Crash-Course: How AP Spins For Obama Obama Situation Room Photo Faked How Goerge Soros directs Associated Press Rothschilds and the Associated Press Associated Press Praises Communist China

11/22/09

Code In Hacked Emails Confirms Deliberate Global Warming Coverup

>>>List of top scandalous emails here<<<

The liberal media is doing its best to cover up the manipulation of scientific data evident in hacked communications at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The most reported email is from Dr. Jones [more about that here]:

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] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.


Jones has received $22 million for his work. Some code has been discovered in the hacked files, which confirms that scientific data was manipulated to cover up cooling temperatures:

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.


Global Warming is ultimately a political decision, according to the emails. Read this one twice:

From: Dave S
To: Shrikant J
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)

I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines. You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios provided by the synthesis team.

If you want to do ‘realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and resources provide an upper bound).

‘Advice’ will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.

Dave

On Sun, 16
May 1999, Shrikant [snip] wrote:
> Friends,

> > I’m enjoying the current debate about CO2 levels. I feel that we are using > the GCM scenarios, and we MUST use exactly those CO2 levels for crop model > runs, so all data is consistent. So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong > and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things. Now to > use different data will be hard to explain.

> > > Shrikant

> > Dr. Shrikant


More proof that global cooling was deliberately covered up by manipulating data:

From: Mick
To:
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, 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 cold-ish years.

Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.

Mick

> —–Original Message—–
> From: P
> Sent: 24 October 2008 20:39
> To: Mick
> Subject: Re: Global temperature

> > > Mick,
> They have noticed for years – mostly wrt > the warm year of 1998. The recent coolish years > down to La Nina. When I get this question I > have 1991-2000 and 2001-2007/8 averages to hand. > Last time I did this they were about 0.2 different, > which is what you’d expect.

> In Iceland at a meeting that Astrid invited me to. > Cold with snow on the ground, but things cheap as the > currency has gone down 30-40% wrt even the pound.

> > > Cheers
> Phil

> > > Hi Phil

> > > > Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a > public talk and > > noted > > that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or > so and 2008 > > doesn’t look too hot.

> > > > Anticipating the sceptics latching on to this soon, if they > haven’t done > > already
, has anyone had a good look at the large-scale circulation > > anomalies > > over this period? I haven’t noticed anything consistent > coming up in the > > annual climate reviews but then I wasn’t really looking. > > > > Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!

> > > > Hope all’s well with you

> > > > Mick


More data manipulation:

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send it to you.

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). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary


Intolerance for scientific finds that oppose their global warming agenda (against Geophysics Research leaders):

Phil
To: “Michael
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
[snip personal]
[snip off topic]

The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it.

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 !

Cheers
Phil


Collusion to knock out global warming skeptics:

Michael wrote:

Hi Malcolm,
[snip]

I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon et al paper. These were all pure crap.

There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now, unfortunately…

Mike
[snip-irrelevant]

Thanks Tom,

Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something might be up here. What a shame that would be. It’s one thing to lose “Climate Research”. We can’t afford to lose GRL. I think it would be useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and potentially Mackwell (I don’t know him–he would seem to be complicit w/what is going on here).

If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it could be taken through the proper channels. I don’t that the entire AGU hierarchy has yet been compromised!

[snip]
mike
At 04:30 PM 1/20/2005, Tom wrote.

Mike,
This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
[snip]

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. 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. Even this would be difficult.

[snip]
Tom.

Michael wrote:

Dear All,

Just a heads up. Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences that causes m some unease.

I think we now know how the various Douglass et al papers w/ Michaels and Singer, the Soon et al paper, and now this one have gotten published in GRL,

Mike


More about those exchanges here.

Here is the entire text of the most reported email of them all:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich


More about that here

Where is the global warming?
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

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 high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001.

[1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) ***
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.***


Destroying communication, which as far as I can tell is illegal:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic
Research Unit


Here, a climatologist discusses the explosive significance of these hacked emails:



Finally, Al Gore got punked on Saturday Night Live, in a skit entitled What's Up With That, in apparent reference to the site that broke the story.

No comments: