Archive for November, 2009



*DISINFO: “Peer”-Reviewed Climate “Science” & “Scientific” Consensus.

Ignorance Is Futile:

When it comes to climate science, the ‘companion’ definition of ‘peer’ would be the one to use. When a group of radical partisans collude to hijack the peer-review process, in order to squash research and findings that conflicts with their own agenda, the result is conspiratorial disinformation.

These so-called scientists share their data and methods with each other, but then deliberately withhold them from those who might see their flaws. Then they trump up a so-called ‘scientific consensus’ argument using 1. manipulated data inserted into IPCC-type reports, and 2. their self-fulfilling peer-reviewed literature.

Consensus?

First of all, the idea of a ‘scientific’ ‘consensus’ is patently flawed. True science isn’t based on human opinion, but rather replicable math or observation. Neither of those criteria are reliable, despite the claims of Alarmists. So the consensus is the collective opinion of scientists who have an inherent predisposition with environmental ideology, being scientists who work with nature and all.

Opinion is pseudoscience by definition. And what of past scientific consensus? Pre-Eugenicist, post Civil War scientists claimed that ‘negros’ were of a lower species, not even human, which helped justify their harsh treatment, even to the Civil Rights era.  In the early 1900’s the consensus was in Eugenics (even Ted Roosevelt supported it), started in the US & UK, their Social Darwinist theories applied to early genetics ideas fueled the Nazi’s forced sterilizations and death camps.

Others like to refer to the large list of scientific councils most of whom agree with the ‘consensus’. The problem is the figureheads that run these bureaucratic organizations typically number less than 20, and their advocacy of the ‘consensus’ represents profit for their existence. And most, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (yes you red correctly), primarily lean on the consensus as declared by our CRU-IPCC conspirators.

Group Think?

A good examples of how these groups operate is as follows from this insider (Eric Berger) account:

I am and have been an AGU member for many decades, and the “leadership” of this “society” has never even asked members what we think about it. The current leadership is an entrenched, isolated bureaucracy that sits in Washington, D.C. and has become an active political actor, need I say more. In contrast, some of the other professional organizations I belong to actually ask members for comments, and form open committees to work on things like this with member input and critique. The AGU is NOT a consensus organization at all, nor a democracy either.

So with the AGU you have less than 20 people making a statement ‘on behalf’ of the 50,000 members, without virtually any input whatsoever. This one example should be good enough to make it obvious that the ‘consensus’ found in statements by these groups is unscientific in attempting to graph a true consensus.

If anything, listening to actual individuals competent in regards to elements of climate science should at least be considered. Yet Alarmists flat out dismiss the ever growing petition of 31,000+ scientists, including over 9,100 Phd’s, whom reject the global warming agenda.

Don’t listen to the individuals, instead listen to the figureheads of these groups who don’t even poll their members before making a statement.

NOTE: WordPress formatting messed up the paragraph breaks with a lot of stuff I pasted in…

The Hijack!

Today Timothy Ball helped lay out the framework of our conspirators network:

Tentacles of Climategate will reach far as information is divulged. People will rush to get on or off the bandwagon depending on their involvement. As a first hand observer, I must outline the history, identify the people involved and provide context.

The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate

The Public and Mainstream Media Still Don’t Grasp the Implications.
The “Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey  Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction commonly known as The Wegman Report said, “Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99 (The infamous hockey stick paper).   As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.” Wegman identified most of the people involved with the leaked information from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – “climategate”.
They are still reinforcing each other and refuse to acknowledge the severity of their actions. Mainstream media helps by downplaying the significance or deliberately closing their eyes. It’s deeply disturbing to learn scientists have deliberately twisted science for social and political ends. I watched it happen, now I can set out the history and identify those involved.

Cabal; A Secret Political Clique or Faction

As recently as June 19th 2009, they gathered and reinforced each other at a Symposium to honor (?) Tom Wigley.
In a measure of bureaucratic involvement Univeristy Corporation of Atmospheric Research (UCAR) President Rick Anthes’ opening slide ridiculed McIntyre and McKitrick who broke the hockey stick. “The reply, by Wigley and Jones, is a monument of obfuscation, irrelevance and spite.” (Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick October 2, 2005). This was followed by a quote that said, “This doesn’t sound like the Tom Wigley we know and love…What’s going on here.” Well, Mr. Anthes the avuncular Wigley fooled most of the world. I know. I watched him.
I’ve written about poor climate science and political machinations. Now disclosure of the scientists involved at the CRU and beyond allows me to describe who and how they did it with the support of Maurice Strong. He established the political framework through formation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists provided the science through the IPCC. Strong took their claims to the green movements through the 1992 Rio Conference.
Strong’s powerful connections in Canada were apparently used to involve Environment Canada (EC) in development of the IPCC and CRU connections. These bureaucrats drew in other government agencies who easily convinced politicians desperate to appear green. Gordon McBean, Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) at EC, chaired the 1985 Villach Austria meeting when formation of the IPCC was planned. Here are the two major players in the CRU scandal, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, in Villach in a series shown at Wigley’s career Symposium.

Meet the conspirators:

Figure 1: Phil Jones, Current Director of the CRU and Tom Wigley the power behind the scenes.

Figure 2: Wigley and H.H.Lamb, founder of the CRU

Figure 3: No wonder Prince Charles says we have 100 months left, he has a ‘reliable’ source

Figure 4: Jones, Santer and Wigley at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Figure 5: Major players in early and later days of the IPCC

Figure 6: Critical players in CRU and IPCC

Michael Mann

Maurice Strong

Tim Ball:

Jones’ innocent look belies his actions. In one email he wrote to Michael Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”…Lamb worked every day almost to the end, but the real power was emerging in the person of Tom Wigley (Figure 2). Lamb knew what was going on because he cryptically writes in his autobiography, “Through all the Changing Scenes of Life: A Meteorologists Tale” how a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation came to grief because of, “…an understandable difference of scientific judgment between me and the scientist, Dr. Tom Wigley, whom we have appointed to take charge of the research.”Wigley is the grandfather figure and in control throughout as the emails illustrate. They seek his advice as in this email, which ends, “I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful” The originator was seeking ideas for a National Academy of Sciences plan.Other comments are more direct and frightening. Bishop Hill summarizes, “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.”In another push to have someone removed Wigley supports Michael Mann’s attack on the journal editor of Geophysical Review Letters (GRL) who published McIntyre’s 2005 paper. Again Hill’s summary, “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.) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]” This quote illustrates the problem for the public. Unless you understand the science and the events the comments make little sense. Apart from comments like how to avoid Freedom of Information (FOI) requests it is easy to divert attention.

The IPCC Connection:

The UN’s IPCC, spearheaded by the ‘hacked’ CRU, has been the primary driving source of Global Warming Alarmism. This admission by Keith Briffa about the IPCC’s ethics is ‘alarming’:

I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. [from 1177890796.txt]

Tim Ball:

Wigley is prominent in the IPCC from the start. Graduate students are prominent names in the emails and the IPCC. Phil Jones is the focus as current Director of the CRU, but as Figure 1 shows he was alongside Wigley from the start. Another prominent CRU graduate is Benjamin Santer seen here with Jones and Wigley.
…Santer was lead author of Chapter 8 for the 1995 IPCC Report and involved in the first major controversy. He altered contents of the Chapter so it agreed with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) without consent of other authors. The emails show how the Reports similarly achieved political not scientific objectives.
Of course, IPCC rules were carefully written to achieve this end.
…The people in Figure 6 are connected with East Anglia or the IPCC. In another photo (Figure 6) they are unsure of source or time but it puts Wigley and Jones together early with leading figures like Syukoru Manabe, whose computer model was the basis of the IPCC models, and Bert Bolin first chairman of the IPCC (now deceased).…All the people in the emails are listed in the various author lists of each of the IPCC Reports. For example, the 2007 list includes these names Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Karl, Keith Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, Andrew Weaver, Martin Parry among others.

Phil Jones:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! [from 1089318616.txt]

What about the journals?

We’ll start with a bunch of quotes from the emails of the conspirators discussing their strategies for hijacking the peer-review process. The first example has Grant Foster with a list of reviewers another can count on:

Suggested Reviewers to Include
Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators, or family members. (this requires name, email, and institution).

Tom Wigley [1]wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx NCAR
Ben Santer [2]<santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Lawrence Livermore
Mike Wallace [3]<wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> U Washington [May not be most responsive]
Dave Thompson [4]<davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Col State Univ
Dave Easterling [5]<David.Easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> NCDC
Sincerely,
Grant

Phil Jones and Ben Santer talk about a journal wants to force him to release all of his raw data that he used in his paper:

I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS.

Santer:

Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I’m really sorry you have to deal with that kind of crap. If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

Michael Mann on coercing a different journal:

I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted–the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…[from 1047388489.txt]

In response, Phil Jones writes:

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

Timothy Carter:

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame — he encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’.
One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
…Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.[from 1051190249.txt]

Another chain of emails contained a group discussion about “ousting” a journal editor that they determined to be in the “skeptics camp” for publishing some papers that were contrary to their view:

If you think that  Saiers  is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Other recent news regarding the AGU ‘ousting’ out the contrary:

We developed this session to honor the great tradition of science and scientific inquiry, as exemplified by Galileo when, 400 years ago this year, he first pointed his telescope at the Earth’s moon and at the moons of Jupiter, analyzed his findings, and subsequently challenged the orthodoxy of a geocentric universe. Our proposed session was accepted by the AGU.

In response to its acceptance, we were joined by a highly distinguished group of scientists – including members of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, France and China, as well as recipients of the AGU’s own William Bowie, Charles Whitten and James MacElwane medals. Our participants faithfully submitted abstracts for the session.

…The merger was approved by the AGU Planning Committee. Thus our Galileo session now had grown to a total of 27 papers and was approved as a poster session at the Fall Meeting.

However, a few days later, after first approving our session and after we had assigned time slots for these new papers at AGU’s request, the Planning Committee revoked its approval and summarily dissolved our session.

Tim Ball, et al:

“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains.
“So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”
“On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”
www.infowars.com…

Professor Wegman’s ’43’:

The block (cluster) structure is very clear. Michael Mann is a co-author with every one of the other 42. The black squares on the diagonal indicate that the investigators work closely within their group, but not so extensively outside of their group. … However, it is immediately clear that the Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others.
A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else in the clique. The cliques are very clear in this layout. In addition to the Mann-Rutherford-Jones-Osborn-Briffa-Bradley-Hughes clique there are several others that are readily apparent. They are Rind-Shindell-Schmidt-Miller, Cook-D’Arrigo-Jacoby-Wilson, Folland-Vellinga-Allan-Knight, Stahle-Shugart-Therrell-Druckenbrod-Cleveland, Sangoyomi-Moon-Lall-Abarbanel, and Clement-Zebiak-Cane. The last cluster is somewhat of the miscellaneous cluster of people who had published with Michael Mann, but not much if at all with each other.
The social network analysis of authors’ relations suggests that the “independent reconstructions” are not as independent as one might guess. Indeed, the matrix outlined in Figure 5.8 illustrates the proxies that are used more than one time in twelve major temperature reconstruction papers. The black boxes indicate that the proxy was used in a given paper. It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.
heliogenic.blogspot.com…
View page 40 of the AD HOC report for social network graphs:
www.climateaudit.org…
Regardless, what do the journals say?
Much trumpeting has been done over a so-called consensus established by Naomi Oreskes. She reported an analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’”. There have been many detailed critiques of her paper, but here I’d like to keep it simple and look at it at face value. Alarmists like to claim that essentially all of the papers support the Global Warming argument. In reality however this is not nearly the case.

Only 20% support anthropogenic (man made) global warming. 55% were papers about climate change itself, covering observed and potential effects of global warming. 25% didn’t apply.

Key Critical: Just because a the abstract of a paper talks about the warming of the 1990’s doesn’t mean it supports a consensus on AGW! In reality only 20% of the paper supported the AGW ‘consensus’, yet Alarmists distort this view and claim that 75% do. Some even attempt to claim that 100% do.

There’s no dispute that the climate warmed during the 90’s. So if you do a search for ‘global climate change’ what results would you expect to get other than papers addressing the current warming trend?

In hindsight, it’s awful convenient that her study ended up ending in 2003, as today we know the earth has cooled since then:

Photobucket


Follow link for the rest of the interview.

They deleted data that now makes it virtually impossible for real scientists to replicate their work…

Timesonline.co.uk:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

//

// <![CDATA[//

NOTE: This is an expanded version of my last post, with elements from the one before it, with other key evidence of data manipulation added in.

*It’s Conclusive: CRU Climate Data Manipulation At Its Worst!

Photobucket

Ignorance Is Futile:

At last some data graphing is completed from the Climategate archive, and its obscene! That combined with other revelations provides conclusive proof of wide ranging data manipulation. Yesterday I reported that virtually all temperature data is irrelevent at best, and with this new revelation perhaps Mann & friends might parrot my view, as last ditch damage control. Can anyone say Mann-Made Global Warming?

Read the details of this graph at Climate Audit.

IPCC: “Inappropriate” to hide the decline:

CLICK

The “Trick”:
The red-blue lines are “before”, and the black line is “after”. MORE

More manipulation: climate ’scientists’ usage of phrases such as “hide the decline” & “artificially adjusted” in tandem with “corrected” & “reconstructed”, in their hacked / leaked emails & programming source code.

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com…

Wheres the MWP?
en.wikipedia.org…

Here we see Mann discussing the intent to”contain” the MWP:

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
www.eastangliaemails.com…

More from Mann:

thanks Phil,
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ‘06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,
www.eastangliaemails.com…

Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring ..

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
www.eastangliaemails.com…

This confirms long held suspicions that YAD061 was phony data, and it also confirms that Jones knew all about it:

“That is tree #YAD061. Seems like an outlier, that should be discarded from the analysis, right? That’s not what Bifra did. Keeping it in, the average of the group was raised a little. Just a little, but enough.” borepatch.blogspot.com…

Here Gary Funkhouser admits to manipulating tree ..
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian).
www.eastangliaemails.com…

Another email shows even more manipulation:

GLOBAL WARMING?

No recent warming in the tropics worth discussing (satellite ..

No long term warming in Denmark worth discussing (remote land stations):

In fact that graph shows actual cooling after 1940 and even more after 1960, much like the “hide the decline” computer code highlighted earlier that is claimed to be in reference to the proxy data. This stuff becomes more damning the more you look at it. The following IPCC 20th Century graph with future projection doesn’t show the post-1940 decline as seen above, as described by Wigley as a “blip” to be adjusted here:

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
www.eastangliaemails.com…

So once again, it’d be best for them to support my in-depth assessment that temperature data is irrelevant at best:
*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ’science’ temp. data is irrelevant and/or PHONY.

What else is to be said?

SEE ALSO: IIBFilms: “Climategate Explained by JFK & Eisenhower”
DISINFO: “Peer”-Reviewed Climate “Science” & “Scientific” Consensus.
*It’s Conclusive: CRU Climate Data Manipulation At Its Worst! (updated)
*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ’science’ temp. data is irrelevant.
*Revealing Climategate Programmer Notes (beyond the emails).

Photobucket

At last some data graphing is completed from the Climategate archive, and its obscene! Yesterday I reported that virtually all temperature data is irrelevent at best, and with this new revelation perhaps Mann & friends might parrot my view, as last ditch damage control. Can anyone say Mann-Made Global Warming?

From Climate Audit:

For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here.Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true. The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001, though pre-calibration values were archived in a different NCDC file here. While the decline was shown in Briffa et al 1998 and Briffa 2000, it was not shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.) For now, here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red. A retrieval script follows.

camirror.wordpress.com…
Visit site for links and more.

It’s no wonder that MannCo. has been surprisingly quiet during all this. The damage control on this affair is beyond the capability of their overarching propaganda machine. They’re hoping too much isnt found or reported on before Copenhagen.

So once again, it’d be best for them to support my in-depth assessment that temperature data is irrelevant at best:
*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ’science’ temp. data is irrelevant and/or PHONY.

But that would require admission to defeat and deceit.

IPCC: “Inappropriate” to hide the decline:

Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)
The “Trick”:

camirror.wordpress.com…

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” -Phil Jones, leading climate ‘scientist’
[from
Climategate document 1120593115.txt]

Ignorance Is Futile:

In the wake of Climategate, a new study of raw surface temperature data in New Zealand proves that the official government  manipulated the 150 year temperature data to show warming in recent decades, when there wasn’t. These two developments underscore the reality that virtually all forms of historical and even present day methods of recording temperature, for projecting global warming, fall somewhere in between irrelevant and fraudulent.

Problems with long count historical proxies such as tree rings and ice cores, to faulty land surface data, to even satellite data are numerous and sobering despite these datasets being used to in an orchestrated ongoing fearmongering campaign to justify global government and global taxes as found in the Copenhagen Treaty.

The first item of interest is the new report that exposes official data manipulation in New Zealand’s land temperature data record. The raw data shows virtually no warming trend in 150 years, but the government graph shows IPCC style warming:


[Report here, and more perspective here.]

The method used to generate the official graph, like all NASA graphs, involves “correcting” the data. Shocking revelations from the recent Climategate scandal includes quotes from leading (and Nobel Prize winning) climate ‘scientists’  usage of phrases such as “hide the decline” & “artificially adjusted” in tandem with “corrected” & “reconstructed”, in their hacked / leaked emails & programming source code.

The issue of “corrected” data is already prompting a renewed push for the release of raw surface temperature data by many within the scientific community and general public. This Climategate revelation obtained from programming source code notes gives some perspective:

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

[more excerpts from Climategate source code]

Government institutions such as NASA-GISS have a long history of refusing to release ‘uncorrected’ data, while recent insights into the Climategate scandal shows top UN-IPCC ‘scientists’ collaborating to delete data in order to prevent freedom of information request releases of their raw data.

Yet the real issue here is the validity of any and all of the data itself. The now infamous Climategate “hide the decline” quote is claimed torefer to modern era declines in proxy data measurements. Proxy data would include tree ring & ice core data, opposed to ‘real’ measurement such as surface station thermometer & satellite measurements.

The “decline” in question is likely rooted in the fact that proxy data is considered (by the Alarmist ‘scientists’ even) as accurate, until the modern era. They call it a ‘phenomenon’ as their own proxy data shows a decline in temperature starting in 1940, 1960 and so on. Despite their ‘scholarly’ ‘peer-reviewed’ papers claiming that humans are “causing” global warming, in truth they typically only use the proxies up to more modern times, and then they overlay surface and satellite data over the proxy data, which results in the warming you’ll typically note when viewing Alarmist graphs.

>other’s). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less
>reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern
>calibrations that include them and when we don’t know the precise role of
>particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains
>problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer
>timescales.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]

So the issue becomes the accuracy of the ‘real’ temperature data, but first lets consider a key form of proxy data.

In contemplating the idea of using tree ring data to measure historical temperature data the everyday gardener could see its flaws, especially one operating a container garden. I currently have a massive container garden, with at least one hundred containers of different sizes, all the way up to 35 gallons, containing all different types and amounts of vegetable and perennial food plants. I’ve been gathering different soils here and there throughout the year. Beyond the obvious already said, different plants planted together can stunt or increase growth.

The potential for different results in identical temperature and moisture under these conditions is astounding. Yet beyond that, a look at Wikipedia reveals one single paragraph covering the advantages of tree ring data, while there are 9 separate sections on the disadvantages.

This is ‘alarming’ considering tree ring data was the primary source of the “Hockey Stick” graph, a key graph in Global Warming Alarmist mythology. It single handedly ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), it is a key piece of material used in Global Warming Alarmism, and was mainly authored by Michael Mann, one of the most damned in the Climategate scandal.

Here we see Mann discussing the intent to”contain” the MWP:

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
[from 1054736277.txt]

More from Mann:

thanks Phil,
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to  the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,
[from 1256735067.txt]

Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring data:

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
[from 1256747199.txt]

Here Gary Funkhouser admits to manipulating tree data:

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that.
It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought
at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation
even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just
are what they are
(that does sound Graybillian).
[from 0843161829.txt]

Another email shows even more manipulation:

There are also issues with ice cores, although not as profound as tree ring data, in my view.

>Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better
>on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed.
>Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter
>accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to
>give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the
>precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into
>absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]

None-the-less, ice cores along with other proxies still show a decline in the modern era, as discussed in Climategate emails and source code. Kevin Trenberth:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. …
The 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.

So let’s get “real”. The “increased temperature” that the Climategate documents discuss, that they “know” is there despite it not existing in their own data, is based on surface station and satellite data. Yet surface data is perhaps the most flawed, while satellites don’t actually measure direct temperature and require math modeling in attempts to derive temperature data.

The  “hide the decline” phrase refers to proxy data. The fact that New Zealand temperatures have hardly risen, would seem to explain why it is remote-based proxy data would show a decline when surface temp station data has risen since the 1940’s & 60’s (when urbanization has been rapidly expanding to this day).

‘Check me out, I know the temperature of my roof!’

Which brings us to the issue of unscientific surface station locations & methods, including instruments located near blacktop pavement and air conditioning unit exhausts, while already counting on humans to walk outside and record the high and low temps, daily, decade after decade.

To understand this issue you must first comprehend Urban Heat Island Effect. UHIE is the reality that urban modernization skews surface temperatures, and it turns out that most US based surface stations are located in urban or at least semi-urban locations. SurfaceStations.org is an open database project to visit and photo each of the over 1200 station sites in the US. So far they’ve visited over 80% of US sites, and the results are ‘alarming’:

Global Warming Hoax

The results thus far show that about 10% of U.S. based surface stations are what we’d consider scientific. The rest are what we’d consider real data as far as our daily lives are concerned, as being in the city you’d want city temperatures reported to you each day.

Here is an example of a scientific station, and its 100 year data graph:

And an unscientific one:



[more surface station & UHIE info is found here]

So in assessing global climate change you’d want to check if ocean temperatures have risen. Tom Wigley to Phil Jones:

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
[from 1257546975.txt]

In any case, it’s clear and obvious that surface station data is completely irrelevant in attempting to assess global climate change, which brings us to satellite data…

Wikipedia:

Satellites do not measure temperature as such. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values.

Kevin Trenberth, in October 2009, admits that NASA’s CERES satellite data is “lacking”:

At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
[from 1255523796.txt]

However, today Global Warming skeptic Dr. John Christy suggests satellites today have about 95% accuracy. The problem still is that they have only been in existence since 1978, and we’ve already seen what we have to go by historically.

No recent warming in the tropics worth discussing (satellite data):

No long term warming in Denmark worth discussing (remote land stations):

In fact that graph shows actual cooling after 1940 and even more after 1960, much like the “hide the decline” computer code highlighted earlier that is claimed to be in reference to the proxy data. This stuff becomes more damning the more you look at it. The following IPCC 20th Century graph with future projection doesn’t show the post-1940 decline as seen above (described by WIgley as a “blip” here):

The UN’s IPCC, along with the ‘hacked’ CRU, has been the primary driving source of Global Warming Alarmism. This admission by Keith Briffa about the IPCC’s ethics is ‘alarming’:

I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.
[from 1177890796.txt]

More heart-felt doubts by Alarmist Keith Briffa:

> There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the
>very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation
>through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a
>nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
>years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
>so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
>those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
>unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
>not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]

So in closing, “Global Warming” ‘science’ is in effect baseless. But what we do know is that life supporting plants breath in CO2, which means more food for the world and a better vegetable garden for me.

Another supplemental to an upcoming post.

Global Warming Fraud

Some of the ‘most reliable’ temperature data used in ‘climate science’ is land based surface station data. Meanwhile, Global Warming Alarmists don’t like to talk about something known as Urban Heat Island Effect. Combined, surface data is deeply flawed. Hold your breath for some photos of actual surface stations, but first note UHIE:

Now on to surface stations. A key issue is that with these stations its up to a person to walk out every day of the year, for the history of the station, and record the high and low for each day, and then eventually send the data to NASA. The irony is that US station data is widely considered one of the more reliable large scale sets of temperature data. Would you trust Russian data more, for instance?

From there the key issue is the locations of the surface stations, many of which have had urbanization expand around them for many decades. SurfaceStations.org is a open database project to visit and photo each of the over 1200 station sites in the US. So far they’ve visited over 80% of US sites, and the results are ‘alarming’:

Global Warming Hoax

Before seeing some flawed data sites, first observe a properly scientific one:

And now for the nasty…

From surfacestations.org’s “Odd Sites” list:

Marysville, CA:

Forest Grove, OR:

Tahoe City, CA:

Roseburg, OR:

And there’s plenty more like that found in the database.

Here goes a sample of remarkable notes embedded in the Climategate source code data. I’m just throwing these in rough style to link back to for a wider encompassing article I’m working on:

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;

pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

;

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

===========================

From documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
;

=======================

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE AGE-BANDED (ALL BANDS) STUFF OF HARRY’S
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline

;

======================

recon_mann.pro:
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE Mann et al. reconstruction
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
; IN FACT, I NOW HAVE AN ANNUAL LAND-ONLY NORTH OF 20N VERSION OF MANN,
; SO I CAN CALIBRATE THIS TOO – WHICH MEANS I’m ONLY ALTERING THE SEASON

====================

briff_sep98_e.pro:
; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

=====================

frs_gts_anom.PRO:

; calculate 1961-1990 synthetic normal from adjusted tmn
print,’Calculating synthetic frs normal’

for iy=nor1,nor2 do begin
tmpfl=strip(string(tmp_prefix,iy))
dtrfl=strip(string(dtr_prefix,iy))
rdbin,tmpgrd,tmpfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet
rdbin,dtrgrd,dtrfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet

tmn(nland)=(tmpgrd(nland)-(0.5*dtrgrd(nland)))/10.0
frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)+frscal(tmn(nland))
endfor

frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)/(nor2-nor1+1)

for im=0,11 do begin
temp=frssyn(*,*,im)
nfin=where(temp gt 0)
temp(nfin)=(temp(nfin)/100.0)*days(im)
frssyn(*,*,im)=temp
endfor
frssyn(nsea)=-999.9

; Calculate synthetic frs from tmin, convert to anomalies
; relative to synthetic mean frs, and apply to normal frs
print,’Calculating synthetic anomalies’

============================

mann/abdlowfreq2grid:

; HUGREG=Hugershoff regions, ABDREG=age-banded regions, HUGGRID=Hugershoff grid
; The calibrated (uncorrected) versions of all these data sets are used.
; However, the same adjustment is then applied to the corrected version of
; the grid Hugershoff data, so that both uncorrected and corrected versions
; are available with the appropriate low frequency variability. There is some
; ambiguity during the modern period here, however, because the corrected
; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest
; scales of observed temperature over recent decades – so a new adjustment
; would be unwelcome. Therefore, the adjustment term is scaled back towards
; zero when being applied to the corrected data set, so that it is linearly
; interpolated from its 1950 value to zero at 1970 and kept at zero thereafter.

===================

mann/mxd_eof_rotate:

; Computes EOFs of infilled calibrated MXD gridded dataset.
; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
; Do not usually rotate, since this loses the common volcanic and global
; warming signal, and results in regional-mean series instead.
; Generally use the correlation matrix EOFs.

=======================

mann/mxd_pcr_localtemp:

; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are “manually” removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.

==================

mann/oldprog/hovmueller_lon:

; Plots a HovMueller diagram (longitude-time) of meridionally averaged
; growing season reconstructions. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

=========================

mann/oldprog/calibrate_correctmxd:

; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.