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

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

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

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

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

Since the emails are not in order, perhaps they are saving some for a later release.

Sort of like the Acorn videos. I would love that:)

Or perhaps the leaker got rid of the emails that would implicate themselves.

1Lump--Um, do you really think the leakers would have leaked the emails if further leaks would implicate them?

Kind of doubt it.

I'm certainly not informed in the GW area, but have really enjoyed everyones contribution and the results of their time in delving into these docs. Once again I'm very pleased to have contributed at least financially to this site since I cannot do so intellectually more times than not.

The fraud that leads to potential power shifts and global taxes seems clear, I'm so grateful to whoever hacked and leaked this information, assuming of course that it's verified.

I'm not trying to argue GW vs. no GW, but I keep seeing anecdotal comments in this thread about how GW is accurate, even if the science is bad, so I will step out on the limb to object to the evidence that global warming MUST be happening since the glaciers continue to melt, or it rained on England in November. This type of belief system seems to be somehow allowing the scientists themselves to feel that massaging the data is acceptable, since they already know the truth.

Frankly, I am among what I assume must be a large group of individuals who are very grateful that at some point the ice age began its ending. It seems obvious to me that its simply not done ending yet, as we still have glaciers.

Based on my personal experience with ice in ****tails, the smaller the proportion of ice to liquid becomes the more quickly the ice begins to melt... :) speaking of which, it must be 5 o'clock somewhere.

Anyway, I don't see how the fact that glaciers CONTINUE to melt or may be melting faster as their proportion to water surrounding them in any way indicates anything in terms of global warming since they began melting. Clearly a temperature was reached where they began to melt, and short of a cooling period it would be odd to me if they DIDN'T continue melting.

Further, there's been some real nice days in the Midwest during winter, or cloudy but warm days where it rained, but I can tell you from personal experience that nearly every day of winter is so cold you want to die, lol. :)
A random warmer day indicates no more to me than a cold day in summer does.

As I said, I'm highly uninformed on GW, but wanted to add my thoughts on the ancedotal evidence of GW.

AND, I hope this can ultimately cause the whole Copenhagen BS to go away. :)

Quote:

Swordsman wrote....

I have three words about engineers, education, and the real world. Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

that made me.... ROFLMAO... because i can relate to it in more ways than one....

the succinct form of your statement reminds me of what i have been learning in the last five years or so... (a very personal experience)
of a very dear someone who gets frustrated at me by the *at times verbosity* of my prose -vbg in whatever subject matter i may be directing my attention.

iow thank you for the insight and the laugh. *i know, that would have suffice* -g

:)

The Chair of IPCC, Pachouri is not even an climate scientist, he has Ph.D. in Industrial Enigneering and Economics from North Carolina State University. For those questioning the TF members qualification - how is the Chair of IPCC qualified to understand such complex and intricate AGW science?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K.....

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

No Asi I haven't been doing any skipping! For that matter I haven't been doing any running or jumping either - I'm still in too much shock!

I wouldn't be surprised if everyone is just in stunned disbelief, like me.


eta: the scale of this, really is more than a bit mind-boggling isn't it?

Amyo: Good post, I think you've got a good handle on it.

Climate is always changing ... called seasons. There are cycles of warm/cool periods, like 11 year sunspot cycles reflected in tree ring count. Earth has endured many ice ages and warm spells. It's the cycle of living in cycles near our sun.

TPTB pulled a sting operation by creating a false sense of alarm to turn over national sovereignty to a group of globalists for concentration of power. The Cap n Trade carbon tax was meant to fund the world governance seed money to start this stratagem. Anyway that's how I see it ;)

Az, pretty much how I see it too. It's not over... the High Priest doesn't like losing power.

Ribbit wrote..

No Asi I haven't been doing any skipping! For that matter I haven't been doing any running or jumping either - I'm still in too much shock!

I wouldn't be surprised if everyone is just in stunned disbelief, like me.

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

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

Quote:

The Chair of IPCC, Pachouri is not even an climate scientist, he has Ph.D. in Industrial Enigneering and Economics

AKA: Bull****. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_....

"Industrial engineering" -- A title reeking of phoniness.

Pachouri man is uniquely qualified to play...

Quote:

...from North Carolina State University.

IOW he's spat out the back end of a lowest-common-denominator state diploma-mill on a dedicated mission to avoid real productive work for the rest of his life all the while sucking down tax grants making rules for the rest of us.

Asimov,

Quote:

The NGRIP record has the trend in it
that is no doubt closer to the truth for the fixed elevation temperature
history. But even there one could need a correction for elevation
change. The elevation corrected south GRIP Holocene has a very strong
negative delta trend in it and I expect there should be some correction
done to the north GRIP record too,, eventually I think they should all
come out looking like our records from Northern Canada. Now at least
ice core records have some low frequencies to correct

This means they are altering the observed temperatures from the last 10,000 years. They are going to correct a negative temperature trend from their trendline. In other words, they are going to move the temps artificially towards their norm, although the actual observed temps were lower than the model expected.

If this is a whistler blower he needs to step forward and explain why he did what he did. Or she. If this person has emails like this, they were likely privy to personal conversations about the data and what they were doing with it and why.

Come out come out wherever you are.

Staying hidden isn't a good idea.

Inhofe to Boxer - We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c93Fp_kmr....

Mo: When going up against forces like this "coming out" has, historically, been bad for the health. Sometimes it's contagious too, and bad for your whole family, even friends.

Jotapay: I don't see many times where they have adjusted their assumptions because the data tells them different. It's always the other way around.

Hell, look at the cherry picked yamal tree ring data they got called on a while back.

This is all to funny......

Is this borderline legal ?

Quote:

From: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de>
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!

Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.

Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.

Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

Best wishes,

Joe Alcamo


----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany

Phone: +49 561 804 3898
Fax: +49 561 804 3176

@rivm.nl is just begging for a FOIA request....it's the Dutch State Authority on the Health of the People and the Environment....


My €0.02

Quote:

When going up against forces like this "coming out" has, historically, been bad for the health.

Maybe so.

But access to these emails from the inside means there's a small number of suspects. They'll figure it out.

It's safer out in the open.

If it's a hacker, run, hide.

Quote:

Is this borderline legal ?

I don't think there are laws that apply to that.

If you want to ask if it was ethical, the answer is no. But very little that I've seen, that they've done, is ethical.

Sorry guys......it just gets better by the minute.

Quote:

Dear Keith.
Stepan Shiyatov said me you need only data covered last 2
millenium. Now I send data of 35 samples covered earlier
millenium. These are all samples concerning this period and they
are checked (there are about 130 more samples from 0 to 1800 AD
not checked at this time). I hope your desire to see low growth
about 350 BC will be more or less satisfied. However for some
reason there are no good correlation between number of samples
and growth rate. For instance, about 700 BC provided by only one
sample with very high growth during just this period. I don't
know why, may be number of trees depends on burial conditions as
well.
I have to note that 364 BC (not 360 BC as I wrote before) on
sample No. 60 slightly looks like false. On sample 453 it is
normal ring, on other sample it is very small. Therefore I can't
still say something definitely.
Best wishes,
Ra**** Hantemirov

Asimov,

Quote:

Jotapay: I don't see many times where they have adjusted their assumptions because the data tells them different. It's always the other way around.

Exactly. Not sure why you think differently.

Jotapay: Uhm... Huh? Why do you think that I think differently?

This summary of the bad stuff in the emails came from somebody over on the NYTimes site

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/do....
A Summary:

• Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)

• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).

Analysis of impact here. Wow!

• Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".
• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)

• Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

• Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

• Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

• Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)

• Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)

• Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

• Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)

• Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)

• Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
• Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)

• Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
• Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

• Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

• Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)

• Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)

• Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)

• Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

• Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)

• Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)

• Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)

• Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)

• Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)

Finished in next post ...

Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers .127.wmarusaNovember 21st, 200911:29 amContinued from previous:

• Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460)
[Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

• Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

• Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

• Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

• Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)

• Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)

• Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

• Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

• Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

• Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)

• Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

• Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

• Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
• Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

• Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

• Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

• David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

• Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)

• Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)

• Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Best Wishes

"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."

This seems to be quite relevant to technical analysis, trading, and investments.

The quote reminds me of feelings of frustration I encountered in the past when I thought I had proven my neural net programming finally was good enough to predict futures market prices and I was finally able to exploit my discoveries, start a business, and soon become very rich.

Unfortunately, all such attempts so far in forward testing, even my simulated equity curves (not to mention live tests with real time trading) inevitably failed to match past performance when encountering new out of sample data.

Does that sound familiar to anybody?

Surely there was a problem with the new data!!!!? Or somebody must somehow be deliberately sabotaging my holy grail! Those evil manipulators of the markets with all that political power and money taken from taxpayers seem to always be ahead of me!

But I had to accept that I was not credible enough to market my pet breakthrough discoveries of how to get rich until I could beat any conspiracies against me and/or finally get some valid data! Well, I now have proof of the data manipulation, but I must admit I was wrong in ever assuming, or even fantasizing, that a simple back test against data of unknown quality can validate an inadequate model! I'm still not even rich myself!

I would be in much BIGGER trouble if I had somehow convinced some people with trillions of dollars to believe and back my claims and USE them to enable a world-changing (hidden) agenda only to find a few years later that my assumptions and my maths were flawed, and that I was not just about to be discredited and embarrassed, but was about to be LYNCHED. By people on BOTH SIDES of the controversy!

I think it is probable that there are parallels to that anecdote already spinning out their threads in the financial industries. Some firms seem to have succeeded like Simons' Rennaisance Technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance....

Others have apparently failed, like Bear Stearns.

And I agree that fraudulent cover-ups are the wrong way to deal with bad mistakes.