« Previous | Main | Next »

'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications

Paul Hudson | 13:07 UK time, Monday, 23 November 2009


Very busy with forecast duties right now, but I do intend to write a blog regarding the UK Climate research centre (CRU) being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.

I will add comment on this page as soon as I can free up some time. But I will in the meantime answer the question regarding the chain of e-mails which you have been commenting about on my blog, which can be seen here, and whether they are genuine or part of an elaborate hoax.

I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

More later.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 1:43pm on 23 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Well done Paul - it's about time there was proper coverage of this story and we welcome any departure from the BBCs usual obfuscation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 3:56pm on 23 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Well done Paul on declaring authentication. You have shamed your colleague Richard Black on this issue.

    The BBC should not be censoring replies on this serious matter in order to silence a proper debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 4:01pm on 23 Nov 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Nice one Paul the UK's answer to Anthony Watts in the making. Just remember it is not a clean fight. Emails are easy to deal with it is the code that really counts. Keep your source covered and confidential there is more to come.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 4:03pm on 23 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    October 12th you say? You're not the hacker are you Mr. Hudson?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 4:06pm on 23 Nov 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Superb Paul!
    Richard Black's blog does not allow us to post links to any incriminating evidence and you provide a link for us. And the emails you have highlighted are the ones that show, amongst other things, that these world renowned climate scientists have not got a clue about what is going on.
    'The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! '
    I think you are up for the next Nobel Peace Prize

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 4:21pm on 23 Nov 2009, spectrum wrote:

    Paul. Did you notice Michael Mann saying he was going to contact the BBC and met office to complain about you. He was going to contact that nice, co-operative Richard Black to see what had happened that you had been allowed to publish your sceptic views.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 4:22pm on 23 Nov 2009, spectrum wrote:

    Paul. This is what Mann said

    '...extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).
    ...We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
    '

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 4:29pm on 23 Nov 2009, Andydaws wrote:

    OK, where do we start...Of course, we'll write this with the Moderators in mind.

    First, Paul, congratulations on having correctly called the “state of play” on the temperature trend of the last decade (actually, on a linear model, we have to extend to 1997 to get a trend of more that 0.35C/century – versus a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.2C.) Despite a good deal of obfuscation and criticism when you first posted, that conclusion seems pretty well acknowledged - ALLEGEDLY.

    Second, re authenticity – as far as I can tell, none of the ALLEGED protagonists are claiming the ALLEGED material is anything other than completely authentic.

    Third, there looks to be a VERY good chance that there's no hacking involved. On his “Climate Audit” website, Steve McIntyre, the “bete noir” of the CRU points out he'd just received yet another refusal for the release of data dated on about the date that the file found it's way onto the Russian site; that the file is ALLEGEDLY dated a day or two before the letter turning him down. Also, the file's ALLEGEDLY titled “foi2009”, and that it's ALLEGED metadata shows is consistent with that ALLEGED creation date and ALLEGED title.

    Which rather suggests an internal leak, not a hack at all. Not that your colleagues Black & Harrabin appear to have so much as considered that possibility.

    Fourth, the more recent developments from the ALLEGED analysis of the ALLEGED material are now focussing not on the ALLEGED e-mails, but on the ALLEGED fortran code, and an ALLEGED “read me” programmers file. Apparently and ALLEGEDLY there's a chap called “Harry” who could possibly be undergoing a very uncomfortable ALLEGED time. ALLEGEDLY the ALLEGED “READ ME” makes very clear just how extreme the ALLEGED measures taken to ALLEGEDLY ensure that the paleoclimate studies produced the ALLEGEDLY desired “hockey stick” shape. Further the ALLEGED file ALLEGEDLY shows that the basic data set is ALLEGEDLY corrupted beyond all recognition, due to ALLEGEDLY poor data management practices.

    The ALLEGEDLY significant issue with the ALLEGED “hockey stick” treatment is that the code is ALLEGEDLY designed to ALLEGEDLY overwrite all treering proxy data after 1960, because it ALLEGEDLY shows poor ALLEGED agreement with instrumental temperature records, but ALLEGEDLY treats the tree-rings as a reliable proxy for temperature before 1960. That's ALLEGEDLY very questionable practice.......

    Some of the other ALLEGED issues raised by the ALLEGED documents ALLEGEDLY include

    ALLEGED efforts to get sceptical academics removed from post.
    ALLEGED efforts to stop critical journals getting published
    ALLEGED admissions that there is a static/cooling trend that ALLEGEDLY can't be explained by the current models – amusingly, that's ALLEGEDLY a problem with the data, not the models....ALLEGEDLY, it's a travesty!
    ALLEGED breaches of Freedom of Information legislation.
    ALLEGED attempts to get another BBC journalist to bring Paul to task for writing the “whatever happened to Global Warming” piece...
    ALLEGED discussions about changing the Sea Surface temperature record to make an unfortunate warm even in the 1940s go away.

    Amidst other stuff.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 4:30pm on 23 Nov 2009, EdBhoy wrote:

    The BBC is greatly underestimating the importance of this story. It should be on every news bulletin. There are dozens of newspapers and blogs around the world running with the story, but we the people who fund the BBC have to dig into the deepest recesses of your website to find a forum to discuss the issue. I know that Nigel Lawson was given some time on Radio 4 this morning but this issue is huge and deserves detailed analysis and not by the usual stream of climate alarmists who refuse to consider the inadequacy of the data upon which they have built their global warming church.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 4:34pm on 23 Nov 2009, Pete-R wrote:

    Yes well done Paul, you should be promoted immediately to Chief Environment Correspondent. Oh, on second thoughts, you do much better closer to your viewers, and the real debate which is out there. Stay where you are ;-D

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 4:50pm on 23 Nov 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    I think it is worth watching Paul's presentation 'Climate Change talk at the National Carbon Action Conference Conference in 2009' (see Wikipedia).

    He speaks very clearly on the science of climate change and the anthropogenic threat.

    What is interesting, in regard to the CRU hack, is the mixing of politics with science.

    I would welcome Lord Lawson's call for a public inquiry on the issues the 'hack' has brought up. Hey it may even settle things down - perhaps calm the shrill voices (on both sides).

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 4:57pm on 23 Nov 2009, vidl wrote:

    @EdBhoy #9
    "The BBC is greatly underestimating the importance of this story"

    They're not underestimating it, they're deciding how best to retract years of biased reporting (and tell 35 people that their jolly to Copenhagen should be cancelled and save all that lovely licence-payers money). [not likely, though].

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 5:47pm on 23 Nov 2009, David Johnson wrote:

    Thank you for posting this story. It is good to see that some people are prepared to air views that may not necessarily agree with their own

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 5:57pm on 23 Nov 2009, kh1234567890 wrote:

    "I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October"

    And you just sat on it for a month, hoping that it will go away ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 6:09pm on 23 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    I'm so sick of waiting, I almost wish Al Gore hadn't invernted the internet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 6:12pm on 23 Nov 2009, vidl wrote:

    "I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October"

    From where? Go on, tell us :)

    ps. I would like to send you a box of Roses as a thank-you for being the ONLY person at the BBC with ANY integrity. Wood Lane?

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 6:27pm on 23 Nov 2009, EPF wrote:

    1) Where is the proof these e-mails were not tampered with by the hackers?

    2) Seeing as gang members are going to be prosecuted even if they don't throw a punch or kick, can Mr Hudson be prostecuted under similar grounds by the CPS on behalf of UEA, he didn't do the hack, but he is clearly complicit in this by passing the information on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 6:38pm on 23 Nov 2009, Andydaws wrote:

    Another allegation allegedly from a site which alleges it has alleged posters who allege they have the alleged files.

    One poster, alleges that he's worked through the alleged code (allegedly FORTRAN) used allegedly in one of the allegedly major allegedly dendrochronological alleged reconstructions. He alledges that this alledged code (from an allegedly major figure) not only shows the alleged manipulationg of alleged post 1960 alleged divergence between alleged dendro records and alleged instrumental temperatures (allegedly "hiding the (alleged) decline"), but also (allegedly) a manual adjustment to allegedly avoid showing allegedly high temperatures in the alleged 1930s.

    ...(takes a deep breath)...

    Which, if true, would be a "smoking gun" for scientific fraud.

    Allegedly

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 7:00pm on 23 Nov 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    I would guess that the 12th October email was the one mentioning Paul's article and not the full package.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 7:15pm on 23 Nov 2009, Lucy_Skywalker wrote:

    Paul
    I saw your article earlier that gave me great hope the BBC might at last be starting to stop gagging the skeptics and their science. Soon after I saw another article of yours where it seemed you were toe-ing the party line again. Perhaps that was the only way you could survive in the BBC at that time.

    I'm really glad you are looking at CRUdGATE material here. I have no idea if you realize how many folk used to have high respect for the BBC and have been shocked and dismayed to see the changes in the BBC regarding Climate Science and the whole loss of principles - loss of fair reporting. Many of us still value integrity - and the courtesy that commonly accompanies real integrity. There is no shame in owning up and saying I'm sorry, I was wrong - it may feel uncomfortable but people think a lot more of you in the long run - but actions need to be seen to follow words, and justice needs to be seen to be done.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 7:23pm on 23 Nov 2009, EPF wrote:

    I take it i'm not allowed to point out the potential legal ramifications for the BBC due to the actions of Mr Hudson?

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 7:40pm on 23 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    The discussion on the Politics Show today between Profs Singer and Watson shows all is not lost at the BBC (or are changing). Singer won hands down.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 7:52pm on 23 Nov 2009, smroet wrote:

    Well, let's see how climate scientists work, should these files be genuine: in a most interesting series of notes, packaged in a README file by the fellow named 'HARRY', one can come across the following phrase "It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." This is how science is done, I guess: people working very hard to make it all work, yet others in their armchairs wondering whether it could not have been done better. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and it would be nice if in this case the data is simply public, and the software to analyse it as well. In some branches of science, that is how it works, so why not in climate science?

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 7:54pm on 23 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    When I read the box in the upper right of the blog I see an honest description of someone who genuinely has a love for the subject he reports on. It doesn't matter which side of the AGW debate you are on. I believe that this man is a paragon of integrity and that he will tell the truth as he sees it. Mr. Hudson has a big advantage over those who make lots of noise on both sides: he's eminently qualified to comment on this and he certainly has the patience of Job.

    Also, if these leaks are true he'll have forgiven the unforgivable recently. Unconditional forgiveness makes truly great people.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 8:42pm on 23 Nov 2009, Marcus Garvey wrote:

    Well, I had a skim through some of the messages and fail to see the evidence of a global conspiracy. And remember the ones released are those selected from over a decades worth as, I'm assuming, the worst.

    I reckon this is one of those cases where you see what you want to see. Lets face it, those people jumping up and down with excitement were already convinced climate change was a crock. And I'm honest enough to admit my mind was made up too, from the evidence I've seen the climate is changing.

    And evidence is just what it should come back to - let's stick to the science please. Instead of obssessing over other peoples data, if the case for climate change is so flimsy then whats to stop anyone going and collecting their own data that refutes it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 9:03pm on 23 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    Marcus, it's always wise to keep an open mind; try this while you wait: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/cloud-forecasting-and-cosmic-r.shtml

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 9:18pm on 23 Nov 2009, Andydaws wrote:

    Marcus,

    your thoughts?

    printf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’
    printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
    printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
    printf,1
    printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
    printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
    printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
    printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
    printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’

    \FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro

    ;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
    ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    [
    \FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro]

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 10:13pm on 23 Nov 2009, Marcus Garvey wrote:

    Sounds to me like scientists playing around with their data rather than evidence of a global conspiracy. Like I said I'm sure we'll all see what we want to see.

    I've not read the Osborne 2004 paper referred to, so I don't know the context. But I do know this - the email is talking about tree rings, i.e. for proxy reconstructions of historical climate. The interesting thing is that we don't need proxies for climate 1961-90, we have direct measurements. Why would you fabricate the proxies for that period then? I'm guessing here, but it's possible that they were removing data that made a poor fit to recent climate as a way of calibrating their reconstruction of past climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 10:24pm on 23 Nov 2009, Lucy_Skywalker wrote:

    Paul, you gave the date of 12th October. Did you mean 12th November??

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 10:31pm on 23 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    "The interesting thing is that we don't need proxies for climate 1961-90, we have direct measurements. Why would you fabricate the proxies for that period then?"

    If the tree rings don't agree with the thermometer from 1961-1990 why would you believe that they are accurate for any other year? Or use them to construct a thousand year global temperature record for that matter? Some trees grow faster than others for various reasons. Bears poo near some trees sometimes. Sometimes every tree on Earth grows faster for obscure and counterintuitive reasons: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 10:47pm on 23 Nov 2009, Marcus Garvey wrote:

    Yes, you're right some trees grow faster than others for a great many reasons. Thats why it's important to make sure you select the correct ones for use in any climate reconstruction. Hence why you would want to calibrate. Still, this is all conjecture, I'm sure the author will do a much better job of defending himself than I can. At the very least I've demonstrated that the email is ambiguous and far from the "smoking gun" it was presented as.

    Funny though, if it's such a conspiracy, that reconstructions using tree rings, ice cores, coral etc all roughly agree. And funny that, if its such a conspiracy, a sceptical scientist doesnt gather data for their reconstruction and come up with something that falsifies it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 10:53pm on 23 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    "Thats why it's important to make sure you select the correct ones for use in any climate reconstruction. Hence why you would want to calibrate."

    They did neither. Their samples were laughably small and the ones supporting the paper were, in my opinion, "cherry-picked." I'm sick of that phrase. If ice core temperature data was somehow calibrated by tree rings (I'm guessing and hoping it wasn't) then humanity has no global temperature record.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 11:05pm on 23 Nov 2009, Marcus Garvey wrote:

    No, you misunderstand. The different proxies, i.e. tree rings, ice cores etc, all independently came up with similar results not calibrated against each other.

    And you still have no answer to why a sceptic couldnt gather their own data, do their own reconstruction and disprove it all. It would be easy enough. From what I can see the sceptics spend all their time picking over other peoples papers, data, methodologies, emails etc. Dont get me wrong, the implications of climate change are huge and so it's reasonable that a high standard of evidence should be expected. However, thats not whats going on here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 00:00am on 24 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    Marcus,

    Yeah, but does Esper's match the others so well? And should the ice caps agree with the other tree samples? They wouldn't at the moment. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    You're right though. 2 people to collect the tree ring samples, two people (possilbly the same two) to do the science and write the paper, and a handful to review and rubberstamp the paper. You could do it with a motivated basketball team. Certainly with a hockey team.

    I sure hope the Sun starts showing the 50+ sunspot number NASA's prof. Hathaway predicted soon. Otherwise the 2030 World Cup might be hockey instead of soccer. And I'm not talking about field hockey.

    Hay, I just though of a great name for a hockey team: "The Vandals."

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 00:08am on 24 Nov 2009, Paul Hamer wrote:

    Paul, are you actually admitting to having had possession of the (allegedly) illegally obtained data for over a month without informing the respective parties that they'd been hacked? This may not be illegal, but appears to be deeply unethical if true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 00:38am on 24 Nov 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Before more aspersions are cast, I am assuming that the email mentioned by Paul concerns the post “Whatever happened to global warming” on the 9th October and mentioned by Richard Black on the 13th October.
    Included in but not the recent leak.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 01:00am on 24 Nov 2009, Paul Hamer wrote:

    OK, sorry, I withdraw my comment. Thank you for the clarification RobWansbeck.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 01:03am on 24 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    Better write that blog tonight Paul; or you'll miss the boat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 01:29am on 24 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    It was the Sun all along.

    How they ALLEGEDY conned the world:(just an opinion I agree with you understand)

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    Steve McIntyre for World President.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 03:49am on 24 Nov 2009, Steamboat wrote:

    I assume you mean Nov 12th.

    Else, how did you get a copy of an email (1257888920.txt) written Nov 10 in a file you supposedly received in October?

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 08:24am on 24 Nov 2009, Gadgetfiend wrote:

    Hi Paul,
    I'd welcome a comment on the latest announcement from the Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council, saying that the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm)
    They seem to suggest that globalwarming is set to continue and possibly increase if we don't change our carbon greedy ways. That sounds like no change to the official line even though there is evidence that it may not happen quite as they predict and an inability to explain certain anomolies in the prediction model.

    Predicting the behaviour of a substantially chaotic system like world climate is obviously extremely complex and models will always have some degree of inaccuracy. Admiting that seems to be beyond the pale for some people.

    I was always taught to have an open mind and to question things regardless of weight of opinion supporting a particular view, something that most scientists subscribe to but that history shows is a trait so often stifled by the establishment of the day. Are we seeing yet another example unfolding here. I would have hoped for better in these supposedly enlightened times.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 08:34am on 24 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #41 Wonder what they base their 'evidence' on - surely not the discredited CRU temperature output.
    I've just read Fergal's #39 and followed the links - fascinating insight - we owe Steve McIntyre a deep debt of gratitude for his tenacity in following up these so called 'peer-reviewed' reports and proving just what a sham they are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 09:20am on 24 Nov 2009, Paul Kerr wrote:

    It is quite extraordinary that the news section of the BBC website is full of the most extreme scare stories about global warming and not one serious skeptical article appears to be allowed. So much for a ballanced approach!
    Even last nights Newsnight feature was so poorly presented it was embarassing. I am quite sure people thought it was some fringe issue that was too obscure too understand.
    The main point about the emails, is not that they represent the views of a few scintists at CRU, it is 13yrs of discussion laid bare. Many of the main players all over the world are involved. Jeremy Paxman seemed to have little understanding of this but yes most of it is mundane.It needs to be taken as a whole and the trends in the methodologies examined. It is also obvious CO2 is only a small part of the climate change story (from the emails) so we can only hope someone is reading them before rushing of to tax the world. Without any prejudice they now represent a historical record.
    The politics and money are now overwhelmingly the driving force with dissenting voices being shunned except in blogs. The scientists even discuss blocking access to peer review journals and the IPCC. I presume the BBC work in a similar fashion. If these emails had been about politicians expenses would they have felt so anxious?
    Models and projectons of climate proved to be quite wrong for the last decade because observational science is hugely difficult and computer programs produce answers according to how they are written

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 09:25am on 24 Nov 2009, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    #40 Some of you are STILL MISINTERPRETING PAUL HUDSON'S COMMENT.
    I'm sure he means he received the short batch of emails that explicitly referred to him, not the entire hacked package. See #19, 26 from Rob.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 09:26am on 24 Nov 2009, Lloyd wrote:

    Paul you need to address the question - asked several times - as to why you sat on these emails for so long?

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 09:41am on 24 Nov 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    Paul - you have been a great source of information, esp. the solar stuff. I am amazed that such uncertainties in climate science do not temper the findings of the IPCC. Am awaiting your take on the CRU 'Climategate' issue.

    The work at CERN [CERN/SPSC 2000-021] makes for an interesting read: 'A STUDY OF THE LINK BETWEEN COSMIC RAYS AND CLOUDS WITH A CLOUD CHAMBER AT THE CERN PS'

    Very interesting quote (conclusion pg. 81) - "If this link between cosmic rays and clouds is real, it provides a major mechanism for climate change. During the 20th Century the cosmic rays reaching the Earth diminished by about 15% as a result of increasing vigour in the solar wind, which scatters the cosmic rays. The inferred reduction in cloud cover could have warmed the Earth by a large fraction of the amount currently estimated to be due to man-made carbon dioxide."

    The link between Sunspot length and Temp. anomaly (see fig. 2 pg. 4) is an amazing fit! Is this a dead theory? Would like to know more - thanks!

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 10:26am on 24 Nov 2009, SmokingDeepThroat wrote:

    Isn't it a sad state of affairs - when once we would have gone to the BBC to find out what's going on, we now have to go to the internet because the BBC is pretty much ignoring it? Of course, there is a reason; Richard Black is 'involved' and the BBC greatly involved in general in distributing the myth of man-made global warming.

    It's a sad day for the BBC - it really is, and a sad day for us as owners of it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 10:36am on 24 Nov 2009, Andydaws wrote:

    one for the nerdier amongst us..

    (moderators, before you block this one, from Richard Black's blog of last evening.....

    "Update 3 – 2116 GMT Monday 23 November: As lots of material apparently from the stolen batch of CRU e-mails is now in the public domain, we will not from now on be removing comments simply because they quote from these e-mails.")

    So,

    quoting from one of the files that sets out the code used to do the Dendrochronological analysis

    "\FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro

    ;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
    ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor"

    Notice something - it's not only the latter periods that are "ARTIFICIALLY correct(ed) for decline" - it looks as though earlier periods are also "adjusted" to remove indications of higher temperature (the negative figures in the "valadj" series. Those who are better than I am with fortran reckon (on other blogs) that that is applied to remove evidence that the 1930s were warmer than is comfortable for the AGW case.

    Ironically, this was exactly what was later admitted by NASA when they had to make adjustments to the temperature record after yet another of Steve McIntyre's critiques.

    All in all, these figures aren't just "adjusted" They're downright rigged. The term "fudge factor" says it all.

    Paul, is this one to follow up?





    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 10:37am on 24 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote:

    Paul,

    You can ask no more of a man than that he does what he believes to be the right thing. That's what you're doing now and more power to you.

    I can't speak for other sceptics but I'm in that camp not because I want to disprove AGW but because I want to get to the truth. We need people like you who are prepared to present both sides in a fair manner if we're to get to the heart of the matter.

    It may turn out that AGW scientists are right and if that's the case then that's OK - as long as it's based on science and not politics and environmental marxism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 10:44am on 24 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Who forwarded you the emails Paul?

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 11:00am on 24 Nov 2009, SmokingDeepThroat wrote:

    The BBC have kept saying "stolen emails". How do they know? I say this because there's speculation that it was by put up on an FTP directory which was on the same CPU as the external webserver. It was therefore 'there' to be read. With a careful eye here on what the moderators here would class as not acceptable, there is a name to this person who works for the CRU - but if I say it then this post may be removed. It would therefore be no conspiracy, this person isn't a hacker, and the emails weren't stolen. So why do the BBC keep insisting the emails were "stolen" when there is no proof of that?

    A few years back I read something on a website which I clearly wasn't intended to be able to see. However, all I had done was to remove a part of the URL address bar. I thinks that's what may of happened here; the emails were innocently (but stupidly) placed on a FTP directory, and therefore publicly accessible if someone knew where to look. The BBC's insistence on referring to the emails as "stolen" is annoying, and reminds me of the MPs paying more attention to getting the police to investigate how expenses came to be known to the Daily Telegraph - rather than apologising for what had been done.

    I repeat, a sad day for the BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 11:10am on 24 Nov 2009, John Marshall wrote:

    At last a BBC admission that error has crept into HADCRUT data. This has been said for years but has been ignored by the mainstream media. It has been obvious for years that some of the more notable scientific journals, Nature, Science, Scientific American to name but three, refused to publish ANY paper that refuted the AGW theories. What did they have to fear if they were going down the correct road and climate scepticism was flawed? There were many papers refering to Antarctic melting using model temperature proxies because the ground station was hidden by snow/ice. This was Dr Mann's favoured method just to produce the jolly old hockey stick graph.
    I have said before temperature proxies can be accurate but can misslead and dendrotemperature is one. Someone asked why a tree ring proxy is taken for a period for which we ave accurate temperature data. This is the only way to discover if this proxy actually works but you have to take all variables into account and problematically tree rings are affected by too many of these variables to make them a temperature proxy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 11:10am on 24 Nov 2009, Andydaws wrote:

    A small addendum to #48 above.

    What this also shows is that the person responsible for the code felt it necessary to "correct" his data for 13 out of the 20 5 year periods for which he had both dendro and instrumented temperature records. In other words, the temperatures inferred from the tree ring records were significantly wrong 65% of the time.

    And yet, they felt able to claim that this is a reliable method of measuring temperatures up to 2,000 years ago......

    Where I come from, there's an expression for trying to do the impossible - "It's like plaiting fog".

    It seems aposite for what Jones, Briffa et al were doing at CRU.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 11:12am on 24 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Who forwarded the emails Paul?

    I quote from your 12th Oct blog: A few points about my article


    "Mine is by no means the only recent contribution to the argument on the BBC site. Many other reports by a number of correspondents have been published. For example, as Richard Black explains here, knowing how our climate and C02 emissions have changed in the past is just as important as predicting what it's going to do in the future."

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 11:19am on 24 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Who forwarded you the emails Paul?

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 11:27am on 24 Nov 2009, SmokingDeepThroat wrote:

    The BBC just don't want to do themselves any favours, do they?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm
    Where's Wally? Push it in a corner guys, there it will just look even more conspicuous! Some people never learn.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 12:30pm on 24 Nov 2009, Robinson wrote:

    " And you still have no answer to why a sceptic couldnt gather their own data, do their own reconstruction and disprove it all. It would be easy enough. From what I can see the sceptics spend all their time picking over other peoples papers, data, methodologies, emails etc. Dont get me wrong, the implications of climate change are huge and so it's reasonable that a high standard of evidence should be expected. However, thats not whats going on here."

    Interestingly this shows you either haven't read, taken in, or followed up the detail of this discussion. There have been attempts to publish articles such as those you describe; many of them are rejected. We now know why! Moreover, I can cite over 400 sceptical papers that did manage to get published, none of which the mainstream media, including the BBC, are interested in. We also see some evidence of collusion between the main players here and certain players at the BBC. All very disappointing, from a journalism perspective, but really no different to certain people enjoying the hospitality of Parliamentary tea rooms and bars, rather than reporting on, say, the expenses scandal, which they all knew about.

    The problem here is that as Wegman pointed out, there is a little cabal at the centre of the publication process, reviewing each other's papers and rejecting or attempting to game the review process against those it disagrees with. It's hardly surprising you don't see much by way of contradiction in the literature, is it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 12:38pm on 24 Nov 2009, Russ Williams wrote:

    @18, Andydaws:
    "the alleged code (allegedly FORTRAN)"

    Well, as a software engineer with a good few years' experience and who has looked at the code in question, I can say that those particular allegations are false ;-)

    In my professional opinion, the so-called code is absolutely appalling, and shouldn't be relied upon for anything more complex than a shopping list - which doesn't bode well for the research based upon it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 12:45pm on 24 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Who forwarded you the emails Paul?



    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 12:45pm on 24 Nov 2009, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    The mainstream media, (notably the BBC) and the other "eminent" climate scientists are only responding to a “few emails” even if they now are beginning to admit that some of them really do seem to mean what they say they mean. (George Monbiot)

    Although these emails are bad enough and clearly very damning to the reputations of the former "eminent" scientists, what all these people have refused to touch (with the proverbial barge pole) is the leaked code, the meta data and the comments in that data.

    THAT is where the real damning evidence lays and that is what they are avoiding like the plague.

    That data shows that the entire temperature reconstruction underpinning the CRU's contention that temperatures now are significantly warmer than in the past 2000 years, is extremely flaky at best, and completely unreliable and utterly worthless at worst.

    The implication of that is that all the other “peer-reviewed” papers that use that temperature reconstruction are also now suspect and is further proof (alongside the admissions in the emails) that the peer-review process has utterly failed to stand up to the rigours of impartial science, and instead has been corrupted and this suggests, (or at least these people can not disprove that) it was used to validate papers based on conclusion, rather than the soundness of the actual scientific method or the soundness of the data used.

    It has been a closed-shop of "agree-ers", pre-picked yes-men to validate papers on the nod. It is easy to find scientific consensus when you limit the crucial data to a small clique of co-conspirators who share the same goals.

    It is like asking the Cardinals in the Vatican if Jesus really is the son of God, but more than this, that Jesus IS god himself, made manifest as man. But instead of them only believing that, they also manage to be the ONLY people who have historical records of Jesus, (which state no such thing), so they employ forgers to "reconstruct" from earlier texts a version of history that matches their beliefs, then releasing that reconstruction to the Jews and followers of Islam and then claiming that ALL Abrahamic religions believe the same thing and to deny this is heretic.

    Hmmmmmmmmmm, where have we heard that sort of thing before?

    The only conclusion that can be drawn from reviewing the data leak, is that the historical temperature reconstruction is not a sound, or reliable reconstruction. Vast parts of it are clearly invented out of thin air. This being the case, I can indeed understand why the CRU would seek to refuse any FOI request. This is not about preventing vexatious requests, but preventing people from getting to the "inconvenient truth" about the incomplete and unreliable state of previous temperature record-keeping, after all, how can one "prove" that the warming of the last 50 years was unusual, if one cannot disprove that there really was a Roman warm period as warm or even warmer than to day, or the medieval warm period, or little ice age, or that the temperatures at the end of the 1930s was as warm as the 1990s?

    This is damning indeed, and for “eminent” scientists to attempt to cover this up, instead of actually deal with the issue of unreliable data, demonstrates that these people are wholly unfit to be the “guardians” of the AGW theory, or the scientific investigation thereof.

    I wonder how many more times the hull of the good ship AGW can be holed below the water-line and yet still float?

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 12:47pm on 24 Nov 2009, SmokingDeepThroat wrote:

    Robinson @ 57. Good post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 12:48pm on 24 Nov 2009, Andrew Lake wrote:

    Please clarify exactly when you received the hacked emails. Have the BBC's lawyers cleared your actions?

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 12:59pm on 24 Nov 2009, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and it would be nice if in this case the data is simply public, and the software to analyse it as well. In some branches of science, that is how it works, so why not in climate science?"

    Because climate science's reputation, and the fate of trillions of dollars of policy and the lives of pretty much everyone on the planet, are to be massively effected by the theory that the CO2 that we produce is going to have a catastrophic effect on the global climate and the evidence for that rests on an assertion that the last 50 years really have been the warmest for over 2000 years, caused by said CO2. And that assertion is based on these temperature reconstructions from proxy data. (because the known historical data of Viking colonies on Greenland and wine growing in Yorkshire, is purely anecdotal, so should be rejected and because these known anomalies would require that the historic temperatures would have to be warmer than current temperatures.)

    Well, now we know how utterly appalling that the CRU temperature reconstruction is, we have seen the code and the coder's own comments.

    This is why these climate scientists dare not open up their code or practice to NORMAL scientific scrutiny, for it exposes them to the allegation of a fraud of catastrophic proportions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 1:02pm on 24 Nov 2009, LabMunkey wrote:


    I want the BBC to investigate and comment on this, as it stands i no longer have confidence in their impartiality (barring your good self).

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 1:18pm on 24 Nov 2009, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    " And you still have no answer to why a sceptic couldnt gather their own data, do their own reconstruction and disprove it all. It would be easy enough. From what I can see the sceptics spend all their time picking over other peoples papers, data, methodologies, emails etc. Dont get me wrong, the implications of climate change are huge and so it's reasonable that a high standard of evidence should be expected. However, thats not whats going on here."

    the leaked CRU data does cut to the very heart of this matter, in addition to the very good response of "57. At 12:30pm on 24 Nov 2009, Robinson", I would add ask you HOW, exactly are we supposed to come up with such a thing when the guardians of the raw data from the temperature stations with-hold it, (and we can see why) and refuse to divulge it, even under a FOI? Easy enough to produce an alternative reconstruction? What? Without any data available? The CRU had to admit that they had LOST much of the original data, (as confirmed by the shoddy data that the coders had to use) and so people were forced to use CRU's reconstruction that was constructed before that data was lost, but not to worry, becuase CRU are full of eminent and reputable scientists!!!!

    People are then forced to use the CRU reconstruction, which has been shown to be unreliable by the comments of the people who were writing the code for it.

    One only has to look at the efforts that HAVE been used to reconstruct what the CRU has come up with to see that others CANNOT use what information is available to them, and still show that the most recent 50 years are the warmest for 2000 years. But then, as Robbinson above noted, these papers do not get published, no matter how sound, or rigourous the science and the data, becuase we have seen a climatalogical mafia control the climate peer review process.

    There, an answer for you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 1:45pm on 24 Nov 2009, Tom wrote:

    From one Yorkie to another, I watch your programmes with interest and those dodgy forecasts!
    Glad you are keeping an open mind Mr. Hudson.
    Man-made CO2 = global warming, not proven.
    The IPCC are not a bunch of bona fide climate scientists who know what they are talking about.
    The Maldives are not being inundated by rising sea levels, Tuvalu is sinking.
    The ice caps are still here and will not disappear anytime soon.
    Mount Kilimanjaro is not losing snow cover because of AGW.
    Alpine glaciers are retreating because of AGW, likely cause something to do with precipitation loss but with some recent warming (natural).
    We are in a warming period of the pleistocene ice age and may at any time revert to a refreeze.
    Heat radiation is released from the atmosphere and into space and not trapped by CO2.
    CO2 is not the major GHG, in fact it is water vapour.
    Mann's hockey stick was a load of tripe.
    The Earth's carbon sink was thought to be finite but is not and greedily soaking up more CO2 than ever.
    The Atlantic AMO is entered into a cooling phase.
    Most heating of the last 30 yrs can be ascribed to natural events such as the El nino effect.
    Remote sensing tells us there has been no significant heating in the atmosphere.
    Many land based temperature recorders have been sited in heat islands and hence do not give true temperature readings.
    Temperatures have not increased since 1998 and have shown slight cooling.
    Most doomsday predictions are based on computer models of dubious programming and consequently are flawed.
    The science is very far from settled.
    I studied Geology and have an avid interest in Geomorphology and climatology, I also love Geography.
    I am no expert but then who is?
    I keep a keen interest in all the latest papers and read pro and con studies.
    I do believe there has been a determined cover-up/fudging of figures and that it's politically inspired, I believe that the left wing are primarily responsible for this and that the implications for true and empirical science are dire.
    This is mainly a scam and because jobs, livelihoods and reputations rely on the AGW Hypothesis - I do not think the truth will out anytime soon, to the detriment of all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 1:46pm on 24 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Who forwarded the emails Paul?

    I quote from your 12th Oct blog: A few points about my article


    "Mine is by no means the only recent contribution to the argument on the BBC site. Many other reports by a number of correspondents have been published. For example, as Richard Black explains here, knowing how our climate and C02 emissions have changed in the past is just as important as predicting what it's going to do in the future."

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 1:50pm on 24 Nov 2009, Andydaws wrote:

    RussWilliams, re #58 - see #48

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 4:09pm on 24 Nov 2009, NikFromNYC wrote:

    How to create a Hockey Stick without actually fudging data:

    (1) Notice that the world has been gradually warming for at least 350 years (using the longest thermometer record which is right in central England where CRU is located) and thus it is hotter now than it has "ever" been.

    (2) Realize that water doesn't melt at all until temperatures rise above a critical value which is called the melting point of ice.

    (3) Find those exact areas on the planet where rising temperatures are just now starting to rise above zero degrees C.

    (4) Make a chart of that specific area that shows, shockingly, that ice has suddenly started to melt faster than it has ever done so. Even have the audacity to claim it's the first time it's started melting at all in many hundreds of years.

    (5) To repeat this scare tactic every generation just move a bit further towards the North Pole.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 4:23pm on 24 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    And this is the challenge science faces: how to communicate itself effectively when public forums such as this descend into a howling groupthink echo-chamber, endlessly recycling anti-science viewpoints, while complaining about imagined suppression and now shamelessly taking huge delight in the theft of private information that shows precisely nothing of any concern. Quote-mining sentences and proclaiming that some great conspiracy is unravelled. Ignoring the measured and rational progress of science in favour of the comfort of the mob.

    Little wonder that the gulf between real scientists and the public is widening. In most topics, public acceptance of science is utterly irrelevant - biologists have experienced some of this, but now it seems mainly to be climate science that must bear the brunt of this disparity.

    I look back at the international action on acid rain and CFCs in response to scientific advice, and wonder if the rise in new media should be seen as a force acting against enlightenment and progress in this instance. For example, google has become useless for finding any genuine information on this topic - the sheer weight of anti-science gibberish has crowded out rational thought shockingly effectively. He who shouts loudest sets the agenda, it seems.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 4:45pm on 24 Nov 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    "while complaining about imagined suppression and now shamelessly taking huge delight in the theft of private information that shows precisely nothing of any concern."

    nothing of concern?? You sir, are obviously not aware of what was in the leaked documents/data.

    wow. just wow.

    " He who shouts loudest sets the agenda, it seems." ironic, that you use this to DEFEND the climate change agenda...

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 4:59pm on 24 Nov 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Dave # 70
    nice PR job
    I dont think the readers of this blog are that gullible - well not any more

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 5:30pm on 24 Nov 2009, Russ Williams wrote:

    @68, Andydaws wrote:
    "RussWilliams, re #58 - see #48"

    Yes, it's shocking. Who uses FORTRAN these days? The "77" in the name is a clue!

    The "code" itself is terrible quality - I really do hesitate to call it code rather than "a pig's breakfast"! Did you spot where they used 22/7 as an approximation to pi? And Harry's comments where he fails to spot an integer overflow in the error term are tragic...

    In new news, there's a CRU statement on UEA's website, with a graph where they show the series without the decline "trick": heading in precisely the opposite direction to the measured temperature. Oops.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 5:59pm on 24 Nov 2009, zebb wrote:

    The BBC reminds me of the old Russian news agencies these days. Never straying from the party line - never questioning. A mouthpiece for government propaganda. As a publicly funded organisation its loyalties should be to the public - not the government.

    This will not go away. We have been lied to. Time for people to examine their consciences and break the silence about so-called AGW. It’s a scam, always has been, always will be. When the truth finally becomes so overpowering the BBC runs the real risk of being completely discredited, along with their pseudo-scientists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 6:14pm on 24 Nov 2009, FergalR wrote:

    It should be noted that Al Gore gave a robust defence of AGW theory on US TV recently, enjoy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSia7SRN3rc

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 6:53pm on 24 Nov 2009, Mad Ape wrote:

    Using the scientific method, a good scientist tests a hypothesis and uses the results to draw conclusions in relation to the hypothesis.

    These emails prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the scientific method was not followed. In fact these researchers altered data so it would prove their hypothesis right.

    These people are the head scientists for the United Nations and their data is what is being used to deliver tha carbon tax and cap-and-trade agenda.

    This is nothing but a bunch of hacks using pseudo-science to tax the living daylights out of the average joe schmo.

    Not only have these people perpetrated a fraud, this is a crime against humanity. Everyone involved should be rounded up and tried a The Hague.

    The mainstream media is slow to respond on this because at least one New York-based newspaper was complicit in this scam. It is in the emails.

    Also, for years, the MSM have been preaching that anthropomorphic climate change is real. To now blow the lid off of it is a hard pill to swallow...but swallow they must in order to give fair and balanced reporting.

    To stay mum on this is just as big of a conspiracy

    The Mad Ape

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 7:38pm on 24 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    > These emails prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the scientific method was not followed. In fact these researchers altered data so it would prove their hypothesis right.

    No, they don't. Provide specific evidence or apologise.

    > this is a crime against humanity. Everyone involved should be rounded up and tried a The Hague.

    Who are the hysterical scaremongers again?

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 7:43pm on 24 Nov 2009, SmokingDeepThroat wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 79. At 7:54pm on 24 Nov 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    Seem like there has been a bit of a pro-AGW backlash in the media. Just being cynical!

    BBC: This year 'in top five warmest'.

    Good to see the facts. Although from looking at the UAH Global Temp Data - would have to have a bit of a spike to hit top 5. IMHO. Oh well - we wait and see.




    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 8:11pm on 24 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    @71 LabMunkey

    > nothing of concern?? You sir, are obviously not aware of what was in the leaked documents/data.

    I'm very much aware of what was in the stolen emails. I'm very well aware that key phrases have been taken well out of context and spun to a ludicrous extent. I'm well aware that the accusations of data manipulation in this thread and others are incoherent and unfounded. I'm well aware that the accusations of manipulation of the peer-review process in this thread and in others are incoherent and unfounded. I'm well aware that the refusals to provide responses to vexations FOI requests were taken by the proper authorities, in the proper manner, and were entirely correct and ethical, given eg. McIntyre's flagrant abuse of the system. I'm well aware of precisely *one* questionable line in *one* email regarding *potential* deletion of emails that (unfortunately for you) does not even begin to provide evidence of wrongdoing of any scale, let alone the scale you are purporting. I'm also well aware of the far more interesting exchange where - upon identifying *clear fraud* in a paper purporting to question AGW - a commitment is demonstrated to pursuing the matter rationally and professionally through peer-reviewed journals instead of attempting a media hatchet job, the likes of which the anti-AGW crowd are so fond of. I'm well aware of the very interesting part where it is discussed how to deal with a paper that represented such a clear abuse of the peer-review system that half a dozen editors subsequently resigned. I'm very well aware that - for all the hysterical bluster - there is precisely nothing that has any impact on the science whatsoever.

    I invite *anybody* who thinks the evidence for AGW now lies in tatters to explain *precisely* how. Go for it - you have a huge friendly crowd of cheerleaders here and elsewhere, you must be able to come up with some falsification. Bonus points if you come up with something that hasn't been endlessly recycled and for the last decade.

    > " He who shouts loudest sets the agenda, it seems." ironic, that you use this to DEFEND the climate change agenda...

    You seem to be confusing shouting about an agenda with spending many decades collecting an enormous mountain of evidence and expecting it to speak for itself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 10:12pm on 24 Nov 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    On freedom of information rules and deleting files:

    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
    School of Environmental Sciences
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich

    ======

    Is deleting emails part of the "scientific method" ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 10:41pm on 24 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    @Jack_Hughes_NZ

    Is retaining emails part of the "scientific method"?

    Is responding to an FOI request part of the "scientific method"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 11:03pm on 24 Nov 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Yes - being open and transparent is definitely part of the scientific method.

    It's also the law: deleting anything subject to an FOI request is illegal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 01:37am on 25 Nov 2009, Boris Tabaksplatt wrote:

    At last, someone from the BBC is doing his duty and trying to redress the balance to the onslaught of the one-sided, alarmist drivel that the 'Man Made Global Warming' cabal have been foisting on us through the main-stream media outlets. Well done Paul Hudson, and have a virtual pint on me!

    Will the BBC now be reversing it's decision to only support the CAGW point of view, or will some of the sceptical scientists who wrote the 450 peer reviewed documents detailed at the link below be allowed to speak?

    Without free speech and unbiased reporting, England will become just another totalitarian state.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 08:57am on 25 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    @Jack_Hughes_NZ

    > Yes - being open and transparent is definitely part of the scientific method.

    Not only is that a misleading statement, that's also not what I asked.

    Science is already open and transparent through publishing in peer-reviewed literature. Some data is restricted, and cannot easily be made completely open, but data and methodology required to validate a paper are routinely made available.

    *You* implied that deleting emails is a violation of the scientific method. *You* assert that maintaining emails is part of the scientific method. This is untrue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 09:03am on 25 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    @Boris Tabaksplatt

    Being skeptical, you did of course thoroughly research all those 450 papers, looking for any misrepresentation of the findings, or refutations in the peer-reviewed literature first, yes?

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/

    I especially enjoyed it when Pielke demanded his 21 papers be removed from that list, and the maintainer of the list refused because he prefers his own interpretation of the papers to the authors. Very honest and skeptical, that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 10:07am on 25 Nov 2009, Pete wrote:

    I'd like to know why the BBC and the mainstream media seems to have missed the scoop of the decade, the story so far in barely a couple of working days:

    Internet to mainstream 24 hrs both sides of the atlantic and now down under

    MotleyCRU in disarray

    Establishment of independent global warming foundation

    Call for independent public inquiry from same peer

    Plain levelling of fraud and profiteering from another peer

    Accusations of FOIA unlawful behaviour await further investigation

    IPCC, climate peer review process and data /modelling in disrepute

    Holdren (Obama advisor) implicated in Warmaquiddick

    NASA GISS to be sued for breach of FOIA

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 10:10am on 25 Nov 2009, Pete wrote:

    I'd also like to know why the pro AGW are not rejoicing in the streets, the evidence shows the models are seriously flawed, the data incorrect and the processes not ahered to. THE PLANET IS SAVED, be happy, it was all a con........or are the politics more important than the science?

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 11:10am on 25 Nov 2009, mailmannz wrote:

    Dave,

    You are having a laugh arent you? :)

    The emails, which by the way CANNOT be proven to have been stolen, only highlight what many have been saying for years...that requests to access data has been DELIBERATELY blocked by CRU and others invested in global warming (tm).

    Although I am somewhat heartened by your belief in the peer review system however you should be aware that peer review is merely the start NOT the end of the process.

    Having said that, does it not concern you that global warming (tm) jihadi's have attempted to subvert the peer review process by only allowing "approved" scientists or "approved" publications access to the documents CRU and co want published and getting people who dont agree with their "religion" removed from positions of influence at scientific journals?

    Sadly, given your continued stance on the matter, I already know your answer.

    Regards

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 11:26am on 25 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #86

    Why don't you refer readers to Roger Pielke's own blog site then - where he gives room to yet another 'skeptic' Demetris Koutsoyiannis who writes re. the CRU mails -

    "I must say that what I’ve been reading in the recently hacked and released confidential files from the CRU (aka “Climategate” documents) is not a surprise to me. Rather, and sadly, it verifies what I had suspected about some in the climate establishment"

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 11:49am on 25 Nov 2009, Barry Woods wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 92. At 12:48pm on 25 Nov 2009, Andydaws wrote:

    Dave

    "I'm well aware that the accusations of data manipulation in this thread and others are incoherent and unfounded."

    "\FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro

    ;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
    ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor"


    unfounded?

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 1:08pm on 25 Nov 2009, Pete wrote:

    Dave said

    "I'm well aware that the accusations of data manipulation in this thread and others are incoherent and unfounded."

    I take it you are qualified to decipher the code? I take it you have discussed this with Ian Harris? the hapless HARRY_README?

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 1:12pm on 25 Nov 2009, Barry Woods wrote:

    Care to explain why my previous comment, awaiting pre-moderation has vanished too...

    I have received no email, saying what if anything was wrong with it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 1:38pm on 25 Nov 2009, Pete wrote:

    Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee told the Washington Times in a radio interview Monday that he will press for a probe into whether the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”

    “This thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with,” the Oklahoma Republican said.

    this snowball is gathering pace


    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 1:48pm on 25 Nov 2009, Barry Woods wrote:

    Well that 2nd comment worked, lets repost my first one, and see if it apears, or I get any any reply why it should not appear.

    The emails even Georg Monbiot agrees, very damaging, he even calls for the head of CRU to resign/be sacked.

    However Harry_Read_Me.txt containing notes and comments, of a member of CRU as he is working on the datasets, is potentially the most damaging.

    If an investigative journalist actually asked any professional software developer to look at this file, I believe they will get a devasting response to the whole climate change industry. It would appear that the code for the computer model AND the integrity of the datsets are at the very least open to question. The code and data needs to be audited/validated indepently, surely any possible questions relating to data/code validility need to be resolved either way, for any credibility ever to be regained.

    This file is freely available on the internet, and much more, including a lot of the code. I'm sure many powerful parties(countries, hedge funds, etc) are digging through it, and will draw their own conclusions.

    read snippets from the file below the author:

    "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
    Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
    and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
    know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh!

    another snippet:

    "It's the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately - meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it's restricted to Russia!!

    another snippet:

    So to CLOUD. For over a year, rumours have been circulating that money had been found to pay somebody for a month to recreate Mark New's coefficients. But it never quite gelled. Now, at last, someone's producing them! Unfortunately.. it's me.
    I really thought I was cracking this project. But every time, it ends up worse than before.
    OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
    we have a 'manual' directory and an 'automatic' directory, each with twelve 1990 anomaly files. And how do they compare? NOT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!
    This is so hard because I cannot remember the process. Have to dig some more..
    This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!
    I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop.
    Oh,**** IT. Sorry. I will have to WRITE a program to find potential duplicates.
    The results are depressing.
    All that's beyond me - statistically and in terms of time.

    another snippet:

    what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look,
    there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And
    that's useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann
    directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference
    is that one directory is apparently 'monthly' and the other 'annual' - yet
    both contain monthly files.

    another snippet:

    Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which
    did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy - naming
    two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location
    to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!! Re-ran anomdtb:

    On we go.. firstly, examined the spc database.. seems to be in % x10.
    Looked at published data.. cloud is in % x10, too.
    First problem: there is no program to convert sun percentage to
    cloud percentage. I can do sun percentage to cloud oktas or sun hours
    to cloud percentage! So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.

    another snippet:

    19. Here is a little puzzle. If the latest precipitation database file
    contained a fatal data error (see 17. above), then surely it has been
    altered since Tim last used it to produce the precipitation grids? But
    if that's the case, why is it dated so early? Here are the dates:

    /cru/dpe1a/f014/data/cruts/database/+norm/pre.0312031600.dtb
    - directory date is 23 Dec 2003

    /cru/tyn1/f014/ftpfudge/data/cru_ts_2.10/data_dec/cru_ts_2_10.1961-1970.pre.Z
    - directory date is 22 Jan 2004 (original date not preserved in zipped file)
    - internal (header) date is also '22.01.2004 at 17:57'

    So what's going on? I don't see how the 'final' precip file can have been
    produced from the 'final' precipitation database, even though the dates
    imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must have been
    produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match others?) in Jan 04.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And there is a lot more:

    Does this inspire confidence in a model, that is driving billions of dollars of change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 6:00pm on 25 Nov 2009, geronimo wrote:

    Blimey Paul, you're brave, they'll have you. Your man Richard Black appears in the e-mails as someone the warmists can call to fix things for them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 8:11pm on 25 Nov 2009, Try Again wrote:

    It would appear that someone at CRU was nice enough to forward emails to Paul regarding his recent article. No one should expect Paul to reveal that source, and it's of course possible that it's the same person who has released FOI2009.zip, but certainly not a given.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 8:57pm on 25 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    @ 89 mailmannz


    > The emails, which by the way CANNOT be proven to have been stolen

    Of course it can't be *proven* yet, but why so awfully keen to assert this? There is plenty of indication that it was, notably the fact that CRU say it was, and that whoever stole it hacked the RealClimate servers and uploaded it there. The current official line from the institution where the data originated was theft - do you have some evidence to contradict this, or do you just *want* to believe they're lying?

    > only highlight what many have been saying for years...that requests to access data has been DELIBERATELY blocked by CRU and others invested in global warming (tm).

    The requests that have been blocked have been for data that is *publicly available already* or for data that *cannot be released eg. for commercial reasons*. Steve McIntyre's abuse of the system by making 58 FOI requests in a 5 day period were correctly regarded as deliberate nuisance activity - please refer to the relevant legislation that covers exemptions from FOI requests for overly-burdensome and nuisance behaviour such as this. If you're genuinely interested in data, conducting yourself in a professional manner and asking nicely seems to be a better strategy for getting what you want than bullying - as is making certain that the information you seek is not already plainly available already.

    > Having said that, does it not concern you that global warming (tm) jihadi's

    Smear.

    > have attempted to subvert the peer review process by only allowing "approved" scientists or "approved" publications access to the documents CRU and co want published and

    So you want a system with no quality control? You also misrepresent the situation - some of the papers under discussion contained *clear lies and fraud* from the anti-AGW contingent, but this was *not* dragged through the media, instead rebutted correctly in a professional manner. Please make specific allegations about specific papers, or its just substanceless hand-waving.

    > getting people who dont agree with their "religion" removed from positions of influence at scientific journals?

    Smear.

    > Sadly, given your continued stance on the matter, I already know your answer.

    Because you *cannot possibly* be wrong?

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 8:59pm on 25 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    @ 90 Sparklet

    Re #86

    > Why don't you refer readers to Roger Pielke's own blog site then - where he gives room to yet another 'skeptic' Demetris Koutsoyiannis who writes re. the CRU mails -

    Uuh, because I wasn't talking about the CRU email. Rather I was responding to the well-worn nonsense about "450 great anti-AGW papers", and posted a link dedicated specifically to that. Don't blame me when someone else changes the subject.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 9:01pm on 25 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:


    @ 92 Andydaws

    > unfounded?

    The divergence problem (where some tree-ring data diverges in modern times and ceases to be a good proxy for temperature) is covered openly in the literature in the last 10 years. This is why this proxy series is truncated in the sixties, in favour of the accurate modern temperature record, and is clearly evident in all relevant papers. Is this a case of hidden in plain sight, or your inability to read and understand an issue?

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 9:04pm on 25 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    @96 Barry Woods

    > However Harry_Read_Me.txt containing notes and comments, of a member of CRU as he is working on the datasets, is potentially the most damaging.

    Where? How? Please be specific. Which papers are affected? Which evidence? All you've done is copy + paste swathes of text from a programmer's scratchpad with no context. If you think its damaging, please say how and why.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 9:07pm on 25 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 104. At 9:26pm on 25 Nov 2009, Try Again wrote:

    "ceases to be a good proxy for temperature"

    So tree rings before modern time are deemed good proxies, but when compared to actual temperature measurements, they fail? Please explain why tree rings should then be used at all as an indicator of temperature. They are either reliable or they are not.
    The answer is of course that they are not. Plenty of things affect tree growth, temperature being only one aspect. Other things such as air CO2 content, neighboring trees, soil nutrients, rain, etc. all play a major part in tree growth, which is why it's completely inadequate as a temperature proxy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 10:03pm on 25 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    > So tree rings before modern time are deemed good proxies, but when compared to actual temperature measurements, they fail?

    No - *some* tree rings. Not all - some. And only compared to temperature measurements for the last 50/60 years or so - there are direct measurements stretching back far further than that that they do match with.

    > They are either reliable or they are not.

    ... is there no room in your world for sometimes reliable, sometimes not (depending on circumstances)? Do you need me to cite other examples of things that are sometimes reliable, sometimes not, to give you some perspective?

    > The answer is of course that they are not.

    The answer is of course that your over-simplistic black-and-white take on this issue denigrates a whole branch of science that many people have spent far more time than you have considering.


    > Plenty of things affect tree growth, temperature being only one aspect.

    Yup - please refer to the peer-reviewed literature for more detail. If you disagree, feel free to publish your work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 10:35pm on 25 Nov 2009, NeilHamp wrote:

    Tree rings during Modern Warming Period BAD
    Tree rings during Medieval Warming Period GOOD

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 02:15am on 26 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Paul Hudson

    Your comments about receiving emails are ambiguous. The following is from a Daily Mail article.

    However, Hudson does not explain why he sat on the controversial information for so long, but added: 'I do intend to write a blog regarding the CRU being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 12:36pm on 26 Nov 2009, Phil Rowlands wrote:

    We have seen the difficulties that "Harry" encountered when trying to build a 'gridded' dataset from the raw data. We have seen the 'corrections' that needed to be made to the raw data before this dataset could be produced and the fact that the raw data itself is riddled with errors and omissions.
    We can also see that the calibration of the proxy dataset (tree rings) does not seem to hold for measurements taken in the recent past. One might have expected this to force a review of the methodology and initial calibration of this dataset but, and this is truly unforgiveable, this anomaly seems to have been 'hidden'.
    My question is - does the meteorological community consider these datasets to have authoritative status? Are they something like that platinum bar at NPL from which all other measurements of length are derived? Are they the 'primary standard' for global meteorological data? Are there other 'primary standards' and do these too have similar issues?
    I'm sure it's obvious where I'm going with this...

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 2:43pm on 26 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:

    @108 Phil Rowlands

    > We have seen the difficulties that "Harry" encountered when trying to build a 'gridded' dataset from the raw data. We have seen the 'corrections' that needed to be made to the raw data before this dataset could be produced and the fact that the raw data itself is riddled with errors and omissions.

    No - you make general claims with no specifity and expect smears of this kind to carry weight. Please identify precisely which papers in the peer-reviewed literature are affected by your claims.

    > We can also see that the calibration of the proxy dataset (tree rings) does not seem to hold for measurements taken in the recent past.

    As has been explained at length in the literature, this affects *some* tree-ring series, by no means all of them.

    > One might have expected this to force a review of the methodology and initial calibration of this dataset but, and this is truly unforgiveable, this anomaly seems to have been 'hidden'.

    Only if by hidden you mean discussed at great length in publicly available documentation, and in the IPCC assessment reports, and clearly distinguished from the modern temperature record in the corresponding graphs in the literature.

    > My question is - does the meteorological community consider these datasets to have authoritative status?

    Which precise datasets are you talking about? There are many other proxies that all broadly agree, and other primary global temperature data which also agrees with the HadCRU set.

    > Are they something like that platinum bar at NPL from which all other measurements of length are derived? Are they the 'primary standard' for global meteorological data? Are there other 'primary standards' and do these too have similar issues?

    As mentioned above, yes there are other primary datasets, of course. Try as I might, I can't make your analogy fit however, it just doesn't work well with the type of data or measurements under discussion. Perhaps compare it to a Tyrannosaur skeleton - several teams have independently and painstakingly pieced together separate relics to form a good reconstruction of the entire creature. They may each be missing parts to a greater or lesser extent, and some small bones might have been replaced with filler - but the overall shape is the same. You would never point at one and say "this is the definitive Tyrannosaur", but one institution might have a better/cleaner/more complete reconstruction than another. There may even be minor errors in terms of positioning, and siting of specific bone fragments that might reveal surprising new information about this dinosaur's form and function - but it would be very, very surprising at this stage to discover that Tyrannosaurs had five legs and ate only grass. Indeed, it would be extremely perplexing for the teams working on said skeletons to be told that - since they had approximated certain small sections of bone structure, or used plaster-cast moulds to fill space, or even combined two separate skeletons into one to fill missing gaps - their entire effort (and the efforts of all independent teams worldwide) was not only utterly worthless, but also clear evidence of a conspiracy stretching back to Victorian times to conceal the five-legged, vegetarian nature of Tyrannosaurs. That subsequently any attempt on their part to correct this misinformation was met with howls of derision, calls for sackings and criminal charges, claims that this was proof of a religious fervour in the face of honest skepticism, and general catcalls of alarmist "hyping" of Tyrannosaurs' predatory nature when it was surely obvious to any skeptic that they were little more than overgrown cows. Does that make sense?

    > I'm sure it's obvious where I'm going with this...

    Well, to me it looks like you're making baseless allegations and smears, and working up to accusing all climate science to be constructed on fraudulent data that was treated as authoritative. Of course, it would be very, very silly and ill-informed of you if that's where you were going, but you'd be in good company in this thread.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 3:22pm on 26 Nov 2009, Phil Rowlands wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 111. At 4:02pm on 26 Nov 2009, Barry Woods wrote:


    c'mon bbc...

    American congress has got their teeth into the climate gate story. It won't go away just because the bbc won't report it.

    climate gate - 5,888,000 hits on google in 6 days.
    climate scandal - 11,000,000 hits on google

    Whether you believ AGW or not, does not the bbc have a duty to report a major news story.

    American Congress HAS their teeth into this, it is even being reported in newspapers eventually in the UK.

    Hope this actually appears on the comments page.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 4:24pm on 26 Nov 2009, killary wrote:

    Dave, of course these emails do not disprove the whole AGW hypothesis, but they are simply the lifting of the curtain in one important area.

    I wonder if you could let us know whether you still have confidence in the "hockey stick"? If so can you explain to us how proxy readings which diverge from the instrumental record after 1960 can be relied up to provide an accurate reconstruction of temperatures from hundreds of years ago? If certain trees have been shown to be poor thermometers over the last 50 years because they diverge from the instrumental record, how can you be certain that the same trees were good thermometers in the medieval period?

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 4:39pm on 26 Nov 2009, Phil Rowlands wrote:

    109. At 2:43pm on 26 Nov 2009, Dave wrote:
    @108 Phil Rowlands

    >> We have seen the difficulties that "Harry" encountered when trying to build a 'gridded' dataset from the raw data. We have seen the 'corrections' that needed to be made to the raw data before this dataset could be produced and the fact that the raw data itself is riddled with errors and omissions.

    >No - you make general claims with no specifity and expect smears of this kind to carry weight. Please identify precisely which papers in the peer-reviewed literature are affected by your claims.

    Dave, thank you very much for your response. You are quite correct, I should have identified my source and this source is the 'HARRY_READ_ME' file which is just one of the files in the 'leaked' documents and code that are now freely available.

    It's quite clear that this file is not a peer reviewed document, rather it is a series of notes written by the programmer as he carried out his work. Nevertheless it does appear to be both an accurate and contemperaneous record of the problems he encountered and the solutions he employed in order to produce the final dataset. Some of the techniques used 'may' have had an adverse effect on the quality of the resulting dataset.

    Please do not assume that I mean to criticise the work of any scientist in this field or suggest that there is any conspiracy to decieve, I do not! I'm merely suggesting the 'possibility' that the base observations may be innaccurate or corrupted and that this might well affect any further work that uses them.

    I do like your dinosaur analogy, the suggestion that we can get a good idea of what the animal looked like from a partial skeleton. I don't think that it's entirely appropriate in this case though, the dinosaur is an extinct reptile that is unlikely to influence our society to any significant degree - the climate, however, is still with us today and very much alive!

    We are not discussing peer reviewed science here we are discussing code and documentation - the methodology behind the collation, formatting and distribution of the measurements upon which the science is based. May I suggest that you download a copy of this 'leaked' archive, if you have not already done so, and read some of it yourself - it may challenge your beliefs but even if it does not you'll be better equipped to understand the concerns that I have, concerns which seem to be shared by many others.






    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 8:30pm on 26 Nov 2009, Carmine Cifaldi wrote:

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 8:49pm on 26 Nov 2009, Carmine Cifaldi wrote:

    CLIMATE WARMING... MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING! In 100 years, oil will be practically non-existent! In the meantime, the world population will exceed more than 16 Billion people, (as opposed to 6 Billion in 2009). Where are we going to get enough water to take care of people, animals and agriculture? Right now, 70% of the earth's FRESH water is tied up in the Arctic, as ice and snow. It rarely finishes above freezing! It better heat up faster... before the oil runs out. Atomic energy and renewable energies will provide the necessary power for equitable water distribution, from the "have too much" to the have "too little" areas. That will tend to mitigate the ocean's rise, while also promoting additional arable land for agricultural needs. This will be necessary to feed the ever-burgeoning population, for eons yet to come!

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 10:26pm on 26 Nov 2009, Tucci wrote:

    Some remarkably good comments thus far offered. I would suggest that readers here might be interested in an article written by physicist Jeffery D. Kooistra in the November 2009 edition of Analog magazine titled "Lessons from the Lab."

    Obviously submitted for publication months before the ClimateGate story broke on 19 November; the penultimate paragraph of Dr. Kooistra's is worth recapitulating here:

    'I have long wondered why most of my fellow physicists haven’t been as skeptical of global warming alarmism as I have been. I think one reason, perhaps even more important than their politics affecting their judgment, is that they naturally assume other scientists are as careful in how they obtain data as physicists are. I’ve been a global warming skeptic for some time now, and it didn’t even occur to me that most of the time the thermometers would be "sited next to a lamp." What’s really ironic is that, if someone claims to see a flying saucer, which hurts no one and costs nothing, debunkers come out in force. But let a former vice-president claim environmental apocalypse is upon us, and suddenly we’re appropriating billions and changing our lifestyles.'

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 10:34pm on 26 Nov 2009, steve wrote:

    Sorry Carmine but I find your claims exceptional and therefore you need to provide exceptional proof.

    The 2004 UN study on future population growth predicts the population will peak at just under 10 billion by 2075 and reduce from that point

    Peak oil is driven by production capacity,not reserves.reserves are conservatively accounted by a US Law in order to control speculation and physical reserves are greater than those stated publicaly.This is easy to research.

    The amount of fresh water available is sufficient for need however the distributon of fresh water to polulations is constrained by bad management of this resource. water shortergaes are certainly man made and can be corrected.The real issue here is a lack of investment and political will.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 08:08am on 27 Nov 2009, Barry Woods wrote:

    c'mon bbc start being impartial reportesr again..

    at least report the story about the story

    The washinton times has an editorial today:

    Climate-change researchers admit their data is 'garbage'

    the man made climate change (formally global warming, but it isn't so we had to change the name) is over..

    This story is bigger than watergate.

    Kyoto, copenhagen was utterly pointells...

    Everone has the emails and the CODE.
    russians, chinese, india. they all know it was garbage, by about 50 scientists, and the green, eco human hating bandwagon, that have taken over the media.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 10:43am on 27 Nov 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:

    56. At 11:27am on 24 Nov 2009, SmokingDeepThroat wrote:

    "The BBC just don't want to do themselves any favours, do they?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm
    Where's Wally? Push it in a corner guys, there it will just look even more conspicuous! Some people never learn."


    The BBC merely pay lip service to their public broadcasting obligations.
    As with many topics(e.g ww2 historical controversies),if it does`nt pass the P.C/Big business smell test,it either does`nt get covered,or it gets the muck-spraying treatment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 3:00pm on 27 Nov 2009, Try Again wrote:

    > is there no room in your world for sometimes reliable, sometimes not

    Yes there is, so please explain how, lacking any real temperature measurements, you identify which is which?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 10:13pm on 27 Nov 2009, mailmannz wrote:

    Dave@99 (sorry, this reply system is absolute pants, so I hope you can follow my reply below).

    MM> The emails, which by the way CANNOT be proven to have been stolen

    >Of course it can't be *proven* yet, but why so awfully keen to assert this?

    Because its part of the meme, stolen = bad = cant be trusted.

    Although isnt it funny how when information is provided to the BBC that affects little things like national security etc the word "leaked" is trotted out, the word stolen is NEVER used when its the BBC in receipt of information. So, surely in this case, if the BBC is to continue with using the term "stolen", then it should qualify that term with "allegedly"? Because thats all this is at the moment, only allegedly stolen.

    >There is plenty of indication that it was, notably the fact that CRU say it was,

    Given the information divulged in the emails and the subsequent spinning by CRU, forgive me if I dont take their word for it, especially after deliberately deleting emails and, oh, losing data (maybe Phil Jones dog ate it?) :)

    > and that whoever stole it hacked the RealClimate servers and uploaded it there.

    Who ever had the documents has a massive sense of irony :)

    >The current official line from the institution where the data originated was theft - do >you have some evidence to contradict this, or do you just *want* to believe they're > lying?

    Again, given what has been divulged I really wouldn't put it past them to be "not telling the complete truth". And by the way, until proven the allegations of theft are exactly that, allegations.

    Until proven, you, like the BBC should use the qualifier ALLEGEDLY.

    MM> only highlight what many have been saying for years...that requests to access MM> data has been DELIBERATELY blocked by CRU and others invested in global MM>warming (tm).

    >The requests that have been blocked have been for data that is *publicly available already*

    Absolute rubbish, the meta data has NEVER been released by Mann et al.

    >Steve McIntyre's abuse of the system by making 58 FOI requests in a 5 day period were correctly regarded >as deliberate nuisance activity.

    Does that 5 day period span over 10 years? Perhaps if Mann et al had released their data instead of trying to hide their work then McIntyre wouldnt have had to have made so many requests.

    WHY is Jones and Mann and co hiding their data? What have they got to fear? That people will see just how flawed their methodology is? Which oh by the way is EXACTLY what is happening now.

    And 58 separate requests for information! FIFTY EIGHT!!! How the hell can their "findings" be confirmed if Jones et al not only continually refuse to release their data BUT also collude to deny access to their data (deliberately deleting emails or losing data)?

    Im sorry but the reality is that until these guys release their data, anything they come up with should be treated with caution simply because there is no way of checking their findings.

    >please refer to the relevant legislation that covers exemptions from FOI requests for >overly-burdensome and nuisance behaviour such as this. If you're genuinely >interested in data, conducting yourself in a professional manner and asking nicely >seems to be a better strategy for getting what you want than bullying - as is >making certain that the information you seek is not already plainly available already.

    It appears you have no idea of the history behind McIntyre and his requests for information, of which, from what I have seen, have all been made courteously. Unless of course you are alleging that McIntyre has been less than curteous or professional in his requests for the data used by Mann et al? THAT would be a smear.

    MM> Having said that, does it not concern you that global warming (tm) jihadi's

    >Smear.

    Tell you what, when people like you and organisations like the BBC stop referring to anyone who doesnt believe man is the sole cause of global warming (tm) as deniers or skeptics, come back and ask me to stop referring to global warming (tm) cultists as jihadi's. Win-win situation for everyone ;0

    MM> have attempted to subvert the peer review process by only allowing "approved" scientists or "approved" publications access to the documents CRU and co want published and

    >So you want a system with no quality control?

    Quality control? BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA, awe thats funny :)

    You know when you get your friends to peer review your papers, get those who oppose your views removed from scientific journals or only send papers to "approved" journals, is that what you call quality control? If so then clearly you and I have VERY different oppinions on what quality control is.

    >You also misrepresent the situation - some of the papers under discussion contained >*clear lies and fraud* from the anti-AGW contingent, but this was *not* dragged >through the media, instead rebutted correctly >in a professional manner. Please >make specific allegations about specific papers, or its just substanceless hand->waving.

    The problem for you is that the released emails paint a very different story from the above. Also daily now more and more scientists are coming out of the wood work saying their work has deliberately been blocked from publications because they are challenging the "consensus". The problem for you is that global warming (tm) jihadis have adopted bullying tactics to get their papers through unopposed so they can be published in so called scientific journals.

    Some of these papers even include basic mistakes such as proxies being used upside down (to get a hockey stick). I know, you couldnt make this stuff up even if you tried! :)

    MM> getting people who dont agree with their "religion" removed from positions of influence at scientific MM> journals?

    >Smear.

    FACT!

    MM> Sadly, given your continued stance on the matter, I already know your answer.

    > Because you *cannot possibly* be wrong?

    Neither here nor there if I cant be wrong...but I tell you what, if I am wrong then no one is affected (becuase I dont create of influence policy) BUT if these so called scientists at CRU and Hadley have got it wrong and Copenhagen passes their "world government" we are all screwed in the West.

    The only way that these so called scientists can prove that they HAVENT got it wrong is to release all of their data and ESPECIALLY the meta data so that their information, their models can be truly independently reviewed. Because only then will this issue go away.

    However I suspect that far too many people and organisations have far too much invested in man made global warming (tm) for something as inconvenient as these leaked emails to get in the way now!

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 07:27am on 28 Nov 2009, Barry Woods wrote:

    from the telegraph today:

    One of his IPCC co-authors Eduardo Zorita has demanded that Mann should be banned from contributing to future reports because his scientific assessments are “not credible any more.” Zorita also calls for the barring of CRU’s director Phil Jones and another IPCC lead author, Stefan Rahmstorf.

    Zorita, who works in the paleoclimate department of the Institute of Coastal Research, has issued a statement on his website in which he complains that the “scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”

    “These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.”

    Zorita was one of the contributing authors to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. He’s unlikely to be asked to contribute to the Fifth. Indeed, as he ruefully acknowledges, this brave admission could well be the death of his career:

    By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.

    Yep. I think the poor fellow’s right. Never mind the damning revelations. The vested interests behind AGW are going to make darned sure that that AGW bandwagon keeps roll roll rollin’ along.

    And never mind which honest, decent saps get squashed under its wheels.


    c'mon bbc, try to at least report the story,

    when, we look back in 6 months, I really the bbc's reputation for impartiality will be totally destroyed, with all of the implications that entails.

    Or at least report the story about the story

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 4:30pm on 01 Dec 2009, mark fuggle wrote:

    George monbiot has some rather rude and silly things to say about paul on camera at The Real News http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4537&updaterx=2009-12-01+09%3A48%3A58

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 00:48am on 02 Dec 2009, David wrote:

    It appears this is not the first solid evidence of sabotage by AGW scientists.

    I read in the work of Nils-Axel Morner about some Australian IPCC scientists knocking down an ancient tree which disproved their rising sea level theory.

    For those ofyou not familiar with Nils-Axel Morner's work he is certainly worth looking up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 01:20am on 02 Dec 2009, David wrote:

    Just watched that George Monbiot where he calls Paul..."irresponsible".

    My first impression of Monbiot is that he has made a lot of money out of AGW and Phil Jones and co have but his reputation (Ha!) at risk. How can he defend them??

    Isnt it Monbiot that is responsible for personal attacks on many many sceptics (the playing cards). Does he class Paul as a sceptic?

    Paul,ignore him. You are a much better climate reporter than he is!

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 05:46am on 02 Dec 2009, Boleslas_Broda wrote:

    @123 Huh. He was rude?

    I've been much ruder about our host.

    And many other commentators, have been ruder than I.

    Spectacularly, the rudest may have been the ones who think Paul Hudson isn't extreme enough in his climate scepticism.

    And Monbiot in the interview called for Phil Jones to step down, described the actions shameful, disappointing and possibly criminal, and most damning of all, not in the spirit of science.

    I can imagine no more powerful epithet.

    Doesn't sound like any definition of defense I know.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 11:59am on 02 Dec 2009, mark fuggle wrote:

    David. I think Monbiot calling Paul grotesquely intellectually dishonest is a bit stonger than just
    " irresponsible ". Don't you ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 6:29pm on 02 Dec 2009, mark fuggle wrote:

    Pardon. Meant " stronger".

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 00:52am on 17 Dec 2009, DevilsAdvocate wrote:

    Just found this site whilst wandering around, and reading it, a thought occurred to me. Some years ago I was asked to work on software for Nuclear Power Stations, prior to starting I was sent on a course in Formal Software Development using Z. The reason being that the software was deemed (rather like aircraft software I guess) to be so safety critical that the logic etc had to be formally proven. Given that the Climate Change data relies so much on software processing it to give the results, and given that Governments are about to bet not only whats left of the family home, but also the future family homes because they say that is what's at stake, is the Software also being made available for peer review/scientific community scrutiny? Both data and Software should be released and we get this thing sorted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 7:22pm on 23 Dec 2009, David Peck wrote:

    First of all, Paul, I'd like to cogratulate you on being without doubt the best BBC Weather forecaster. Your enthusiasm for, and knowledge of your subject are unsurpassed. I'm not trying to cuury favour, or even curry flavour!?
    It's great to read balanced comment on the 'Global Warming Debate' I for one probably come down on the sceptic side, but definitely come down on the cynical side. Too many Man Made Global Warming Fanatics are drawing fat salaries deriving from the political correctness of the stance for them to ever start singing a different tune.
    Cynical? I maybe, but certainly a Yorkshire man who talks straight.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 2:23pm on 29 Apr 2010, joan Bennett wrote:

    like the open and honest way that Paul Hudson says it as it is and says bleep to those who dont like it. So refreshing to read it straight talking. Never mind being just MAYOR lets see Paul Hudson stand as an Mp and have open speaking and factual talk, in politics as well as in the weather. keep up the pleasant banter with your pal, it is more interesting than most weather forecasters. I tune in every night to Look North, even though Im exiled to the midlands for now.The peter and Paul show is great, and the weather despite all the adverse comments made is ACTUA
    LLY USUALLY RIGHT!!!!

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.