“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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
Did you not read this thread before posting in it?!!
Emails:
“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!” - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
Emails:
“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 UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
Scott I have no idea if you are even remotely attempting to follow this subject.
Not incompetent but corrupt. The emails EXPLICITLY talk about how they manipulated the data for their preconceived conclusions, that is - man-made CO2 is driving catastrophic climate change.
The IPCC report is a political report compiled by a handful of government appointed “scientists” whom have been shown in these emails to have colluded to keep skeptical scientist’s papers out of the IPCC reports. This has nothing to do with correcting errors, they were manipulating the data to hide inconvenient data such as the temperatures declining or the existence of the MWP being warmer than today.
There are several emails stating intent to destroy evidence or only release it in unitelligible form. Whatever your thoughts are on FOIA, that is a federal crime in both Europe and the US. Phil Jones, the head at Hadley, said the information was covered by confidentiality agreements which were either verbal or lost if written, which sounds distinctly like the dog ate his homework..
Put simply these emails confirm many of the criticisms so called ‘deniers’ have been leveling at these ‘scientists’ for years now. They did destroy and manipulate data. They did conspire to block FOIA requests. They did try to stack the peer review process against any and all skeptics. To the latter and to paraphrase one of my favorite bloggers, that’s like the Catholic Church enforcing a book ban and then using the remaining favorable texts to ‘prove’ Catholicism.
With respect to the Hide the Decline email, it’s not an attempt to hide cooling temperatures. In a study by Ken Briffa a diverence was found between tree ring proxies and actual measured temperatures. Tree rings have been used heavily, many of the same series in fact, to reconstruct past temperature records. However Briffa noticed that starting around 1960 tree rings indicated much cooler temperatures than were actually measured. Their solution? They “assumed” a man made cause and thus got to magically exclude all post 1960 proxies and use all the pre 1960 proxies. In thirty years no one has found the reason for the divergence, nor has anyone found a way to exclude the possibility of past divergences. Hence, “hide the decline” is not to hide cool temperatures, but an attempt to keep people from knowing or questioning one of the major proxy types used to reconstruct past temperatures. For all we know there have been numerous past divergences between actual temperatures and what tree rings indicate temperatures were. There’s simply no way to know because the instrumental record only goes back so far. So what you’re seeing here is a massive portion of what to date has ‘proven’ anomalous twentieth century warming just got trashed.
So we have conspiracy to commit fraud and destroy what is essentially tax payer property; conspiracy to stack the peer review deck so no skeptical papers get through regardless of merit; conspiracy to hide the modern manifestation of a massive weakness is past temperature reconstructions; and we have released Fortran code used in the reconstructions which shows numerous manual adjustments of temperature to both make recent temperatures look warmer and past temperatures look cooler; and finally a series of programming notes which show the data collection and controls that should have been in place weren’t worth a fart in a typhoon. Does all this disprove the idea of anthropogenic global warming? No. It just fully confirms almost every criticism leveled at this particular crew of scientists by skeptics for nearly 15 years, and who have been demonized for most of those 15 years. There are also emails discussing ways in which to deflect the debate from weaknesses in AGW evidence and to turn the debate to ad hominem attacks on deniers. There are also emails showing these guys disparage the weaknesses of their modeling programs in private while giving completely different statements in public, specifically regarding their ability to predict the current decade of cooling.
