Global Warming Scientist Emails Hacked

[Gil Dobie]

Donkutopia version of what happened.

NY times Link

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “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,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

[travelinman67]

Dobie, you prick!

You stole my thunder.

Have the .pdf of those emails along with UK's Hadley Climate Center's release this past week announcing the "climate change" hiatus, CANNOT be explained with the short-term variables previously cited (La Nina, etc...)

Am writing a lengthy piece on this to post on Monday.

Oh, well.









...didja miss me, Al?

[travelinman67]

Science wins out in the end...

...and Boxer gets the backhand...

[youtube][/youtube]

[Grizalltheway]

Dobie, you prick!

You stole my thunder.

Have the .pdf of those emails along with UK's Hadley Climate Center's release this past week announcing the "climate change" hiatus, CANNOT be explained with the short-term variables previously cited (La Nina, etc...)

Am writing a lengthy piece on this to post on Monday.

Oh, well.









...didja miss me, Al?

Should I notify the Pulitzer committee?

[CID1990]

If there is a way to make money off of faulty science, there are always schysters of all stripes who will try it. Global Warming (OOOPS- CLIMATE CHANGE) is just the left's scaremongering for money. I'm sure that Pat Robertson and Co are making money off of the One World Government schtick.

Personally, I have an issue with people wondering whether they should release raw data. Raw data is pretty much the only factual content in the climate change argument. Why debate releasing it? Anybody want to offer an excuse that would give an explanation other than the data refutes the claims?

[travelinman67]

Dobie, you prick!

You stole my thunder.

Have the .pdf of those emails along with UK's Hadley Climate Center's release this past week announcing the "climate change" hiatus, CANNOT be explained with the short-term variables previously cited (La Nina, etc...)

Am writing a lengthy piece on this to post on Monday.

Oh, well.









...didja miss me, Al?

Should I notify the Pulitzer committee?

Naw. Was going to include a chapter of a post-feminist era lesbian persecuted for outing her polluting corporate employer's business practices...

...but it didn't make the final edit...

...just responding to D1B's criticisms of my pieces having "...too many words for him to read".


Sans the lesbian, the committee won't give it a look.

[travelinman67]

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'
Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

By Matthew Moore
23 Nov 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ation.html

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.

Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating data' He claimed that the credibility of the university's world-renowned Climatic Research Unit - and British science - were under threat.

"They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.

"If there's an explanation for what's going on they can make that explanation."

Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and uploaded on to a Russian server before circulating on websites run by climate change sceptics.

Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers.

One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Prof Jones has insisted that he used the word "trick" to mean a "clever thing to do", rather than to indicate deception. He has denied manipulating data.

[travelinman67]

Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research

By Tony Romm
11/23/09 01:23 PM ET

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... 2#comments

The publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails that climate change skeptics say proves the threat is exaggerated has prompted one key Republican senator to call for an investigation into their research.

In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

"[T]his thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said during the interview.

He added that it was "interesting" that the e-mails surfaced only weeks before an important climate change summit would bring world leaders to Copenhagen.

Fueling Inhofe's concerns is last week's news that a blogger hacked into the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (Cru) and published about 1,000 e-mails and more than 3,000 private documents relating to climate change.

Some of those communications disparaged climate change skeptics and their views, while others contained conversations about how to best portray climate change research.

The scientists have since insisted their e-mails were hardly deceptive and that their words were taken out of context. Still, their assurances have not settled the concerns of their biggest foes -- including Inhofe, who has long maintained global warming is a "hoax."

[travelinman67]

E-Mails Of Climate Researchers Buttress Case Of Warming Fraud

11/23/2009 07:17 PM ET

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=513329

Junk Science: Hacked e-mails from Britain's Climate Research Unit are only the latest evidence of climate fraud. Just ask NASA's James Hansen about the faking of climate data or EPA employees about the suppression of climate fact.

For years, noted scientists and other global warming skeptics have been accused of being on the take, their research tainted and funded by grants from Big Oil and other fossil-fuel interests.

Now, it turns out, it's the warm-mongers who are fudging the numbers and concealing the inconvenient truth.

We don't know who "Deep Throat" is. But according to an interview in Investigate Magazine's TGIF edition with Philip Jones, director of the Hadley Climate Research Unit at Britain's East Anglia University, the incriminating e-mails documenting collusion and fraud among top global warming scientists, including a few from Jones himself, are genuine.

In one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University's Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona's Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research, Jones speaks of the "trick" of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Hide the decline? "Keith" is Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit, also involved in the bogus manipulation of data.

An e-mail from scientist Mick Kelly to Jones also speaks of manipulating data to hide the fact that Earth is actually cooling: "I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again, as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent coldish years."

In another e-mail to Mann from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, copied to Dr. James Hansen of NASA, Trenberth says: "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."

Trenberth also says: "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." He goes on to say that "the data is surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Well, that much is true. We have reported on information obtained by Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat on the inaccuracy of temperature-monitoring stations around the country and the screwy places these scientific stations are located. Daily temperature data are gathered by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and the 1,221 or so weather observation stations it monitors around the country.

Watts and a few volunteers decided to check a few of them out. They found one station in Forest Grove, Ore., that stands just 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. Another station in Roseburg, Ore., is on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., one is near a drum where trash is burned.

When bad numbers aren't enough to show global warming, it's okay to just make them up. Hansen, the NASA scientist who began the climate scare, was himself caught fudging the numbers when he declared October 2008 the warmest October on record.

This despite the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's registering of 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranking it the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So how did Hansen claim it was the warmest October ever? As Christopher Booker wrote in the U.K.'s Telegraph: "The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running."

As it turns out, Mann is the creator of the discredited "hockey stick" graph used in reports from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Bradley and Hughes were also involved in the famous graph, which purports to show a sudden and sharp spike in global temperatures the day man first dreamed of taking an SUV to the mall.

Canadian researchers and others have thoroughly debunked the hockey stick, finding serious problems with the study, including calculation errors, data used twice and a faulty computer program that produced a hockey stick out of whatever data were fed into it.

Their study also totally ignored major events such as the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850).

The warming debate was never over, only censored. We have noted how the Environmental Protection Agency has engaged in an ongoing cover-up of its own analyses of climate change and discouraged public dissent.

EPA lawyers Laurie Williams and Alan Zabel produced a video in which they said cap-and-trade is a "Big Lie" and carbon offsets are a "Big Rip-off." At the EPA's insistence, Zabel and Williams took down the video from their Web site, but not before it was copied and widely circulated.

Alan Carlin, senior research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, dared to say, in essence, that Emperor Al Gore and his toadies at EPA were wearing no clothes.

After examining numerous global warming studies, Carlin, who holds a doctorate in economics with an undergraduate degree in physics, said his research showed that "available observable data ... invalidate the hypothesis" that humans cause dangerous global warming.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg who has received death threats for citing how Earth's history doesn't quite jibe with current prophecies of doom, says: "CO2 never was a problem, and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing."

Ball says he has "watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists." "Surely," he says, "this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the carbon credits shell game."

These inconvenient truths may be just the tip of the iceberg.

...Ya, think?

[travelinman67]

Ecowhackjob Howard Gould getting owned attempting to defend email content...

[youtube][/youtube]

[travelinman67]

The email files in searchable format:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball's assessment of the content (very insightful, worth the listen):
[youtube][/youtube]

[travelinman67]

The succinct truth...

[youtube][/youtube]

[travelinman67]

And the Wall Street Journal's take on what they've read in the emails so far...

Global Warming With the Lid Off
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.
NOVEMBER 24, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 88354.html

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.

The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.

In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

Hang 'em!

[travelinman67]

And finally...

...for those who wish to see the science.

Chris Monckton's comprehensive paper published in the Journal of Science and Public Policy.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... t_last.pdf




...and Cleets...spare me the "...Chris Monckton is a fool..." hijack.

Either challenge his scientific premises, or save your breath.

[houndawg]

Have you considered seeking treatment for that case of tertiary verbal flatulence?

[CID1990]

Have you considered seeking treatment for that case of tertiary verbal flatulence?

And in a nutshell, the left's defense.

[travelinman67]

The "Gotcha"...!!!!!!

Climategate fraud exposed and explained...

Read this, then tell me if you still believe in AGW...

CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered

By Marc Sheppard
November 25, 2009

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/ ... ate_r.html

(note: original article on American Thinker has further key links to pertinent date and explanations found at Climate Audit.com and Icecap.us).

As the evidence of climate fraud at the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climactic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who’ve been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the emails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that’s been perpetrated upon it, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.


First -- Let’s briefly review a few pertinent details.

We reported on Saturday that among the most revealing of the “hacked” emails released last week was one dated November 1999, in which CRU chief PD Jones wrote these words to Hockey-Stick-Team leaders 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 (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Predictably, the suggestion of a climate-related data-adjusting “trick” being employed by such alarmist bellwethers 10 years ago instantly raised more than a few eyebrows. And with similar alacrity, the Big Green Scare Machine shifted into CYA gear.

Almost immediately after the news hit on Friday, Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition [PDF] that he “had no idea” what he might have meant by the words “hide the decline” a decade prior:
“They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”


Baloney.

Mere hours later, Jones’s warmist soul mates at RealClimate offered an entirely different explanation:
“The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.”

And later that day, Jean S at Climate Audit explained the reality of the quandary. In order to smooth a timed series, it’s necessary to pad it beyond the end-time. But it seems however hard they tried, when MBH plotted instrumental data against their tree ring reconstructions, no smoothing method would ever undo the fact that after 1960, the tree ring series pointed downward while the instrumental series pointed upward – hence the divergence:
“So Mann’s solution [Mike’s Nature Trick] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.”

So the author of the email claimed the “trick” was adding instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his co-conspirators at Real Climate admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data due to a known yet inexplicable post-1960 “divergence” anomaly, and CA called it what it was – a cheat.

The next day, the UEA spoke out for the first time on the subject when its first related press-release was posted to its homepage. And Jones demonstrated to the world the benefits a good night’s sleep imparts to one’s memory, though not one’s integrity:

“The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”


Tick Tock.

Of course, RealClimate also avowed there was “no evidence of the falsifying of data” in the emails. But as Jones chose not to walk back his statement that the “tricks” were rarely exercised, and even assured us that he was “refer[ring] to one diagram – not a scientific paper,” his explanation remained at–odds with that of his virtual-confederates at RC.

And as Jones must have known at the time -- such would prove to be the very least of CRU’s problems.


Getting with the Green Program(s)

One can only imagine the angst suffered daily by the co-conspirators, who knew full well that the “Documents” sub-folder of the CRU FOI2009 file contained more than enough probative program source code to unmask CRU’s phantom methodology.

In fact, there are hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files buried in dozens of subordinate sub-folders. And many do properly analyze and chart maximum latewood density (MXD), the growth parameter commonly utilized by CRU scientists as a temperature proxy, from raw or legitimately normalized data. Ah, but many do so much more.

Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these “alterations” run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g. omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g. estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).

In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 “divergence problem”, as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer’s comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module “Uses ‘corrected’ MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

What exactly is meant by “corrected” MXD, you ask? Outstanding question -- and the answer appears amorphous from program to program. Indeed, while some employ one or two of the aforementioned “corrections,” others throw everything but the kitchen sink at the raw data prior to output.

For instance, in subfolder “osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog” there’s a program (Calibrate_mxd.pro) that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file. That file is then digested and further modified by another program (Pl_calibmxd1.pro) which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and “estimates” (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available. The file created by that program is modified once again by Pl_Decline.pro, which “corrects it” – as described by the author -- by “identifying and “artificially” removing “the decline.”

But oddly enough – the series doesn’t begin its “decline adjustment” in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic “divergence.” In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to “correction.”

And such games are by no means unique to the folder attributed to Michael Mann.


A Clear and Present Rearranger

In 2 other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the “correction” is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the “adjustment” routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he/she wasn’t kidding. Now, IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I’m familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here’s the “fudge factor” (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These 2 lines of code establish a 20 element array (yrloc) comprised of the year 1400 (base year but not sure why needed here) and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding “fudge factor” (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960) but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU’s “divergence problem” also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

And the former apparently wasn’t a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.

Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart:
“IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this ‘decline’ has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.”

Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning:
“NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).'

Care to offer another explanation, Dr. Jones?


Gotcha

Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they’re dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it’s forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.

But here’s what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960 then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it’s bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest men of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.

Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of email threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history.

Advocates of the global governance/financial redistribution sought by the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks and the expanded domestic governance/financial redistribution sought by Liberal politicians both substantiate their drastic proposals with the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life – all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports. And the IPCC, in turn, bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists at CRU – largely from tree ring data -- who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel.

Bottom line: CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such -- all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be re-examined.

Gotcha. We’ve known they’ve been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It’s time to bring sanity back to this debate.

It’s time for the First IPCC Reassessment Report.

Let the Hague proceedings begin...

[BlueHen86]

This thread should have been titled: Hacks Hacked.

[AZGrizFan]

Have you considered seeking treatment for that case of tertiary verbal flatulence?

And in a nutshell, the left's defense.

Houndawg just looks at the pictures.

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

They obviously weren't very smart scientists if they thought for a second that an EMAIL was a good place to talk about that kind of stuff. ffs people, email is not private, use it at your own risk.

[native]

Biggest slam dunk CONK win in CS poli board history!

[SeattleGriz]

Biggest slam dunk CONK win in CS poli board history!

I'm just stepping in to ride this one for free as well!!!

DONKS EAT IT!...and perform really bad science.

[Chizzang]

Until recently (on this board) I was unaware that Global Climate change - which is a term created by Conservative employed spin artists not liberals as implied on this thread - was a Liberal vs. Conservative issue...

I'm a Liberal and I have no doubt that Scientists and researchers are encouraged and frequently make money when promoting global climate change as a reversible human condition inflicted on planet earth...

Why is there a Conservative vs. Liberal thread tone..?
I know all kinds of Liberals who feel the same way I do on this issue...

[AZGrizFan]

Until recently (on this board) I was unaware that Global Climate change - which is a term created by Conservative employed spin artists not liberals as implied on this thread - was a Liberal vs. Conservative issue...

I'm a Liberal and I have no doubt that Scientists and researchers are encouraged and frequently make money when promoting global climate change as a reversible human condition inflicted on planet earth...

Why is there a Conservative vs. Liberal thread tone..?
I know all kinds of Liberals who feel the same way I do on this issue...

Cleetus, you naive fuck---that's like saying "I can't be racist! I have black friends!"

[Chizzang]

Until recently (on this board) I was unaware that Global Climate change - which is a term created by Conservative employed spin artists not liberals as implied on this thread - was a Liberal vs. Conservative issue...

I'm a Liberal and I have no doubt that Scientists and researchers are encouraged and frequently make money when promoting global climate change as a reversible human condition inflicted on planet earth...

Why is there a Conservative vs. Liberal thread tone..?
I know all kinds of Liberals who feel the same way I do on this issue...

Cleetus, you naive fuck---that's like saying "I can't be racist! I have black friends!"

I'm playing around a little bit - work with me here - It's an issue that's been polarized very deliberately

There is quite a bit of GOOD that comes from climate change research - but because ALGORE and RUSH LIMBAUGH and FOX NEWS go at it... all day every day it's become "Black and white" you either "get it" or you don't... with me or again' me...

It's nowhere near that simple...
Yeah just like ACORN and 5 million in fraud or Iraq and "The mysterious missing 10 Billion dollars" there's always an angle that can be player out for one side or another

There is good and bad on both sides of the Global climate issue - and it's certainly not a liberals vs. republicans issue in any way... Much more research needs to be done of the planet and it's ever changing climate - we may learn how to alter an ice age from the research - who knows...We may learn who stole my cheese... Pink buffalo's could fly out of T-mans ass... nobody knows...

Even though key figures in politics have worked hard to make it simple - to make it black and white - it's really not that simple