The Evidence of Climate Fraud

American Thinker ^ | November 21, 2009 | Marc Sheppard

[neverdem]

A folder containing documents, data and emails purportedly "hacked" from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) may be smoking gun proof of a worldwide conspiracy to exaggerate the existence, causation and threat of global warming.  And the list of apparent conspirators includes many of the world's leading climate alarmists -- the very scientists on whose work the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based.

In a Friday interview with Investigative Magazine's TGIF edition, CRU director Phillip Jones confirmed [PDF] that the incriminating documents, which have been widely disseminated online, are in fact genuine. Accordingly, whether indeed the labor of hackers, or instead that of a CRU whistleblower, the contents of the FOI2009 folder are now public record -- and that's nothing short of dynamite.

After all, the names of the email exchangers represent a who's who of the world's leading climate alarmism scientists, including Stephen Schneider, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen.  And the words within seemingly betray an organized apparatus of deception.

In one particularly odious email dated November 1999, Jones writes to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes:

"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."

Now, these are the same Mann, Bradley and Hughes whose MBH98 reconstruction (aka the "Hockey Stick" graph) -- which deceitfully depicts last millennium's global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century -- remains the poster-child of global warming hysteria despite being thoroughly debunked.  And here we find Jones writing the three the following year admitting to using Mann's "trick" to "hide" a temperature decline.

Not surprisingly, the Keith mentioned is none other than CRU's own Keith Briffa, another Hockey-Team leader, whose temperature graphs, derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data, were cited by the IPCC as supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20^th century warming.  But as we reported at the time -- that buttress crumbled last month when Briffa's results were proven to stand no more reliably than Mann's.

Ultimately, neither reconstruction attained its alarmist-imperative-goal of proving today’s global temperatures to be unprecedented.  Despite repeated fraudulent efforts to demonstrate otherwise, 20th century highs remain documented as several degrees cooler than those of the Medieval Warming Period of 900-1300 AD.  Bad news for the mankind-stinks crowd in general.  Worse news for those actually involved in this devious deception.  

Both Mann and Briffa had been challenged for years to produce their data, methods and source code by Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre. Both ignored the tenets of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) McIntyre cited, and fought every effort to induce their coming clean.  And actually not without good reason -- last month CRU was effectively forced to release the Yamal data, whereupon an analysis by McIntyre proved that Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting records not friendly to their position.

And we now know that on the very day our expose of the Briffa scandal, UN Climate Reports: They Lie, appeared here at AT, Jones forwarded this email response from Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research to Briffa: [my emphasis]

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 pissed 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.

Beyond his sophomoric cheap shot at this fine publication’s highly regarded name, Wigley admitted that McIntyre’s comparison of “Yamal-12 with Yamal-all” implied a "selection" of data on the part of Briffa.  Yet his concern was not one of scientific integrity, but instead that Briffa may not be up to the task of properly “explaining” the data cherry-picking as he is “too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of[f].”  And while offering his assistance in the cover up, imploring caution as “in some eyes” it might appear they’re hiding “bogus science,” Wigley actually defended the practice of withholding data.

Perchance the hitherto sequestered April 2007 document entitled jones-foiathoughts.doc, concerning reactions to FOIA inquiries might lend some insight into CRU’s atrocious reporting policies. Within, Jones lists 3 options to such requests.  As an alternative to the first of actual compliance, he suggests he and his coconspirators might “send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries” and “remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.”  Or perhaps “send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network),” adding that “this would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.”

Amazing.  And yet  -- but the tip of the seasonally advancing iceberg.  Communiqués suborning subterfuge abound here, including one from May of 2008 in which Jones actually exhorts Mann to “delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4” and to entreat others to perform likewise. Was this in fact a fourth (and likely illegal) Jones option for dealing with McIntyre’s FOIA requests?

There appear to be thousands of emails, documents, reports, and data files to review here. So I’m sure this fledgling story will continue to evolve as greater minds than mine analyze them throughout the weekend.  For those sporting taste buds leaning toward the technical, rest assured that both Climate Audit and Watts Up With That will certainly be whetting those appetites until properly sated.  Needless to say, look no further than American Thinker for continuing political analysis.  And for those of you wishing to join in this criminal investigation, the FOI2009 folder is available for download here.

Criminal?  Oh yes, indeed.  As this mock-science serves as justification for Trillions of dollars in imposed and proposed new taxes, liens, fees and rate hikes, not to mention the absurd wealth-redistribution premise of international climate debt “reparations,” such manipulation of evidence should be treated as exactly what it is – larceny on the grandest scale in history.

Sorry Al – the science hasn’t been settled, it’s merely been meddled.

[grey_whiskers]

Thanks for posting this!

I remain DEEPLY in your debt, sir.

Cheers!

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[sionnsar]

And the list of apparent conspirators includes many of the world's leading climate alarmists -- the very scientists on whose work the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based.

ANYTHING touched by liberals is now trash. And that includes what we used to know as "science."

[Clint Williams]

We long suspected the self-professed eggheads to be compleat liars, and now we know the truth. Rack 'em all, and bring back the good old Dark Ages. /s

America -- a great idea, didn't last.

[Xeroes80]

F- the Sierra Club, F- Greenpiss, F- EPA, and most of all F- Hussein and the Democrats. The LIE is being exposed. Get your pitchforks ready! Time to take it back!!

[neverdem]

ANYTHING touched by liberals is now trash. And that includes what we used to know as "science."

Don't put down science. The truth gets out eventually.

[Pontiac]

MAN-BEAR-PIG Is Dead!… Emails Prove Global Warming Junk Science Conspiracy (Updated)

[pepsionice]

This Professor Jones character...probably needs to pull out his university credentials and check to see if ethics were tied to them. If so...he might want to consider a six-month vacation and recover some of his values...and dock his pay while he’s on this recovery period.

This is the part about science that I can’t understand. You have to show some ethical behavior in your research. The minute that you agree it’s not required....you basically aren’t dealing with science anymore...it’s science fiction. Then you need to sign up for Star Trek or some commune in Colorado.

I would say that everything Professor Jones has now written over the past decade or more...is suspect. I would expect the university to have a independent team to pull out the publications and start asking stupid questions. If things can’t be verified....then remove them as “facts”. It’s that simple. And if the university isn’t capable of that...then they need to remove themselves from science entirely...and start selling their degrees as science fiction.

[Sherman Logan]

one from May of 2008 in which Jones actually exhorts Mann to “delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4” and to entreat others to perform likewise.

E-mail is forever.

[Just mythoughts]

When did this ‘hacking’ take place? Strange that only 11/16 Copenhagen was announced a failure and some interim agreement was in the works.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=767358

[Yaelle]

While we knew we were being manipulated, I had always thought there was some actual form of evidence that these poseurs were using in order to coerce world behavior. I didn’t know they were actually deceptive from the get-go.

This will help liberals realize that they are EASILY led astray. Gee, do you think this whole Obama thing was all fake too? But we were made to look so intellectual! Oh no, what do I do with all my Shepherd Fairey tee shirts?? And the bumper stickers on my Prius?! Oh my gosh, my PRIUS!!

[Tenacious 1]

If you have not had a chance. Schedule several hours. Download this stuff and read through it. Start at the very end. Go back in time for a few weeks. Then Jump to the earliest e-mails. Pick some random discussions, look for correspondence about skeptics and the posted articles and papers as they discuss how to refute them.

To say it is extremely enlightening is an understatement.

I spent the past 4 hours reviewing their papers and e-mails.

BTW - Feel free to e-mail some of them with questions. All their e-mails are there.

[Windflier]

America -- a great idea, didn't last.

That's the second time tonight that I've seen you utter this defeatist crap. And, on two different threads, no less.

Just what is your agenda here, Clint?

[Tenacious 1]

America -- a great idea, didn't last.

Yes. Please. Do explain this comment. Maybe you left something out or I don't get it.

[neverdem]

12 STEPS TO RENEW AMERICA

Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack

Skeptics Handbook II! Global Bullies Want Your Money

Kevlar Coffins? Inability to grasp tactical and technical reality leads to sensationalistic and misleading reporting.

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Electric Graffiti]

Sorry Al – the science hasn’t been settled, it’s merely been meddled.

Manbearpig's ass has been gored.

[FredZarguna]

With no irony, only sorrow:

"This isn't the science I knew."

[FredZarguna]

FReeper BP2 has done a nice job picking out some of the more incriminating outtakes. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2391062/posts?page=53#53

It was also instructive to visit much reviled "denier" Steve McIntyre's (Climate Audit) web page last night, before CRU admitted the hack: numerous posters (AGW skeptics, all) cautioned each other to be skeptical of these documents until the provenance of the files could be authoritatively verified. Quite a different approach to fact-checking on our side of the tracks.

[Marie]

WONDERFUL article! This sums it up nicely! :)