Hadley CRU

[JustPaus_88TSi]

Hadley Climatic Research Centre: Hacked, Documents, Emails leaked...

 

 

Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

 

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.

 

 

 

Hmmn.

 

I'm giddy with anticipation.

 

 

I have the file downloading as we speak.

[BrazilBoy]

OH MAN.......wonder how the gov will spin this...

 

 

[JustPaus_88TSi]

Hadley CRU: "Data is real."

 

 

 

There is sooooooooooooooo much juicy info in the emails. Oh my, from tax evasion to blatant climate chart manipulation, and even a "rules of the game" document which appears to be a "how-to" in the form of conveying "climate change" to the rest of the world.

 

 

 

This is going to be EVERYWHERE.

 

 

 

One Email:

From: Bob Keeland <Bob_Keeland@USGS.GOV>

To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

Subject: Re: verification and uniformitarianism

Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 16:13:08 -0700

Reply-to: grissino@VALDOSTA.EDU

 

Frank is correct in that we need to define 'abrupt climatic change' or

even just 'climate change.'

 

Using Jim's Schulman Grove example suppose that the area supported a

stand of bristlecone pine 9,000 or more years ago, hence the scattered

remnants. Either a major catastrophic event or a fluctuation in climate

(call it climate change if you want) resulted in conditions that killed

the mature trees and eliminated any further recruitment for up to 1,000

years. This site may be near the limits of recruitment and with a major

(or minor perhaps) change in climate it could easily be beyond the

limits of recruitment. About 8,000 years ago climate again became

favorable for bristlecone pine recruitment and a new stand(s) developed

and have existed ever since. Some or most of the material remaining

from the original stand may be buried down in the valley, or the

original stand may have been small or sparse. The amount of time

between the loss of the original stand and the beginning of the new

stand would depend on the period of unfavorable weather and the amount

of time needed for bristlecone pine to re-invade the area. I am out on

a limb here, so to speak, as I an somewhat ignorant of prehistoric

climate patterns for the area and of bristlecone pine ecology, but this

seems like a relatively reasonable scenario.

 

I guess that my point is that climate continues to fluctuate within

broad bounds. Everything that we are now calling 'climate change' is

well within the bounds observed within the prehistoric record of climate

fluctuations. Do we call any variation 'climate change' or should we

limit the term climate change for anything considered to be caused by

humans? To my mind it is not so much what we call it, but rather that

we keep a clear idea of what we actually talking about.

 

Bob Keeland

USGS, National Wetlands Research Center

Lafayette, LA

bob_keeland@usgs.gov

 

Which leads to the credibility, as this 11 year old email can be found:

http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9812&L=itrdbfor&T=0&P=795

Edited November 20, 2009 by JustPaus_88TSi

[BrazilBoy]

Dude this will cause a world wide protest especially in europe where they get taxed for everything because of this BS.....This will change the global energy view completely.....Taboos of drilling for oil and all that will be gone.....

 

My mind is racing to think of how many stupid taxes and laws could be shattered...Man alive this is could be a historical turning point....

 

Wonder how the "global bs crowd" will try and spin this.......

[JustPaus_88TSi]

I don't know how it will be viewed, but while I find this whole scenario to be utterly disgusting, I have little hope for anything coming of it. It depends on who exactly is at the top of the money chain.

 

 

We shall see though, I feel this will be soaked up by many, and in short time we'll have hundreds of examples of book cooking and such.

[BrazilBoy]

True....hopefully if we get these people on the hot seat maybe we can get some real answers...But I have no faith in most media to do this...even on Fox News it will be a hard reach to see how much coverage this will get...

[Technology]

The words, "even on fox news..." scares me, ya know. Don't believe everything you hear on the news, including CNN, I've seen them cover up the facts too, but fox news is just the worst offender.

 

Anyway, on the subject of this thread, it's quite obvious this is already a rallying point for right wingers such as yourselves, but the real firebrands like rush limbaugh could start spewing forth more sewage than it deserves. And can someone please tell me what CRU is, exactly? Is it a university? If I want to find out real climate information I'll go to NOAA.

[JustPaus_88TSi]

The words, "even on fox news..." scares me, ya know. Don't believe everything you hear on the news, including CNN, I've seen them cover up the facts too, but fox news is just the worst offender.

 

Which news organization doesn't? I should ask, which "infotainment organization" doesn't?

 

Anyway, on the subject of this thread, it's quite obvious this is already a rallying point for right wingers such as yourselves, but the real firebrands like rush limbaugh could start spewing forth more sewage than it deserves. And can someone please tell me what CRU is, exactly? Is it a university? If I want to find out real climate information I'll go to NOAA.

 

Right wing?

 

How many years have I been here? How many thousands of posts have you read? I guess "right wing" is anything not subscribed to by yourself, yes? When it comes to the two parties, I value various basic fundamentals from each.

 

 

It's not about political ideologies in the slightest, it's about fraud. Pretty simple.

 

 

The possible issue, is that we don't know how wide spread this is. Your NOAA couldn't be involved. Oh, wait...

 

NOAA based this on Hadleys CRU dataset, which of course Hadley refuses to show any raw data for or methodology despite repeated FOI requests, making verification impossible.

 

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images/essays/atmosphere/a1.jpg

Figure A1. Arctic-wide annual averaged surface air temperature anomalies (60°90°N) based on land stations north of 60°N relative to the 196190 mean. From the CRUTEM 3v dataset, (available online at www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/.

 

 

OK thats one problem. Heres another. Both Kaufman et al and NOAA claim recent Arctic warming. In the case of the Kaufman paper, they specifically claim they found that the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s.

 

Since we cant really look at the Hadley CRU data since it is held under lock and key despite the repeated FOI requests so that analysis and verification can be performed, we cant really analyze it pertaining to NOAAs claim of warming. Since NOAA and HadleyCRU use many of the same stations above 60N (theyd have to since there are so few) it seems reasonable to assume they share similar data in the Kaufman et al paper.

 

Fortunately there is another Arctic temperature data source available we can look at to compare against. And that is from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). Like NOAA, they offer a dataset that shows temperature in the high latitudes.Here is what they say about that dataset and how it is obtained.

 

The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002, from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and from 2006 to present the T799 model data are used.

 

The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.

 

Here is the most recent DMI graph of Arctic temperature:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/meant_2009.png?w=510&h=340

Note that the blue line represents the melting point of ice in Kelvin or 0°C/32°F The green line represents the average climate from 1958 to 2002, i.e. the baseline

 

I dont have time to get into a detailed analysis of the raw DMI data this morning as I have other duties, but I do have time to do a visual check that is just as telling.

 

Kaufman et al claims they found that the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s. That should easy to spot in the DMI graphs if it exists. So I animated the entire set of DMI graphs from 1958 to 2009. See if you can spot the temperature spikes or the …cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dmi_arctic_temp-vs-era40climate_animation.gif

Watch the top of the bell curve above the blue line. See any big changes? I dont. Note that in the animation above, due to a slight change in DMIs graphical presentation for 2008 and 2009, I had to graphically fit 2008 and 2009 to match the rest of the animation framework so that there would not be a distracting jump at the end. The data is unchanged in doing this.

 

One of the most common claims of alarmists is that the Arctic is melting and that implies a temperature cause in their statements. But as we see, during the critical melt window, the DMI data seems to hold right along the climatic normal.

 

One thing about DMI, if you go to their main web page, http://ocean.dmi.dk/english/index.php you dont find any alarming pronouncements about Arctic melting or temperature reversal like you do at NOAA.

 

Others like NASA say the wind pattern changes is more of an issue, blowing the sea ice southward. Perhaps NOAA and Kaufman should look more closely at before making grand claims.

 

 

So, could the NOAA be misled by faulty data? Yep. Does that mean they are negligent? Not really, but that can change depending on how far this CRU thing gets looked into.

 

 

 

Let's make this a political issue for a second. The "right wingers" have always been pretty much opposed to the "left wingers" assertions regarding climate change. Right? It's no secret, it's polarized like abortion issues.

 

Say, for the sake of this thread, that any CRU based data is now globally suspect. How many organizations(which may be legitimate) have used this false data to further their position by way of legislation, taxes levied, grants awarded etc? Obama has awarded hundreds of billions to climate alarmists, and this is just recently.

 

If, in fact, this is very widespread, the political party you align yourself with should be FURIOUS. It would be like the Republican party keeping provable evidence from the public that god/jesus whatever never existed, yet kept it under wraps because their religious friends' churches don't pay taxes and they get a kickback from the donation plate.

Edited November 20, 2009 by JustPaus_88TSi

[patra_is_here]

am i the only one who doesn't see anything wrong.

even this,

I guess that my point is that climate continues to fluctuate within

broad bounds. Everything that we are now calling 'climate change' is

well within the bounds observed within the prehistoric record of climate

fluctuations. Do we call any variation 'climate change' or should we

limit the term climate change for anything considered to be caused by

humans? To my mind it is not so much what we call it, but rather that

we keep a clear idea of what we actually talking about.

 

isn't a big deal. at no point did anyone in the sciences claim that things are hotter or colder than what's been seen in the past. they aren't hiding anything. they are discussing how to explain the increased RATE of temp change to an uneducated, unscientific public.

 

seriously, i'm actually getting aggravated by how you people are spinning this.

[JustPaus_88TSi]

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.

 

 

Spin that.

 

 

 

 

Yes, there are a lot of normal emails. Smack talk between colleagues, others saying how they can't believe certain articles were able to be printed in respected magazines etc... Give me some time, there's over a thousand emails in notepad form that I have to copy/paste in order to read without my head exploding.

 

I've verified one email being real, as they discuss a blog with url link and copy/paste responses.

Edited November 20, 2009 by JustPaus_88TSi

[JustPaus_88TSi]

at no point did anyone in the sciences claim that things are hotter or colder than what's been seen in the past.

 

 

 

Hockey.

Stick.

 

 

 

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/Fig10HockeyStick.jpg

[Mazarin]

Am I the only one bothered that this is NEWS? It's called a FARMER'S ALMANAC.

 

Everyone will gloss over it, because all those Green Jobs won't be as valueable. We can't have that, can we. And more Green Laws and Taxes? Surely, those won't need to be implemented anymore, right?

[BrazilBoy]

These guys are snake oil salesmen from day one...when you consider thier biggest supporter and figure head Al Gore uses 12x the energy a normal person does and has banked many millions off of it...It was quite apparent that this was a tool to increase taxes for the all of us...

 

Whether you agree or disagree with this one thing is most certain if this prevents further unnecessary taxes in a rotten economy all will benefit..

 

 

 

 

[GoFastBeater]

LOL Justpaus, you beat me to it. Nevermind my thread.

[Mech]

i dont even need to look into this...

 

i already know that man made climate change is about as real as big Foot

[chiplee]

I was going to post but a blog commenter said it better than I care to take the time to say it so I'll just reference his input, with a bit of paraphrased expounding and extra emphasis placed on the sarcastic bits by yours truly.

 

"What a wonderful day for humanity!!!

 

According to this unconfirmed leak it turns out we are all safe after all, and that it was all a hoax. (Despite overwhelming common sense evidence to the contrary.) Phew. That's a relief. The kids can go back to playing, and their parents can go back to old wasteful habits, and business as usual, and everyone can make a few more fast short sighted bucks burning the remaining few decades (or even centuries) worth of fossil fuels with reckless abandon and greed. After all, what good will renewable resources be in 100 years when we're out of fossil fuels? Oh wait...

 

No, never mind that, burn everything that burns. How could a planet designed by an all knowing, all loving creator god ever cease to support His most precious creation, ME? Poppycock. Like the brilliant philosopher "mechicurus" once said, "I don't even need to look into this, I know man made climate change is about as real as big foot". Thus, it can be logically deduced that with man made climate change disproved, "naturally occurring climate change" must also pose no threat to humanity whatsoever. It does not require my consideration since I will die before it becomes a threat. HAHA!! I mean, it's just happening like it's always happened, and ice ages are a common occurrence on the earth, (say the scientists I don't trust), and since the fear mongering selfish criminal scientists can't prove we're causing it, but can prove it has always happened (double standard), we should just sit idly by and let it happen again.

 

Or, is it the criminals who perpetuate denial scams like this one upon the world who will be put on trial? Those who deny the seriousness of the threat to future generation's must be held to account - and it won't be long before the truth is even more crystal clear than it already is. This is one more battle where hard working, sincere, thinking men and women have to fight harder than they should against religiously guided ignorant and biased humans who will stop at nothing to preserve their own delusional world view. When not fighting these individuals they must fight the greedy, monetarily religious bias that causes "leaks" like this to be believable, and possibly even true.

 

In any case, like the blogger said (even though I've completely bastardized his comments by now) the denialists are clever, I'll give them that, but they will be seen by history for what they are. Liars"

Edited November 21, 2009 by chiplee

[89PalermoSHP]

whether or not global warming is a real issue, the (top)people who are forcing this down our throats are not interested in "saving the planet" for future generation they are only concerned with how it will benefit them politically or financially. if they were so concerned with saving the planet for future generations how is it possible they let our economy get into the situation it is in. one word, GREED.

[Mazarin]

That's the thing. The Earth is burning to a cinder. There's 2 views: I can do something about it, or there's not a whole hellova lot I can do about it.

 

Waste is bad, for sure - no mater what side your belief is on this. But why is it so far-fetched to think that someone or some group who stands to make BILLIONS of dollars from saying the world is coming to an end wouldn't try to aleviate that change when they see it's not going as they thought? "Global Warming" changing to "Climate Change" is about as obvious as it gets, in my humble opinion. That's about as ridiculous a changing "Heart Atack" to "Blood Pressue Change."

 

People who have followed Farmer's Almanacs for generations have known this all along. Now that something's come up to back them, it's time for defensive strategies? Come on, admitting that something was wrong's not that big a deal, even Democrats can be wrong. I know it'll happen someday.

 

But take heart that all the people who beleive as you do are already on the job to squelch this, and I doubt this will be more than a hiccup between Health Care Reform and Bowing to Communists on the news.

[BrazilBoy]

whether or not global warming is a real issue, the (top)people who are forcing this down our throats are not interested in "saving the planet" for future generation they are only concerned with how it will benefit them politically or financially. if they were so concerned with saving the planet for future generations how is it possible they let our economy get into the situation it is in. one word, GREED.

Well said Jesse....that is exactly why they are so intent on this...I respect the planet and teach my kids too aswell..But not to get crazy about, just common sense..

 

Should we look for alternative energy sure, should we get taxed out the backside for it,no....

 

~Roberto

[brianpaul98]

Anyone who cannot fathom the idea that there are EXTREMELY RICH AND POWERFUL people in this world that will do anything they can to hold onto that power and wealth are very sad, very gullible and very disillusioned people. I honestly have to say this is great news no matter what side you are on and no I don't mean the left or the right I mean whether you believe or don't believe in Al Gores religion of Global Warming. I do believe in natural climate change but I don't believe for a minute that we as humans are affecting it or could possibly affect it in any way. With all this new, secret, hidden information being released the truth will come out and your right the real liars will be exposed. Choose your side wisely and intelligently because you might just be a follower of the ones who seek to make you look the fool. Edited November 21, 2009 by brianpaul98

[JustPaus_88TSi]

I was going to post but a blog commenter said it better than I care to take the time to say it so I'll just reference his input, with a bit of paraphrased expounding and extra emphasis placed on the sarcastic bits by yours truly.

 

 

In any case, like the blogger said (even though I've completely bastardized his comments by now) the denialists are clever, I'll give them that, but they will be seen by history for what they are. Liars"

 

 

 

Chip, I would have hoped for so much more from you. So much more.

 

 

Again, instead of clinging to your "religion is bad, and anything contrary to my beliefs much be religiously driven" view, please remember who posted this thread. I have no religion, it doesn't exist in my life.

 

I think you said it best some time ago, in another thread when you were speaking of the intellectually dishonest. Brother, what in the hell do you think this is? "Scientists" who pick and choose data, or fabricate it entirely to suit their view. It's even worse than the "dishonest" people you spoke of before who can't be honest with themselves, who have nothing to gain except to remain ignorant. These people however, can effect policy and have pushed and pushed for legislation. These are people who I have to trust based on my non-religious view. Without science, what is there? Nothing. Okay, without trustworthy scientists, what is science? Nothing.

 

Instead of posting someone's blog that you found funny, please address this for what it is. Don't sit there and try to lump my view in with those who will take from this situation the opportunity to "wide brush paint" the entire "environmental heating/cooling" proponents as completely faulty.

 

My assertion is that this specific CRU group is fraudulant to its very core. As a biotechnology student in the past, do you think I could get away with not disclosing my sources or data? Not a chance in hell. Not even for the most simple of labs. Even further, would I dare say to my professor, "yeah, I have the data, but i'm not going to let you see it"? Put that into perspective, and take it even further as to go against the FOIA(freedom of information act, for those who didn't know) and tell everyone who questions the data to piss off.

 

 

And you speak of intellectual honesty, albeit pertaining to a different topic. But I would seriously expect people, most certainly and especially you, to hold these types of people to the highest standards possible.

 

Therefore Chip, I refuse your comments thus far. Flat out and uttery refuse to accept that you, as an intellectual, would subscribe to the idea that this is anything but an issue with CRU and their practices.

[Chad]

What this does which concerns me the most, is it gives insurmountable ammunition to the conspiracy theorist. I'll also no longer be able to trust any thing on the matter that isn't well supported -and- accepted -and- proven out over a long time period, which is unfortunate.

 

My personal opinion : it's a natural global shift, it may last (continue) or may not (return to mid 1900's climate), but either way, we are making it more severe, and that is preventable.

 

It's happened many times, recently. Look at ancient Egypt, it's almost a wasteland, but was not at the time they created their civilization, and it wasn't fossle fuels that caused it. I would be very supprised if the worst case came true in my lifetime, but I won't be supprised if there are negitive changes that can be measured that are/were our fault.

 

I think a lot of the pressure to make big changes now is based on the fact that it will take decades to actually make a difference, so we are better to start now than to wait. Not unlike saving certain species that were going extinct by way of over hunting or habitat loss.

[Mech]

Should we stop deforestation, recycle everything, quit dumping toxic waste into rivers etc etc...?? YEP

 

Should we believe in man made global warming?? NOPE

 

Human being occupy LESS than 2% land mass of the planet...75% being ocean and 25% being land. 2% thats it....and how much of the 2 percentage is large polluting cities with cars and factories? not much. The Earth is enormous....volcanoes that have erupted have put more crap in the air then we could possibly do....

 

 

When you put it in to perspective doesnt seem like a lot does it? When they say "tons of pollution into the atmosphere a year" or whatever...Its nothing.

 

And im not going to get into the other things, like the atomic atmospheric testing that was going on decades ago, and the myriad of other things that were harmful to the precious bubbble that we live in. Which in this case, is man made...but only by the few mad scientists, not us peasants.

 

And, cars have become so much more efficient and cleaner,tighter regulations on factories, less consumption of electricity with more efficient appliances, and on and on...So how are things getter worse??

 

Everyone that believes in GW....are you ready to walk the walk? give up your automobile? Stop using paper products and electricity? If humanity is really on the brink of disaster, then why arent you doing something about it? Yea, its all " we should do this, we should do that" but you arent ready to give it up...it should be everyone but YOU, because you like living your nice lifestyle....

[Mech]

I was going to post but a blog commenter said it better than I care to take the time to say it so I'll just reference his input, with a bit of paraphrased expounding and extra emphasis placed on the sarcastic bits by yours truly.

 

"What a wonderful day for humanity!!!

 

According to this unconfirmed leak it turns out we are all safe after all, and that it was all a hoax. (Despite overwhelming common sense evidence to the contrary.) Phew. That's a relief. The kids can go back to playing, and their parents can go back to old wasteful habits, and business as usual, and everyone can make a few more fast short sighted bucks burning the remaining few decades (or even centuries) worth of fossil fuels with reckless abandon and greed. After all, what good will renewable resources be in 100 years when we're out of fossil fuels? Oh wait...

 

No, never mind that, burn everything that burns. How could a planet designed by an all knowing, all loving creator god ever cease to support His most precious creation, ME? Poppycock. Like the brilliant philosopher "mechicurus" once said, "I don't even need to look into this, I know man made climate change is about as real as big foot". Thus, it can be logically deduced that with man made climate change disproved, "naturally occurring climate change" must also pose no threat to humanity whatsoever. It does not require my consideration since I will die before it becomes a threat. HAHA!! I mean, it's just happening like it's always happened, and ice ages are a common occurrence on the earth, (say the scientists I don't trust), and since the fear mongering selfish criminal scientists can't prove we're causing it, but can prove it has always happened (double standard), we should just sit idly by and let it happen again.

 

Or, is it the criminals who perpetuate denial scams like this one upon the world who will be put on trial? Those who deny the seriousness of the threat to future generation's must be held to account - and it won't be long before the truth is even more crystal clear than it already is. This is one more battle where hard working, sincere, thinking men and women have to fight harder than they should against religiously guided ignorant and biased humans who will stop at nothing to preserve their own delusional world view. When not fighting these individuals they must fight the greedy, monetarily religious bias that causes "leaks" like this to be believable, and possibly even true.

 

In any case, like the blogger said (even though I've completely bastardized his comments by now) the denialists are clever, I'll give them that, but they will be seen by history for what they are. Liars"

 

Chip, im glad you are doing your part...ya know...driving gas guzzling cars, flying jet planes, dropping depleted uranium bombs whose dust gets thrown into the atmosphere and spreads around the planet...

 

Heres an interesting read for you..

 

Here

 

And if you want to compare my carbon foot print to yours...I dont even own a car and our water here at my house is solar heated.....

 

Lets see what garbo excuses and fancy jargon you come up with...

[BrazilBoy]

Should we stop deforestation, recycle everything, quit dumping toxic waste into rivers etc etc...?? YEP

 

Should we believe in man made global warming?? NOPE

 

Human being occupy LESS than 2% land mass of the planet...75% being ocean and 25% being land. 2% thats it....and how much of the 2 percentage is large polluting cities with cars and factories? not much. The Earth is enormous....volcanoes that have erupted have put more crap in the air then we could possibly do....

 

EXACTLY...here I live 10 miles from an active volcano...We have VOG warning days, my kids school has sensors and alarms incase the air gets toxic enough to hurt them...Radio reports daily of vog conditions...That stuff sticks to your paint and glass so thick you can't see out hardly and must scrub the heck out of it just to get it off enough to see.....

 

To respect the planet definately!!!.....to let the government scare people and kids so they can tax you into a hut instead of a home is ridiculous..

If you look at those whom have been the most vocal about this they fly about in G4's and cruise around in limos....If they lived they way they preached I would atleast give them credit for believing thier own bs..These are hypocrites and thieves at best..

What is undeniable is the billions this has generated for them...and this will be the greatest global fraud ever made...