Tony,
Just thought you might
like to know, Jonathan Overpeck a notable U of A researcher is featured in
breaking news this week. Have you heard about the hacking at the Climate
Research Unit?
This is a link to a
searchable database regarding the “hacked information” from the Climate Research
Unit and the supposed “peer reviewed science” on Global Warming.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php
Many reports in the news today that
show due to the release of this information the following
concerns:
1) Illegal resistance to FOIA requests
2) Tampering with scientific data to support
CAGW
3) Probable destruction of
data to prevent peer replication (or not) of results
4) Suppression of scientific data that
contradicted their theories
5) Suppression of opposing scientific
viewpoints in peer reviewed publications (then claiming that due to few peer
reviewed papers being published the other side had no evidence)
6) Guidelines for brainwashing the gullible
masses with their viewpoint
7) Probable
money laundering
I
would think that an Environmental reporter, such as you would be writing about a
“breaking news story” with a local connection "Jonathan Overpeck included in the
emails.
Are you concerned about being
“scooped” by the bloggers and other new media sources? Some of the more
enlightening emails are pasted below just in case you missed the environmental
story of the decade.
Kathy
Boatman
From Michael E. Mann:
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I
wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that
Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots
in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close
colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code
for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into
the hands of the wrong people.
From Nick McKay:
The
Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre
said. I took a look at the original reference " the temperature proxy we looked
at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to
temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks
to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t
remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?
From Tom Wigley:
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 Phil Jones:
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.
From Kevin Trenberth:
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.
From Michael Mann:
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 Phil Jones:
The skeptics
seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of
stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting
hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody
that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
From
Michael E. Mann:
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to
use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any
way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what
comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions
that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit
the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and
contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or
not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
From Phil
Jones:
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to
consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind
them.
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 Telephone +44 (0)
1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44
(0) 1603 507784
University of
East
Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
