Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable ( Global Warming Hoax exposed....)

anelegantchaos.org ^ | 20 November 2009 | anelegantchaos.org

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.

As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. It is here just as a curiosity!

You can either search using the keyword search box above, or use the links below to browse them 25 emails at a time.

[Pan_Yan]

"I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. It is here just as a curiosity!"

Some real courage there....

If it's fake someone went to extraordinary lengths to fabricate it. Nobel or Pulitzer Prize material ...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Help me out,,...which side is Mann on?

[Windflier]

Welcome to Free Republic.

You’re right... dropping names won’t gain you any legitimacy around here! LOL

All the same, you’re in a great place. Enjoy, and don’t let any ankle-biters get under your skin.

[Pan_Yan]

Covey was having an email conversation with Lord Monckton about some of the IPCC reports. He cc’d some colleagues on the emails. Mann sent him the smack-down for straying from the Gore faith and talking to a ‘charlatan’.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From a google search:

From the hacked CRU files: IPCC lead author’s private admission: ‘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.’

******************************EXCERPT*****************************

As the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) apparently hacked files have spread throughout the blogosphere, I downloaded all 160-some MB of the e-mails and documents, and started to clicking away randomly.  I stumbled across this e-mail from Kevin Trenberth who was an IPCC lead author.  The subject of the day seems to be how to explain the lack of warming for the past decade or so.  Trenberth wrote his e-mail just last month from an unseasonably cold Boulder, Colorado, and the e-mail was sent to one or more of the following: Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stephen Schneider, and James Hansen, among others.

This is from the e-mail file #1255553034:

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>

To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:43:54 -0600

Cc: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, “Philip D. Jones” <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Jim Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>

<x-flowed>

Gavin,

I just think that you need to be up front with uncertainties

and the possibility of compensating errors.

Tom.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Dug this out from a URL in the email:

Monckton’s deliberate manipulation

****************************EXCERPT*******************************

Filed under:

• Climate Science
• IPCC
• Instrumental Record

— gavin @ 2 May 2009

Our favorite contrarian, the potty peer Christopher Monckton has been indulging in a little aristocratic artifice again. Not one to be constrained by mere facts or observable reality, he has launched a sally against Andy Revkin for reporting the shocking news that past industry disinformation campaigns were not sincere explorations of the true uncertainties in climate science.

The letter he has written to the NY Times public editor, with its liberal sprinkling of his usual pomposity, has at its heart the following graph:

Among other issues, it is quite amusing that Monckton apparently thinks that;

• trends from January 2002 are relevant to a complaint about a story discussing a 1995 report,
• someone might be fooled by the cherry-picked January 2002 start date,
• no-one would notice that he has just made up the IPCC projection curves

The last is even more amusing because he was caught out making stuff up on a slightly different figure just a few weeks ago.

To see the extent of this chicanery, one needs only plot the actual IPCC projections against the observations. This can be done a number of ways, firstly, plotting the observational data and the models used by IPCC with a common baseline of 1980-1999 temperatures (as done in the 2007 report) (Note that the model output is for the annual mean, monthly variance would be larger):

These show clearly that 2002-2009 is way too short a period for the trends to be meaningful and that Monckton’s estimate of what the IPCC projects for the current period is woefully wrong. Not just wrong, fake.

Even if one assumes that the baseline should be the year 2002 making no allowance for internal variability (which makes no sense whatsoever), you would get the following graph:

- still nothing like Monckton showed. Instead, he appears to have derived his ‘projections’ by drawing a line from 2002 to a selection of real projections in 2100 and ignoring the fact that the actual projections accelerate as time goes on, and thus strongly over-estimating the projected changes that are expected now (see here).

Lest this be thought a mere aberration or a slip of his quill, it turns out he has previously faked the data on projections of CO₂ as well. This graph is from a recent presentation of his, compared to the actual projections:

How can this be described except as fake?

Apart from this nonsense, is there anything to Monckton’s complaint about Revkin’s story? Sadly no. Once one cuts out the paranoid hints about dark conspiracies between “prejudiced campaigners”, Al Gore and the New York Times editors, the only point he appear to make is that this passage from the scientific advice somehow redeems the industry lobbyists who ignored it:

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact, and should not be denied. While, in theory, human activities have the potential to result in net cooling, a concern about 25 years ago, the current balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions of particulates and particulate-formers is such that essentially all of today’s concern is about net warming. However, as will be discussed below, it is still not possible to accurately predict the magnitude (if any), timing or impact of climate change as a result of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Also, because of the complex, possibly chaotic, nature of the climate system, it may never be possible to accurately predict future climate or to estimate the impact of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

This is a curious claim, since the passage is pretty much mainstream. For instance, in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995) (p528):

Complex systems often allow deterministic predictability of some characteristics … yet do not permit skilful forecasts of other phenomena …

or even more clearly in IPCC TAR (2001):

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states….

Much more central to the point Revkin was making was the deletion of the sections dealing with how weak the standard contrarian arguments were – arguments that GCC publications continued to use for years afterward (and indeed arguments that Monckton is still using) (see this amendment to the original story).

Monckton’s ironic piece de resistance though is the fact that he entitled his letter “Deliberate Misrepresentation” – and this is possibly the only true statement in it.

 Comments (pop-up) (513)

513 Responses to “Monckton’s deliberate manipulation”

[Yardstick]

bfl

[Marie]

Thank you for finding this *ping*!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391082/posts

[Pan_Yan]

Here's another gem from Mr. Gavin Schmidt:

From: Gavin Schmidt To: Tim Osborn
Subject: latest Date: 28 Sep 2009 17:59:04 -0400

Hi Tim, I know Keith is out of commission for a while (give him my regards when you see him), but someone needs to at least give some context to the latest McIntyre meme.

Planet Gore

None of us at RC have any real idea what was done or why and so we are singularly unable to sensibly counter the flood of nonsense. Of course, most of the reaction is hugely overblown and mixed up but it would be helpful to have some kind of counterpoint to the main thrust. If you can point to someone else that could be helpful, please do!

Thanks

Gavin

Once again the aforementioned Mr. Mann is involved.

[grey_whiskers]

Reconvene the Nuremburg trials.

No, I'm not kidding. How many millions died in the Third World from malaria after the publication of "Silent Spring"?

The numbers would pale by comparison to the numbers who would die to fuel Al Gore's wet dream of global domination.

Ask India and China what they would think of stopping their industrialization for the sake of the global warming fantasies of a few liberals.

Cheers!

[Sequoyah101]

It has been hard for me to tell. Mann seems to have come from obscurity as an Associate Adjunct Professor to the U of Mass and then?

In the early time of this thread (ca 1996 or 1997) he read more like a groupie who was trying to find a way to make his academic star rise and then along about 2000, when he got his ears boxed by his department head, started to fall away.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Let's see if I can get a Graph to show:

Monckton’s Artful Graph.

*******************************EXCERPT*****************************

13 January, 2009 (09:50) | Data Comparisons Written by: lucia

Yesterday, VG posted this comment:

Lucia:is this data accurate/true?

(Figure by Monckton; I added guidelines and comments.)

Figure 1: Graph as it appears at Icecap.

The image appears at Icecap in an brief article by Christopher Monckton. The brief article includes a link to a 14 page pdf that elaborates on the Viscount’s message.

In this post, I will restrict myself to discussing the implied claims about the IPCC projections for surface temperature in that graph. I’m even going focus on this:

Is the dark lavender line in the middle of the lavender region a fair representation of the IPCC’s projection? (I assume Monckton means the IPCC projection in the AR4.)

I think the answer is: Ehrmm…. no.

What does Monckton’s seem communicate about IPPC projections?

I think Monckton’s figure suggests the IPCC projected that between Jan 2001 and Dec 2008 the underlying trend for surface temperature was more or less linear with a trend of approximately 0.35 C/decade.. I say it appears to suggest this because a) it shows this specific time period and b) the slope of the lavender line is about 0.35 C/decade.

The suggestion of linearity is essentially true; the suggestion that the trend is 0.35 C/decade over that period of time is, at best, deceptive. Maybe we could call it “artful”.

What did the IPCC really project?

The IPCC projection as communicated in figure 10.4 of the WG1 report to the AR4 creates a projection for the underlying trend (or expected value of the surface temperature) by averaging over all models used. This results in a more-or less smoothly varying function.

For short periods of time this smoothly varying function can be treated as approximately linear. So, I have no objections to Monckton’s decision to show a linear trend between 2001-2008.

However…. 0.35C/decade? For this decade? Where does he get that? As far as I can tell, the claim for this trend appears on page 4 of the pdf, where Monckton inserts a figure explained by this caption:

I’ve scanned the rest of the article for further discussion to justify the rend of approximately 0.35 C/decade in Monckton’s graph. The numerical value 0.35 C/decade bothers me because:

1. Figure 10.4 in the Chapter 10 of the WG1 of the AR4 shows non-linearity for every scenarios, and all scenarios show trends closer to 0.2 C/decade during the period in Monckton’s graphs.
   

   Figure 2: Figure 10.4 from WG1 to the AR4 (annotated).

2. Table 10.5 in Chapter 10 of the WG1 of the AR4 contains numerical projections for that corresponds to trends of 0.21 C/decade, 0.23 C/decade and 0.22 C/decade for scenarios a2, a1b and b1 respectively during the early portion of this century. Higher trends are justified later in the century but are irrelevant to when comparing 2001-2008 data to IPCC projections.
3. On page 12 of the Summary for Policy Makers of the WG1, the authors says we expect about 0.2 C per decade of warming over the next two decades.
4. In the past, when I have interpreted all the above to mean the authors projected the underlying trend to be about 0.2C per decade and used 0.2 per decade when comparing to projections to data.

   I have been criticized and told that I must use the average based on the actual model runs.

   In response to that criticism, I obtained the monthly average GMST for those runs, and happen to know magnitude of trends we obtain if we average over runs forced with the SRES a1b scenarios. I computed trends for Jan 2001-Nov. 2008, then averaged trends weighting several ways. If I weight each run equally, I obtain an average trend of 0.25 C/decade. If I weight each model average equally, I obtain an average trend of 0.26 C/decade. (Note: this includes a few models not used in the AR4 and is based on models I downloaded from The Climate Explorer.)

[grey_whiskers]

FROM YOUR EARLIER POST...WTF??

This isn't how I remember science while I was doing my doctorate...!

On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote: needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity. Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct? -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 [2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin

[Pan_Yan]

If you want to read some interesting remarks about the tree ring debacle look Here

Briffa has already made a preliminary response and he failed to explain his selection procedure. Further, he refused to give up the data for several years, and was forced to do so only when he submitted to a journal that demanded data archiving and actually enforced the practice. More significantly, Briffa's analysis is irrelevant. Dendrochonology is a bankrupt approach. They admit that they cannot distiguish causal elements contributing to tree ring size. Further, they rely on recent temperature data by which to select recent tree data (excluding other data) and then turn around and claim that the tree ring data explains the recent temperature data. If you can give a principled and reasoned defense of Briffa (see the discussion on Watt's website) then go for it. I'd be fascinated, as would a rather large number of others.

[grey_whiskers]

“”””””I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY! -gene””””””

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

NO MORE CALLS, PLEASE.

WE HAVE A SMOKING GUN.

Please save the page from the search which brought this up.

We need to save it for posterity PRONTO.

Cheers!

[Pan_Yan]

Eugene I. Gordon wrote:

David:

I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!

-gene

/Eugene I. Gordon/

"carbon abatement is only a game"

It appears Mr. Gordon doesn't think carbon credits are worth a whole lot. I wonder if he has stated that publically?

[Pan_Yan]

You beat me by two minutes. I was looking Mr. Gordon up.

[Pan_Yan]

I think I found ammo for your smoking gun:

Alan:

Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations are increased and continued grant funding, university advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.

Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _I am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and thankfully there is a goodly share of those._

-gene

[Pan_Yan]

And the reply is damning as well. Remember, IPCC is Gore's Holy Grail:

Gene:

I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take away from it:
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall, nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century temperature reconstruction.

2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of his own work, where that work is the critical core of the chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is, of course, the majority of such analyses.

As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground."

Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research, including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that the current alarmism is justified.

David Schnare

[Pan_Yan]

David Schnare is the senior fellow for energy and the environment for the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. He is an attorney and scientist with 32 years of federal and private-sector experience consulting on and litigating local, state, federal, and international environmental legislative, regulatory, risk management, and free-market environmentalism issues. Formerly the nation’s chief regulatory analyst for small business (Office of Small Business Advocacy), Schnare has experience on Congressional staff, as a trial lawyer with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Virginia Attorney General, as senior enforcement counsel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and as an appellate attorney for private clients.