Scientific Scandel Appears To Rock Climate Change Promoters

[bonnie]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/scientific_scandal_appears_to.html

November 20, 2009

Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters

Clarice Feldman

There's big news for climate change students. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU, Britain's largest climate research institute and a proponent of global warming, and seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the "evidence" on global warming; the unlawful destruction of records to cover up this fraud ,conspiracy,and deceit in the entire operation.

While hacking into the institute's records is inappropriate if not illegal, the activities disclosed appear illegal and damaging to science and the economies of the world.

At first many of us were inclined to dismiss the posted emails from the Institute as fraud, but the head of the institute admits the records were hacked and the emails seem genuine.

Here is a sample of the purportedly hacked material (1079 emails and 72 documents) available online:

From: Phil Jones

To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX

Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX

School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX

University of East Anglia

Norwich

*******************************************

From: Kevin Trenberth

To: Michael Mann

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

***

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

Thomas Lifson adds:

One interesting hacked email childishly insults American Thinker, by calling us "American Stinker."

It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith

does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in

emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to

what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts

alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which

surely is the only way to go - complex and wordy responses

will be counter productive).

But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith

explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And

how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated

chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?

Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in

recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less

often that M&M say - but where did they get their information? I

presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if

you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely - but I am not

sure Keith is able to do this

as he is too close to the issue and probably quite [censored] of.

And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that

affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons - but

many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The

trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,

and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is

being hidden.

I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.

I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.

Tom.