taken down.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/temperature/

    Thanks for trying though..

  91. Dougetit

    91. @ Manapatra

    You see, because ground/sea based thermometer data is more susceptible to manipulation and error, (as we are finding out since climategate), there is no need for these datasets at all, at least not as a primary source.

    After all, the satellite data is balloon checked regularly and has been refined to an accuracy of 3 one hundredths of a degree accuracy.

    If you were to linear straight line (with the function f(x) = a*x+b, where a and b are constants calculated so the line is the best fit to the point series. The trendline is calculated so the sum of squares (SSQ) S(yi-f(xi))^2), plot all of the ground based datasets, you would find an upward warming trend.

    If you were to plot, (same as above), the satellite data from January 1998 thru November 2009, you would find that temperatures have trended down with a difference of about .33 C per decade. So why would we trust the ground based data? None of the models have predicted this.

    This is where we get the EMAIL Oct. 12, 2009. From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and colleagues. “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,”….

    My point is that if all thermometer data did not exist, and all that we were left with were satellite data, the term “AGW” would likely not exist. This would have saved us billions of dollars of which could have been spent on real environmental issues.

  92. Manapatra,

    Your list of studies is very long. Thank you , because those studies verify my point that the recent warming is not that unusual. I know you list these to divert attention from the emails and the way Mann and Jones modified those studies to create a “hockey stick” horror story. But these studies support the ice core representation shown below in the link. Those graphs will put recent temperature into the perspective elucidated by those many studies above. It is just Mann and Jones and friends that you are trying to over for that pieced the data into a misleading representation. The emails talk about how they wanted to hide the Medieval warm period that most studies have stated existed and was warmer than today.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

    Again people can read the email themselves, and no matter how loud and how often you shout “there is nothing to see”, people who look will see, and their corruption as well as yours will be obvious.

  93. Michael Tobis

    Thanks, Chris. Nicely said. This “climategate” garbage is no more than almost baseless innuendo about a few minor issues, yet it is successfully dressed up as factual evidence of a grand conspiracy.

    It isn’t just climate science under attack here. It isn’t even just the scientific community. It’s reason itself.

    The effect of delaying response to climate change by decades, as the plausible scenarios continue to get exponentially worse, is disaster enough. In fact the whole process by which a democracy weighs complex evidence is also under attack, so many more disasters lie in wait.

    It’s just astonishing to see how destructive these attacks are, and how clueless most of the press is about the dangers presented by it.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by Salon.com and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »